Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the government I move the notice of motion standing in my name:

That the following matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:In relation to the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee on 19 June 2009 on the OzCar program:

(a)

whether there was any false or misleading evidence given, particularly by reference to a document that was later admitted to be false;

(b)

whether there was any improper interference with the hearing, particularly by any collusive prearrangement of the questions to be asked and the answers to be given for an undisclosed purpose,

and, if so, whether any contempt was committed in that regard.

These are very important matters for the Senate and we think that they ought to be dealt with seriously and appropriately by the Senate. As you know, Mr Deputy President, the term ‘parliamentary privilege’ refers to two significant aspects of the law relating to parliament: the privileges or immunities of the houses of parliament and the powers of the houses to protect the integrity of their processes. These immunities and powers are very extensive and are deeply ingrained in the history of free institutions such as the Australian parliament.

The law of parliamentary privilege is particularly important for the Senate because it is the foundation of the Senate’s ability to perform its legislative function with the appropriate degree of independence of the House of Representatives and of the executive government which controls that House. Parliamentary privilege exists for the purpose of enabling the Senate effectively to carry out its functions, which are to inquire, to debate and to legislate. The Privileges Committee, as we know it, was created in 1965 to enable the Senate to deal speedily with any questions of privilege. A reference to the Privileges Committee of the matters relating to the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee on 19 June 2009 at which witnesses were examined about the OzCar program, is the appropriate and proper approach to ascertain all of the facts in this matter.

There are two main grounds that form the basis of the government’s motion, and I have just outlined those: whether there was false or misleading evidence given and whether there was any improper interference with the hearing—and, of course, as a result, whether any contempt was committed. The Privileges Committee is the forum to resolve these issues and to determine whether any contempt of Senate procedures was committed. It is a process we have had since 1965. It is a process that has served us well. The Senate Privileges Committee has always taken extremely seriously any suggestion that misleading evidence has been given to a committee. The Privileges Committee has made it clear that any evidence which leaves a committee with a misleading impression of the facts or circumstances could be seen as misleading evidence. As I have outlined, the government believes that these circumstances raise the issues of whether false or misleading evidence was given to the committee and whether or not the Senate, the committee and the public were misled.

I refer the Senate to paragraph 12 of the Senate privileges resolution No. 6 setting out matters which may constitute contempt. It provides:

A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not:

       …         …         …

(c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular.

As noted by the President in ruling, the Senate and the Privileges Committee treat very seriously any suggestion of misleading evidence having been given to a committee. The Senate has a history of only referring serious matters to the Privileges Committee. The parliament and the Australian public expect us to protect the integrity of the Senate committee process. As I say, this government takes that function very seriously.

I do not intend to go through the detail of the OzCar affair. It has been canvassed at great breadth and length in the media and in political debate in this country. I think it is fair to say, though, that by any assessment it has been an extraordinary affair. I think in the history of the Australian parliament it will be seen as one of the most extraordinary events that have occurred inside the parliament. It is not a question now of political claim and counterclaim. It is not a question of political point-scoring. We have now a finding from the Australia Federal Police, a finding of fact that an email that was presented in evidence or used in evidence at that committee was false. There is no question about that. The AFP have found that email to be false. Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull from the House of Representatives have confirmed meeting and discussing questions and evidence with Mr Grech, the senior public servant. We know that some of that evidence relating to the email was false. We know that the evidence was led in order to incriminate the Prime Minister of this country and bring about his resignation as Prime Minister.

Nothing could be more serious. Nothing could be more serious than the use of false evidence in a Senate committee hearing to try and bring down the Prime Minister of the country. This is not an everyday occurrence; this is very serious. I think it is of very serious concern to all reasonable parliamentarians and all reasonable members of the Australian public. What could be more serious as an issue of abuse of Senate privilege than this? I cannot think of one. There is nothing that has been brought to my attention in the history of the question of privilege in the Senate that rates anywhere near the scale of this incident.

I acknowledge Senator Abetz’s apology, as I did yesterday. I think it was appropriate that he made that. But it does not test his claims, nor does it address the key issues about whether there was a breach of privilege. So while I think it was important that he did it, it does not actually take us further in respect of the issue of privilege.

The Labor Party has had, I think, strong bona fides in this matter. Back in the last session of parliament Senator Ludwig sought to move a motion to have this matter referred to the Privileges Committee. That motion was defeated on the votes of the coalition and Senator Fielding. So an attempt to deal with this properly some months ago was defeated. The government think it important that we try again, and that is why this motion is before us today. I point out that on that occasion, around the same time, Senator Heffernan sought to refer a matter of privilege to the committee. That was a motion by Senator Heffernan that went to whether any action had been taken against Mr Grech as a result of his testimony. His concern was that Mr Grech could be discriminated against because of his testimony. Labor supported that reference. Labor took the view that, while we did not necessarily agree with the claims made by Senator Heffernan, it was an important question of privilege and on principle it ought to be referred. So we voted for it. But the opposition and Senator Fielding chose to vote against the reference that we made of the broader issues in the OzCar affair. I think, therefore, our bona fides on this matter are very strong.

I think the bona fides of the Liberal-National Party, the coalition, are at question here. Last week Senator Minchin said on behalf of the opposition that, provided the terms of reference were not highly charged politically and it was not a witch-hunt, the opposition was likely to support the reference. He has stated publicly now that the Liberal Party will not. I do not know why they have changed their position, because quite clearly the terms of reference proposed today are appropriate. They are not partisan. They were drafted by the Clerk to give a proper reference of the matters at stake without any political innuendo or claims against anybody. I think it is important that the Liberal Party change its position and support the motion today, otherwise their bona fides will be in question because they effectively have to argue that this is not a serious matter, that what occurred in the Senate committee hearing was not a serious matter of privilege. I do not think you can argue that case with any credibility at all.

I want to turn to the claim that this has been a witch-hunt. I am not sure that the opposition made that claim when one of their own, Senator Heffernan, moved his reference to the Privileges Committee regarding Mr Grech. It is certainly not a claim we made at the time. In dealing with this attempt to say that this is all a political move, I make a couple of key points. First of all, the Privileges Committee has a proud history in this parliament. I have served on it myself. I have served on it with a number of opposition senators. It has always operated in a bipartisan manner. Senators have operated with goodwill and with proper detachment from their political interests. The history of the Privileges Committee, under the chairmanship of both sides of politics, is a very proud one. The people who have served on that committee have taken their duties and responsibilities very seriously. When I was serving on the committee, I was certainly impressed by senators from all sides in the application of their responsibilities. The history of the Privileges Committee means that people refer matters to it with some confidence that the Privileges Committee will act appropriately and with proper judgment.

The second point is that it would be a very unusual occurrence for me to conduct a witch-hunt by referring a matter to a committee chaired by a member of the opposition. The chair of the committee to which I seek to refer this matter today is Senator George Brandis, a member of the frontbench of the coalition. Allegedly, I am conducting a witch-hunt by asking Senator Brandis, as chair of the committee, to inquire into these very serious matters. That is clearly a nonsense.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has a Labor majority.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a Labor majority, Senator, as has always been the case—a government majority and a non-government chair, but the chair of the committee is a frontbench opposition senator. So the charge is that somehow, by inviting or requiring Senator Brandis to head an investigation into this matter, we are conducting a witch-hunt. What arrant nonsense. What we are doing is asking the appropriate body to inquire into a very serious matter, a matter considered serious by all in this parliament. This really does serve as a challenge to the Liberal and National parties. There is a question as to whether they can detach themselves from what they see as their partisan political interests, or their fear of what might occur after a proper examination of this issue, and act responsibly as senators and members of this parliament. You cannot deny the seriousness of this issue. You cannot deny that there are questions of privilege at stake.

We have had the most extraordinary event of misleading evidence, of reference to false documents, of meetings between senior public servants and senators participating in the inquiry, where the nature of the questions and the answers were discussed. Whoever is at fault, whoever initiated these things is a question for the Privileges Committee to examine. I make no comment on it, but we have serious disagreement between key players and we have proof that at the heart of these allegations is a false document. We know that this was designed to bring down a Prime Minister of this country. This is as serious as it gets, in my view, in terms of abuse of Senate practice and procedures. It is absolutely a matter that ought to go to the Privileges Committee. If the opposition thought that Senator Heffernan’s reference—one which went to whether or not there had been any discrimination against Mr Grech following his evidence—was serious enough to be supported, I ask them: how can they now say that these matters are not serious enough? They cannot, because clearly they are serious enough. I urge them to take the responsible action and support this motion.

I thank the Greens and Senator Xenophon for their support when we attempted to do this before. They rightly saw that this is an issue the Senate has to deal with. In the last couple of days I have spoken to Senator Fielding about this—he did not vote with us on the previous occasion. I would urge him to do so on this occasion. While there was a lot of evidence about at the time, there is no doubt that more evidence has come to light and there has been more focus on the issues at stake. Since the Auditor-General’s report, both Mr Turnbull and Mr Abetz have made statements which clarify some of the issues and present their side of the story. Despite his position last time, I would urge Senator Fielding to support this motion.

I have indicated that I will not speak at length to the next motion, which Senator Fielding proposes. The government will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s motion. We think an attempt to link Senator Conroy and some incident that occurred back in October 2008 is ridiculous. An incident 10 months ago, on which no action and no commentary has been made, is now sought to be rolled in to a serious reference on matters relating to the OzCar inquiry. Clearly, in my view, it is a nonsense. If concerns existed about what occurred at the economics committee between Senator Conroy and Senator Cameron, people had 10 months to raise concerns, yet no concerns were raised—because at the heart of the suggestion about Senator Conroy’s action is a suggestion that he might have been organising a dorothy dixer. If we are going to take action against everyone who participates in the organisation or delivery of an answer to a dorothy dixer in this parliament, there will not be many of us left. It is clearly ridiculous. It is clearly of a very different order to suggest that somehow these events are linked or that the behaviour or issues at stake are similar—that is clearly not right.

We had an incident today in the Senate where Senator Cormann wanted a serious answer to a serious question, where he gave notice to Senator Ludwig, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—perfectly appropriate. Senators on the crossbenches have done it to ensure that the minister is aware of the issues that they want an answer to. To suggest that somehow what we colloquially refer to as the asking of a dorothy dixer is in some way comparable or related to the OzCar matter and the seriousness of the issues at stake is just unable to be supported. There is no logic to that. I will not allow Senator Conroy’s name to be besmirched by having him dragged into this.

What the Senate has before it now is a proper, serious reference going to the protection of Senate privilege. We are asking, like we did with Senator Heffernan’s motion, that we refer matters of concern that arose out of that economics committee hearing to the Privileges Committee to inquire into, to resolve what occurred and to decide whether any action is required by the Senate. That is normal, appropriate, proper Senate practice. That is what I seek to do today and that is what I seek the Senate’s support on. I think to do otherwise effectively ends the practice of upholding Senate privilege in this country. If we do not refer this matter, if we do not take this matter seriously, where will the high bar be? What will you have to do to warrant a reference to the Privileges Committee? What could possibly be more serious, short of some form of violence or murder?

This is a matter where there was proof of false documentation being used. There was an attempt to bring down the Prime Minister of the country. We know there were discussions with witnesses about the evidence they were to lead and the answers they were to give and organisation around those matters. That is as serious as it gets, in my view, and it is a matter that the Senate ought to deal with. I am sure the Senate Privileges Committee, under Senator Brandis, can deal with that properly, adequately and with professionalism. I would hope that the Liberal Party would support him in doing that. I know the process will not work if the Liberal Party sets out to destroy it. This Senate works on cooperation. This Senate works on proper behaviour by all senators. We know how easy it is to overturn the processes of the Senate. One senator can do it, let alone a whole opposition. So this is, in my view, an issue that goes to the leadership of the Liberal and National parties. Whether this is passed not, the position they take reflects, I think, a very partisan view that they will regret.

What we should see is the appropriate reference of this to the Privileges Committee, an upholding of the practices and processes which we have all relied on and will continue to need to rely on if we are to function appropriately. I urge the opposition to support the motion and to commit themselves to an appropriate inquiry, led by their own Senator Brandis, which will look at these issues seriously and report back to the Senate. I hope the Privileges Committee can do its work in the same professional manner that it always has done. I urge the Senate to support the motion.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate has before it two motions to refer matters to the Privileges Committee concerning an inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee into the OzCar legislation on 19 June. I place on record the strong opposition of the coalition to either reference proceeding. I give notice that the coalition will be voting against the references of both Senator Evans and Senator Fielding. We are not persuaded by the case put by Senator Evans this afternoon, which, while valiantly attempting to rise above base party politics, cannot disguise that from the point of view of the Labor Party this is nothing more than an attempt to squeeze the lemon dry in relation to the OzCar matter for base partisan purposes. It is, at the end of the day, nothing more than an abuse of the Privileges Committee of this Senate to pursue a partisan agenda by the Labor Party to get Senator Abetz. It is nothing more or less than that.

I would like to detail the specific reasons why the coalition is opposed to these two references that we have before us today. I note, as Senator Evans has done, that the Privileges Committee already has before it a reference in relation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s hearing on 19 June. That was a motion brought independently to the Senate by Senator Heffernan, unanimously supported by the Senate, in relation to what he saw—and I think the Senate thought so too—as the maltreatment of a witness before a Senate Economics Legislation Committee hearing, to wit, Mr Grech. That is the basis upon which the committee thought this matter should be referred. That was, as I said, a matter brought by Senator Heffernan of his own volition but supported by the parliament.

I think it was appropriate, because what we are dealing with in relation to privilege is the issue of undue influence being placed upon a witness or, by external forces, upon a senator in the conduct of their activities. These are serious matters, as Senator Evans properly said. It is appropriate that, if a witness like Mr Grech has been interfered with, the matter be investigated. Senator Heffernan has provided further evidence of the treatment of Mr Grech to the President in relation to the inquiry already before the Privileges Committee. It is our position that that inquiry should be allowed to run its course, in pursuit of what is the proper role of the Privileges Committee, to see if there has been any interference improperly exercised upon a witness to a Senate committee. The references of Senator Evans and Senator Fielding do not by any stretch of the imagination fit that criterion.

Further to that first point, we state that there has been no prima facie case made to the Senate to warrant any further reference of this matter. I have to say that it is my understanding—and, I think, a proper one—that Privileges Committee inquiries should be based upon specific allegations in relation to specific acts that, it is contended, could amount to contempt. That is not met in relation to either of these references. Both are drawn up so broadly as to be nothing more than fishing expeditions. It is not appropriate for the Privileges Committee to embark upon a fishing expedition into whether anything occurred in any particular hearing that might possibly constitute contempt. I do not see how the Privileges Committee can possibly operate unless there is a very specific act cited to which the committee is referred and then asked to inquire into to see whether it constitutes a matter of privilege. That should then form the body of a recommendation to the Senate.

I remind the Senate of the following statement in Odgers’:

The record ... shows that the Senate’s investigation ofprivilege matters has been confined to serious matters potentially involving significant obstruction of the Senate, its committees or senators.

The Privileges Committee ... regards a culpable intention on the part of the person concerned as essential for the establishment of a contempt.

It is serious, as Senator Evans properly said, but no evidence has been adduced today that there is any specific act that comes close to meeting the prima facie requirement placed upon the Senate before it makes a reference to the Privileges Committee. It simply does not add up and we should not be setting the Privileges Committee on a fishing expedition of this kind.

Thirdly, I would state on our behalf that both Mr Turnbull and Senator Eric Abetz, who are the objects of this partisan attempt by the Labor Party to abuse the Privileges Committee, have given a joint and full explanation of the circumstances surrounding the evidence given by Mr Godwin Grech to that Senate Economics Legislation Committee on 19 June. They have both subjected themselves to a full press conference. They have both detailed exactly what occurred.

Senator Abetz, to his great credit, also delivered a full and complete statement to this Senate at the earliest opportunity setting out the facts on this matter. May I say to this Senate that, as far as the whole coalition is concerned, Senator Abetz has acted with complete integrity in relation to this matter and he has at all times acted in the honest belief in the accuracy of the evidence with which he was being presented. The coalition stands full square behind Senator Abetz and in support of his actions in relation to this matter and we will not cooperate in a partisan attempt by the Labor Party to get Senator Abetz.

Senator Abetz operated, as I said, in the honest belief that the evidence he was being presented with to warrant an inquiry by the economics committee into the OzCar matter was factual evidence. He had no reason at all to believe that there was anything improper about the evidence being presented to him. That was the statement made by Mr Grech, the man who was actually in charge of this OzCar scheme and a man who, to this day, continues to contend that in fact there was contact between the Prime Minister’s office and himself in relation to this matter.

In our view, there is absolutely nothing in anything that Mr Turnbull or Senator Abetz has said to warrant so serious a move as to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. Indeed the partisan nature of this is revealed in the letter by Senator Evans to the President where he asserts ‘an agreement between Mr Turnbull, a senator and a witness to create an inquiry’. We know what this is all about. This is specifically designed by the Labor Party to have a go at the current Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Frankly, the moralising from the ALP on this matter is nauseating.

As someone who was a minister for 10 years, and therefore must have attended some 30 hearings of estimates in my time as a minister, it was obvious to me, on almost all those occasions, that the Labor senators were in receipt of material leaked from the Public Service to enable them to conduct inquiries and ask questions at Senate estimates. I defy the Labor Party to deny that occurred. Of course it occurred. Of course we were conscious that that occurred. I never ceased to be amazed by the sorts of information which Labor senators seemed to have to hand and, as a minister, was conscious that that information could only have come from leaks from the Public Service. So we on this side will not subject ourselves to the moralising from the Labor Party on this matter.

Fourthly, I want to note that the suggestion inherent in these motions, that somehow senators should not talk to witnesses or discuss their evidence prior to committee hearings, is idiotic. The Clerk has given a variety of opinions on this matter, not all of which we would necessarily agree with—they are just his personal opinions—but he does state quite clearly in his letter to me of 5 August on this matter:

There is nothing to prevent a senator or any other person discussing a witness’s evidence with the witness before a hearing.

We say that is absolutely correct and any other interpretation would make the Senate and the Senate committee system completely and utterly unworkable. This place could not function if there were not the opportunity for citizens of this country to come to senators to discuss matters they thought were serious enough to warrant inquiry at Senate committees—to discuss with senators those matters, lines of questioning and their knowledge of the matters before them to enable questions to be asked at Senate committee hearings.

Again, as I say, as someone who was a minister for 10 years, there was always, before every one of the 30 estimates I appeared at as a minister, a long session with Public Service officials in which I was involved. In those sessions there would be a healthy and vigorous discussion with the Public Service officials, prior to the estimates hearings, of the sorts of questions that we might expect from senators appearing at those hearings, the sorts of answers Public Service officials might give and the sorts of answers that I as a minister might give. Of course that goes on. We know that public officials get professional training in how to handle questions at estimates, for goodness sake. We know that happens under this government—and so it should. There is no other way that this system can work. I urge the Senate to understand the Pandora’s box that it may be opening if it pursues this path of inquiry, through what we call an abuse of the Senate Privileges Committee.

I say, finally, that this is an abuse of the Privileges Committee. The motion seeks to have a committee which is controlled by the Labor Party—the Privileges Committee has a four to three majority in favour of the Labor Party—conduct what we continue to assert is nothing more than an attempt to get Senator Abetz. I find that quite objectionable.

Senator Abetz has quite honestly said that he was, in a sense, a victim of something that could happen to any one of us, where a very credible witness comes to a senator and says, ‘I have evidence which is of a very serious nature going to public administration in this country and I think it is a matter that should be pursued at a committee hearing.’ As Senator Abetz has honestly said, to the extent that anyone should suggest there was any coaching, then indeed the witness in this case, Mr Grech, was coaching Senator Abetz. There is no evidence to the contrary whatsoever and none has been adduced or suggested in this case. Mr Grech came to Senator Abetz, said he had received contact and showed Senator Abetz a document—an email—which was evidence of this contact. A line of questioning was discussed and put to Senator Abetz and that was pursued.

In this case Senator Abetz—and I hope everybody in this chamber would accept the integrity of Senator Abetz—acted in good faith and with great integrity in relation to that matter and had no reason to doubt the evidence that was being put before him. I do agree with Senator Evans that the Privileges Committee has to this point operated in a genuine and apolitical manner. I think that will be put seriously at risk if either of these references is agreed to today and put to that committee. The future functioning of the Privileges Committee could be put seriously at risk and I reject the accusation that there has been some change of position.

It is proper for an opposition to say that they are prepared to consider any matter put before them and to suggest an inquiry by any committee. It would be idiotic and quite irresponsible to just, in a knee-jerk fashion, reject any suggestion of an inquiry by a committee. So, of course, we are prepared to consider it. But we have seen what has been put up and it is quite clear to us that (a) it is a fishing expedition being put before the Privileges Committee and (b) it has only one purpose, and that is to continue a Labor Party attack on the opposition in relation to OzCar and to squeeze the lemon dry rather than the government getting on with the job of governing the country.

If I may use this opportunity to refer to Senator Fielding’s motion, I at least acknowledge that Senator Fielding is trying to bring some balance to this matter. I think he does acknowledge and understand what the Labor Party is trying to do and does want to bring some balance to the matter by referring to the very embarrassing footage that we saw on Channel 7, repeated recently, of Senator Conroy emailing questions to Senator Cameron in an estimates hearing. I have to say that Senator Conroy, whose defence I would not normally leap to with great agility, has in this case been somewhat sloppy but in my view has done nothing at all that would warrant so serious a response as to suggest that it is something that the Privileges Committee should consider. That, with great respect, through you Mr Acting Deputy President to Senator Fielding, is not what the Privileges Committee is about. It is not about pursuing Senator Abetz nor is it about pursuing Senator Conroy for being caught out in this case.

I am happy to confess that in government, of course, we gave Senate government backbenchers questions to ask in Senate estimates. And, of course, that is what the Labor Party does. In many cases it was fairly obvious to everybody where the questions came from. It is certainly not something that should go to a Privileges Committee. All governments do it and all governments will continue to do it. If we are going to get so precious as to suggest that it not go on I think, as Senator Evans quite properly said, ‘Dixers occur in this place every day and notice is given of questions, and that is part and parcel of the way we operate.’

Finally, in the few minutes remaining, I just want to make a point that does need to be put on the record. It would seem that this Privileges Committee inquiry could not be properly conducted or reach any sensible conclusions on these references, were they to proceed, without evidence from the central character in this matter—that is, Mr Godwin Grech. I do not believe that it is possible for the committee to undertake the task that these motions seek to set before it unless he is able to appear and give evidence. Now, as we all know, Mr Grech is not a well man and, in my view, arguably, not in a position to appear before a Privileges Committee. I do not believe, therefore, that this matter can genuinely proceed, and I think that is in the knowledge of everyone involved. I would ask senators to bear that in mind when they consider how they vote on this matter, because I simply do not see how it can proceed in his absence. I would hope there is no suggestion of him being compelled; I think we all understand his condition.

I would also say in conclusion that I think if, indeed, senators have issues about the conduct of committees—and I note and respect the point made by Senator Brown about the issue of whether or not a committee should be advised if there has been any contact between particular senators and witnesses prior to a meeting; that is a matter that perhaps should be considered—the proper place for those sorts of matters to be considered is the Procedures Committee of the Senate. There may well be issues that arise out of this matter, like the one Senator Brown refers to, that the Procedures Committee should consider. We in the opposition would be quite willing for the Procedures Committee to consider issues arising out of this as to how these committees operate, but I do not believe that anything approaching the seriousness that would warrant a Privileges Committee inquiry has been raised by anyone either in this chamber or in the public arena. On that basis I urge the Senate not to support either of these references.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting this motion and that is because it is a warranted motion for a reference to the Privileges Committee. I find the defence from the Leader of the Opposition in the chamber quite remarkable and, if one were to follow the logic of that defence, there would hardly ever, if ever, be a reference to the Privileges Committee.

The Privileges Committee is there to ultimately defend truth, honesty and integrity in the proceedings of this chamber, the Senate, and its committees. The matter at hand is an investigation into whether or not the proceedings of the Economics Legislation Committee on 19 June were affected by any false or misleading evidence or deception either of senators or of the committee. The opposition itself says that is so. The Leader of the Opposition has said he made a mistake. Senator Abetz not only has said that he was misled but has apologised in this chamber and to the Prime Minister in the public arena for the events that led to him being misled. Yet the opposition claims this is not a matter that the Privileges Committee should look at.

The Leader of the Opposition’s and Senator Abetz’s own testimony in the public and parliamentary arenas can lead us to no other conclusion than that the Privileges Committee should look at the matter. Senator Minchin has just said that Senator Abetz was a victim. If any senator is a victim—that is, of being misled on the way to serious questionings on serious matters in a Senate committee—surely the Privileges Committee should look at that. How can Senator Minchin say that one of his senior colleagues has been a victim of a process which led to him being misled and that that is not a matter that should be looked at by the Privileges Committee? You have to remember that, as Senator Evans told the chamber just a while ago, this led to the Leader of the Opposition calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this nation. Of course these matters are serious. They strike right at the heart of the integrity—that is, the truth and honesty—that guides deliberations by this Senate, this parliament and its committee system. I have heard no reasoned argument on the facts put by the opposition and its leaders themselves that would countermand these matters being referred to the Privileges Committee.

The second thing is that Senator Minchin has said that this is an attempt by the Labor Party to get Senator Abetz. That is an affront to the Privileges Committee itself. I yesterday moved that a crossbench member be included in the Privileges Committee. The membership of the Privileges Committee has been made up of members of the government and the opposition. The argument we are hearing today is a very strong one that that committee should be properly representative of the make-up of this chamber. It should have a representative from the crossbench on it. The whole division between the government and the opposition points to that necessity. Indeed, it is from the crossbench that one motion we are dealing with today has come. I know that all members of the crossbench have been seriously considering these matters and, indeed, this reference. Whether or not these matters go to the Privileges Committee will be determined by the crossbench. On that matter the government has said it is not going to support Senator Fielding’s motion. The opposition has said it is not going to support the government’s motion.

One looks at the mathematics of the situation in here. For this reference to proceed it will require that the crossbench—as a whole entity—supports the government motion. I point that out before the votes are taken to all my colleagues on the crossbench. It is simply a matter that, if one of us demurs, the reference will not go ahead. That would be illogical. Indeed, it would be all the more illogical given that Senator Fielding, Senator Xenophon and the Greens have all been part of a process of saying, ‘Well, the matter ought to go to the Privileges Committee.’ If it does not go in the exact form that we want then we will have to accept that. Above all, this matter should and must in my books go to the Privileges Committee.

The Privileges Committee—notwithstanding that it is not properly representative of the modern Senate and the make-up of the modern Senate—has in my 13 years experience in this place acted with great honour. Time and again the findings of the Privileges Committee have not been partisan. The inquiries have not been witch-hunts; they have never strayed.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s because it has never been abused like this.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that interjection is contrary to your own words, Senator Minchin—if I may, through you, Acting Deputy President. The findings have been imbued with a degree of honour, directness, propriety and balance that I do not think is found anywhere else in the proceedings of the Senate. That is saying something. I believe this chamber should put the matters being debated before the Privileges Committee and let it make up its mind. It is not our job, as Senator Minchin would have it, for us to take away from the Privileges Committee its rightful responsibility to look at this matter. If it determines there is no case, it will come in here and say so.

Finally, this is a Senate chamber where we all have a vote on every matter, including on those matters where we are very seriously involved ourselves. On a previous motion for a reference to the committee, Senator Abetz had a paired vote, which effectively led to the motion failing. Senator Abetz himself has to consider whether or not he should vote on this issue today. I think he should vote on it. I do not think any senator can simply absent themselves from an important matter like this because they are involved. But his vote should be in favour of this reference. If Senator Abetz has nothing to be further worried about, and he has given an apology and an explanation and expressed his regret at what has happened, then the Privileges Committee will hold no worries for him. My advice to Senator Abetz—who is not here at the moment—would be to vote for this reference. That would be the honourable thing to do in these circumstances. Have the air cleared and make sure that this matter does not get voted down by your vote, with all the inferences and implications that necessarily would come with that. That is the best advice I can give to Senator Abetz. I certainly hope this reference proceeds.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have an interest in this motion moved by Senator Evans because I was actually on the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry concerned. So I have a duty in that regard, not just as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate. Without being too elusive, I was reminded of my time back at school and ‘sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat’, which means a wise man states as nothing something he cannot prove. Of course, the Senate committee process is the avenue for trying to prove that, so it should be beyond reason that in that process you will be trying to flesh out the facts.

As a member of that economics committee inquiry I can clearly state that there was absolutely nothing. Although at times I might argue with Senator Abetz—and people on that inquiry, including Senator Cameron, would state that—I would suggest there was nothing nefarious about the actions of Senator Abetz. I can say with my hand on my heart that I was in a place to know if there had been, but there was not. If what I am saying now is not right then I am misleading this Senate and therefore the Senate has the right to kick me out. But as a member of that inquiry who has also been involved in the management within the coalition there is nothing that I know of that would indicate to me that any part of the actions of Senator Abetz was nefarious—foolish, possibly. If we are going to start kicking people after being foolish, there are not going to be many of us left!

I also indicated that I would be inclined to look at such a process, because we must maintain the dignity of the Senate and we must maintain the authenticity of that process—not for us but for the Australian people. However, I did say that I would not be part of someone pushing a political barrow. However, the first part of the motion is this:

In relation to the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee on 19 June 2009 on the OzCar program:

Straightaway, we have a political barrow that is about to be pushed. It continues:

(a)      whether there was any false or misleading evidence given, particularly by reference to a document that was later admitted to be false;

The only way you are going to be able to prove ‘whether there was any false or misleading evidence given’ is if Godwin Grech turns up. As I stated at the doors every day when the inquiry was on, there is only one person I feel sorry for in this whole thing and that is Godwin Grech. That is still the case, because the man is sick. This whole process relies on him giving evidence; he is the cornerstone if this is what you want to go forward with. Otherwise, going back to ‘sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat’, there is no way at all that you are going to be able to prove what the truth is. Nobody will be able to prove what the truth is. And, because you will not be able to prove what the truth is, you will turn it into a political barrow to push around. That is a problem.

In this place, much to the disgust of a lot of my colleagues, I think I have proved a number of times that if I believe something is right I will back it up. I strongly considered this, but this is a political barrow. I also concur with one of the remarks made by Senator Bob Brown, that maybe there should be a crossbencher on the Privileges Committee in the future. Obviously, that would require a member of the government to relinquish their position. I see no problem with that. That would make sense. But, on top of crossbenchers, it should also take into account other people in this chamber who show an inclination to do what is right and do not always follow the political line. I think that should also be considered. I think you probably remove yourself from that position when you find that everything you do is always as instructed by a political group.

Returning to the motion, I see (a) as something that cannot be brought about. Part (b) of the motion reads:

(b)      whether there was any improper interference with the hearing, particularly by any collusive prearrangement of the questions to be asked …

Once more, you would have to rely on Godwin Grech coming in to be able to prove that, and I do not think that is going to be possible. Also, if we turn to the prearrangement of questions issue, every question time here is a prearrangement of questions. Let us be honest: the whole of question time is a farce. Most of the questions are dorothy dixers, and all of them are prearranged. So, if we are going to knock out prearranged questions there, let us knock them out in here. In fact, I think it would be relevant if the only questions that were asked were the ones that were not prearranged, which are obviously the ones from the opposition benches.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But they are prearranged too.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you do not know about them. So there are segments of part (b) of this motion that are endemic in this place—that is, the prearrangement of questions. It continues:

… and the answers to be given for an undisclosed purpose,

I am not quite sure what you mean by ‘an undisclosed purpose’. What are you referring to?

We also already have Senator Heffernan’s inquiry, which is an issue. I must admit this is something that has been brought more to my attention lately. Senator Heffernan has already got an inquiry up. I know how inquiries work. It does not matter what it says in the book; it will venture into the areas that need to be dealt with, as people find that appropriate. They will draw the strings that are attached to the areas that they want to pursue. So there is already an inquiry afoot. We already have an inquiry afoot and this would be the second inquiry into more or less the same matter.

What will we achieve at the end of this? I truly and honestly believe that there is nothing Senator Abetz has done that was nefarious—foolish, possibly; nefarious, no. I would have been so proximate to it that I would have to have some semblance of an idea that that had gone on, and I do not. If that is not correct, kick me out of the joint.

At the end of this inquiry—if it goes forward—is the Senate going to be a better place? Is there anything in this that will bring about a better outcome, a better process or the instilment of some authenticity and virtue back into the committee process so people have more confidence in it? No, there is not. Apart from the political outcome there will be no real outcome whatsoever.

Has there been public ventilation of just about everything on this issue? Yes, and I seriously believe that not one issue will come to light that we do not already know about. If you believe one will, what powers are you going to use to try to bring it out? You will have witnesses before you, but Godwin Grech, who this relies on once again, will not be there. Veracity of a point or an assertion will be unable to be obtained because the crucial link will not be present.

So what is the motivation? The motivation has to be political. Having been part of the process before, I have seen what Senator Fielding brings up. He is right. At another inquiry I was at Senator Cameron received emails from Senator Conroy with questions for Senator Cameron to ask Senator Conroy. He foolishly did it with a camera behind him watching every move he made. We are looking at one and the same actions, but one has now apparently turned into something insidious. If it is insidious for one, it is insidious for all.

We should rule it out or, as Senator Minchin said, have proper disclosure at the front-end of any inquiry of your relationship to any of the people who stand before you to be questioned. You cannot, obviously, drag in people from outside, but, if you have a relationship with someone you are about to question or if you are portraying something that is not completely the case and you are trying to mislead the people on the other end of the cameras, then we should do it across the board—let us make a move to rule it out everywhere, not just focus on one particular event. On that issue, I think Senator Fielding has a reasonable position to put forward.

I have given this strong thought. As I have stated, I am a voting member of the Senate economics committees. I am very proud of that. They are great committees. We do a lot of good work. I was present when this whole process was in train. I do not think we lauded ourselves in glory; it was a complete and utter debacle. There is nothing wrong or criminal about that; it was just, to use an Australian saying, a complete and utter stuff-up. I do not think that should be the substance of an inquiry.

I and the National Party will not be supporting this motion. We gave the Labor Party the option to come forward with something broadbased that was going to take the Senate to a better place and to which Godwin Grech was not crucial in affirming where the truth lies. Unfortunately, this motion fails all of those tests, so we will not be supporting it.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This strikes at the heart of the integrity of the Senate. There are kids in the gallery listening to this. Maybe many schools across the country will want to do a study of what is happening here today. It strikes at the integrity of the Senate, a house of review. The Australian public should be reassured that the Senate has integrity in regard to its committee hearings. They are a place where the average person’s views can be put and heard, not manipulated and not scripted. This is about integrity, and it should be taken extremely seriously.

The Leader of the Opposition tabled in a joint press release some new information. I took that information to the Clerk of the Senate and asked for some advice. I also took to the Clerk of the Senate the well-known issue that involved Senator Conroy—the Senator Conroy laptop affair. He was not just a senator; he was a witness at a hearing. He was caught red-handed scripting questions. I also took that to the Clerk of the Senate for advice. Senator Evans seems to be quite picky when he chooses whether to use the Clerk of the Senate’s advice.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I judge it on its merits. He’s not always right.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. This is what he had to say about Senator Conroy’s computer being photographed in the committee hearing showing that he was sending questions to a government member of the committee. He was a witness—not just a senator or a minister, but a witness—scripting questions. Where is the integrity in this? If the shoe were on the other foot today and the government were the opposition, they would not be supporting one of their own senators going before the Privileges Committee. I can assure you of that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding, address the chair, please, rather than Senator Evans.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the advice back from the Clerk referring to Minister Conroy’s laptop computer showing that he was sending questions as a witness and then being asked the questions as a witness, having given those questions out. It says that this kind of scripting of committee hearings would certainly fall within the category referred to in previous advices—referring to the advice I sought with regard to the Leader of the Opposition and the Grech or OzCar affair. It says:

This kind of scripting—

this is referring to the Senator Conroy and Senator Cameron incident—

of committee hearings would certainly fall within the category I referred to in the previous advices. It has the tendency to mislead a committee, the Senate and the public as to the real nature of a committee hearing because the questions would not be asked by a senator of a minister or officer but in effect asked by the minister and officers of themselves for the purpose of providing the information the minister wishes to provide rather than the information the Senate or the committee wishes to seek.

That goes to manipulation of evidence at a Senate hearing, which is the same principle the Rudd government is calling on in the OzCar affair to go to the Privileges Committee. Both of them strike at the heart of the integrity of the Senate and at the heart of manipulating evidence at Senate hearings. You cannot support one without the other. You cannot look after one of your own mates and claim, ‘Well, one’s not as bad as the other.’ They both strike at the heart of the integrity of the Senate.

Let us keep it honest. You will see from my motion, which is still to come up, that the key to this is part (c) of that motion, which proposes that both the OzCar affair and the Senator Conroy laptop affair go to the Privileges Committee. It proposes to refer the following matter:

(c)      whether the Senate’s Privilege Resolution No. 6 setting out matters constituting contempt needs to be reviewed, specifically, to cover matters arising from—

the so-called OzCar affair and the Senator Conroy laptop affair. Both these are worthy of going to the Privileges Committee. I urge all senators to think extremely carefully about that motion.

I will now circulate an amendment I propose to Senator Evans’s motion, which is now before the chamber. My amendment will add words to the end of that motion and I will speak to the amendment now so people will have time to look at it. What I want to do quite clearly is to make sure that we do not just have the OzCar affair on its own going to the Privileges Committee, because that could be playing partisan politics. Having both of these issues, which have been publicly raised, going to the Privileges Committee will allow the committee to look at them both with the aim of seeing whether privileges resolution No. 6, setting out matters constituting contempt, needs to be reviewed specifically to cover matters arising from those two issues. I now move my amendment:

At the end of the motion, add “in relation to the hearing of the Standing Committee on Economics on 22 October 2008, whether there was a manipulation of the evidence in relation to the scripting of questions asked in evidence before that committee and, if so, whether any contempt of the Senate was committed in that regard”.

Senator Evans mentioned that having things drafted by the Clerk of the Senate therefore meant they were beyond reproach. The issue about the Clerk of the Senate and the advice on the Senator Conroy affair quite clearly show that that falls well within the issue of misleading a committee and needs to go to the Senate Privileges Committee. So let us get real, let us cut through the bull and have both of them going to the Privileges Committee. Then, once and for all, let us get the issue settled about manipulation of evidence at Senate hearings. I urge all senators to look at this proposal. Both are worthy of going to the Privileges Committee.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand the amendment moved by Senator Fielding, which I have only just seen, it seeks to add to the reference the question which he colourfully describes as the ‘Conroy laptop affair’. That is a new one on me and I think it really is a bit of hyperbole. That is not a position that we will accept, so we will not be supporting the amendment. As I have made clear in the chamber and to Senator Abetz, I think to link these two events is to do a gross injustice to Senator Conroy, to confuse matters and to not treat the OzCar reference with the seriousness it deserves. I understand that Senator Fielding is seeking to be even-handed, but I think this is quite a different matter.

Senator Minchin made a very sensible point in suggesting to Senator Brown that the matters he raised might properly go to the Procedures Committee. Quite frankly, I think your issues, Senator Fielding, as I suggested to you earlier today, might well be referred to the Procedures Committee. What you are effectively saying is what the Clerk is effectively saying—and, to be fair to the Clerk, he has been consistent on this over many years—and that is that he does not like dorothy dixers and he thinks they are a perversion, if you like, of the Senate and proper processes. That has been his position. He has provided that advice in different forms for many years to many of us. I fundamentally disagree with that, and I do not put the question of whether dorothy dixers are appropriate or not in the same class as the concerns that I and others have about the OzCar matter.

I do not think anybody else in the chamber thinks that dorothy dixers—whether they are arranged by the opposition, organised by the government, asked in the Senate or asked in a committee—are. You could make a sensible argument about whether they are appropriate and whether we ought to look at changing the practice or restricting it in some way. Effectively, your complaint is against Senator Conroy for organising a government senator to ask a dorothy dixer. You argue that, somehow, that should be treated more seriously in a Senate committee hearing than it is in the Senate itself. You know it happens in the Senate. You, in fact, occasionally do the courtesy of giving us advice about the question you will ask because you want a proper reply. I think they are two very different issues.

Senator Minchin and Senator Joyce sought to argue the opposition’s case. They sought to prejudge the Privileges Committee by saying: ‘Believe Senator Abetz. He’s a good man. There’s no real matter because we have heard from Senator Abetz.’ We say that Senator Abetz may well have told us the whole story from his perspective, but there is still this question about false evidence on whether or not the Senate was mislead by virtue of the actions that occurred. I have acknowledged Senator Abetz’s apology but it is not a question just about whether Senator Abetz is telling the truth. It is about whether or not privilege of the Senate was breached, whether improper activity occurred and whether or not the Senate ought to take some action about those matters.

While the opposition seeks to argue their case here, it is not the appropriate manner in which to deal with this serious matter. I want to make a point in response to Senator Minchin and Senator Fielding. Senator Minchin likes to say: ‘Oh, this is everyday practice. There are always public servants leaking to you; there are always questions organised; there are always discussions with them about leaks and how we are going to arrange it. This is all common-day practice.’ I obviously was very unlucky in opposition—I wished that was occurring. I actually had to do most of the graft myself, and I dream of having this regular contact with ‘Deep Throat’ to provide me with all this information. It could even make being in opposition look attractive again if that were the case! We would be able to have a lot of fun. I found it was more like 99 per cent graft of your own, and I am sure the opposition senators are finding the same. I hope they get lots of practice at it.

Let us be frank: this is qualitatively different. We now have as a finding of fact from the Australian Federal Police that the email that was referred to was false. This was established by the AFP; it was admitted to by key players, Mr Turnbull and Senator Abetz. Secondly, we know from the evidence of both of those persons and the public servant, Mr Grech, that he prepared and rehearsed with them his evidence. This was admitted by all three. This is quite a different matter. It raises much more serious issues than questions of dorothy dixers. We actually have admissions and evidence from all three that support that. So we are not arguing about what may or may not be true. These matters have actually happened and all three parties have said they happened. The question therefore for the Privileges Committee to test is: is that a breach of privilege? We are not testing whether it happened or not; we are testing whether or not it is a breach of privilege.

The other argument put forth was that Mr Grech was too unwell to appear. That may be the case. I am not a medical expert, but we seem to have a few around the chamber. It seems to me that that is something best left in the hands of the committee—to make judgments about whether they invite him to appear, whether they invite him just to give written evidence or whether they invite him to give evidence at all. That is a question for the committee; it is a part of their normal operations.

I do not think this attempt to argue the case here is appropriate. It is appropriate that serious matters of breach of privilege have been raised. At one stage I was accused by Senator Minchin of not providing enough detail, and then I was accused by Senator Joyce of having made an outrageous slur. I do not know how I could have done both. What we have referred to the committee in this motion is a very serious issue done in a calm and fair way to analyse whether or not serious breaches of privilege of the Senate occurred. It is appropriate for this to occur. Senator Brown supported my point: if we do not refer a case as serious as this, what will we ever take seriously? This is a case where we know false documentation was used to justify an attempt to use Senate estimates in a pre-arranged manner to bring down the Prime Minister of the country. If that is not serious, then clearly there will be no role for the Privileges Committee or concerns about a breach of privilege in this parliament ever again. That will be a very high hurdle to get above.

This is a serious matter. It is a matter that ought to be dealt by the Senate Privileges Committee. I indicate that the Labor Party will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment, but I urge all senators to support the motion.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fielding be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senators Evans be agreed to.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to amend my motion by deleting paragraphs (a) and (c).

Leave granted.

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges:

(b)

Whether there was a manipulation of the evidence given before the Standing Committee on Economics at its hearing on 22 October 2008 in relation to any scripting of questions asked in evidence before that committee and, if so, whether any contempt of the Senate was committed in that regard;

In moving that, I make it absolutely clear that there was some indication from Senator Evans that linking the Senator Conroy laptop affair with the Grech affair was a concern for him.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fielding is entitled to be heard in silence.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So now that we have got the OzCar affair reference completed, clearly there is no way that Senator Evans can now claim that there is a link between the two. They can stand on their own merits. Again, there are serious concerns about the integrity of the Senate and the issue of manipulating evidence, and quite clearly Senator Conroy was caught on camera. This is an issue that needs to be resolved and it should also warrant going to the Privileges Committee. I urge senators to support this motion in its own right.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that no-one is under any misapprehension, we now have an amended motion before the chair, which essentially is just paragraph (b) of the original motion.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to state that I thought that the best part of Senator Fielding’s motion was the part he is now deleting, which is part (c). If he were to change part (c) to talk about what we can do in the future to cover matters so that we can deal with concerns then he would probably have something that would get a bit of support. Unfortunately, he has deleted the part that we wanted to keep in.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that we will be opposing Senator Fielding’s motion. As I indicated in the earlier debate, we have basically had the debate already and the view of the Senate was tested when Senator Fielding sought to amend my motion with a similar proposition, which was to add the reference to what he delightfully now keeps referring to as the ‘Conroy laptop affair’. I am sure that is making Senator Conroy really enjoy it, but the bottom line, Senator, is that, if there is a serious issue about the prompting of questions and those sorts of things that senators want to pursue, we can pursue those at the Procedures Committee. It is common practice. We saw it today at question time.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Minchin made that very wise suggestion, Senator, and I am taking it up. It was a very sensible suggestion. Senator Minchin and I are in total agreement. Senator Fielding is right: I argued that we should not link the two matters—that is dead right. But I also argued that I did not support the reference of this issue involving Senator Conroy, because I did not think it was serious. One of the principles under the Senate privileges resolution No.4 is that you should not refer matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate. Quite frankly, I think this fits into that category, and we will not be supporting it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans said a little earlier in the proceedings that the Clerk had great concerns about Dorothy Dixers, and I share those concerns, by the way. We must not confuse a Dorothy Dixer with giving a question on notice so that you can get a more appropriate answer. They are different things. A Dorothy Dixer is where a question is put with an answer known beforehand.

I do remind the Senate of two things here. The first is that this matter happened 10 months, and I would have thought that it ought to have been brought before the Senate for reference to the Privileges Committee at some time during those 10 months and not now as an apparent quid pro quo. That notwithstanding, it is our position that if there is a reasonable case to be put to the Privileges Committee, the Privileges Committee should make the determination. So we will not be opposing this matter. The very fact that there would be a Greens MP sitting next to me rather than Senator Fielding, had it not been for the preferences of Labor in Victoria, in no way enters into our consideration, nor will it ever enter into a consideration of a matter like this.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment. Also, whilst I am on my feet, in response to Senator Brown in relation to the debate earlier, which does overflow into this debate, Senator Brown indicated that we opposed yesterday the restructure of the Privileges Committee by not inserting a crossbench member. We did not oppose that per se. We opposed the notion of committee membership being decided like that through a notice of motion. Committee memberships or the restructure of committees should be decided by the Procedures Committee looking at the whole gamut of committees and the membership of committees.

Also, Senator Brown alluded to the fact that the committee should be more representative. If Senator Brown looks at the committee membership now, there are four Labor members on the Privileges Committee and three coalition members. If we looked at proportional representation on that committee, it should be 2.9 Labor, 3.4 coalition and 0.6 of a crossbench member. These are the reasons we need to discuss these matters more fully in the Procedures Committee.

Finally, I indicate that Senator Brown also mentioned in the debate previously that Senator Abetz, in effect, voted at the last division of the Privileges Committee back in June. That is not correct. Senator Abetz did not vote.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I indicate that I will not be opposing Senator Fielding’s motion, principally because you ruled yesterday that this was not a trivial matter and it ought to be dealt with. But I do not think that anyone can reasonably say that the matters Senator Fielding wishes to be looked at could be compared to the matters raised in Senator Evans’s motion, so there is a difference. I think that it is appropriate for the Privileges Committee, given your ruling, to ventilate the issues raised in Senator Fielding’s motion and that it be dealt with.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the interesting issue here is that the background to this is that I referred both issues to the Clerk of the Senate in light of the OzCar affair, Senator Conroy and the emailing. I asked for them to be in the light of the OzCar affair. Was it significant enough? Was there significance? I am hoping that people are not treating this as trivial, because the Clerk of the Senate treats it very seriously and so do I. I do just appeal to those who have said they are not going to support this one to rethink their position, and I urge all senators to support this reference to the Privileges Committee.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Fielding’s), as amended, be agreed to.