George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges, I present the 142nd report of the committee entitled Matters arising from the Economics Legislation Committee Hearing on 19 June 2009 (referred 24 June and 12 August 2009), together with submissions and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That:

(a)

in respect of the matters referred on 24 June 2009:

(i)

the Senate endorse the committee’s findings in paragraph 6.5 and the conclusion in paragraph 6.6 of the report;

(ii)

the President of the Senate resume consideration of an appropriate response to flagrant breaches of the Presiding Officers’ guidelines on filming and photography in Parliament House by members of the media on 19 June 2009, noting the committee’s suggestion in paragraph 3.23 of the report; and

(iii)

the Chairs’ Committee established under standing order 25(10) consider model practices for handling the media at committee hearings, and the inclusion of additional information about witnesses’ rights under the broadcasting resolutions in the standard information provided to all witnesses, as discussed in paragraphs 3.14 and 3.15 of the report; and

(b)

in respect of the matters referred on 12 August 2009, the Senate endorse the committee’s findings in paragraph 6.8 and the conclusion in paragraph 6.9 of the report.

This is a unanimous report and I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues, both government and opposition, for the considerable efforts they have made to ensure the result. It has been a very difficult inquiry involving matters of great public notoriety and sensitivity and concerning allegations against a senior member of the Senate, Senator Abetz, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, among other things. The politically controversial nature of the matters, the subject of the report, is of course notorious. Nevertheless, the fact that the committee has been able to reach a unanimous report in relation to the matter I think, if I may say so, reflects well on the way in which each member of the committee approached the task at hand.

To summarise some of the key findings of the report: in relation to whether any adverse action was taken against Mr Godwin Grech in respect of his evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the committee has concluded:

• the conduct of the media at and after the hearing was excessive, inappropriate and in contravention of the rules but that there is no evidence that, in their zealousness, camera operators and photographers intended any harm to Mr Grech or to the operations of the committee and, therefore, that no contempt was committed;
• the initiation of an Australian Federal Police inquiry into Mr Grech was not primarily motivated by Mr Grech’s evidence to the committee and, therefore, that no contempt of the Senate was committed by the AFP;
• the initiation of disciplinary action by the Department of the Treasury was not a direct consequence of Mr Grech’s evidence to the committee and that, therefore, no contempt of the committee was committed by any official of Treasury;
• it was unable to discover any evidence of ‘backgrounding’ of the media.

In relation to whether any false or misleading evidence was given to the Economics Legislation Committee or whether there was any improper interference with the committee hearing, the committee has made the following findings, among others:

• There is evidence that the Economics Legislation Committee was misled by references to a document—a faked email—later admitted to be false.
• In relation to allegations made concerning Senator Abetz, Senator Abetz did not make false or misleading statements to or, by any conduct of his, cause any improper interference with the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.
• There was no improper conduct by a Treasury officer, Mr Martine, at the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.
• Mr Godwin Grech gave evidence to the committee about his dealings with a journalist, Mr Steve Lewis, that was untrue.
• Mr Godwin Grech did not disclose to the committee that he had created a record of the email that he asserts he believed existed.
• Mr Godwin Grech suggested to the opposition that the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009 should be referred to a Senate committee for the purposes of having his ‘evidence’ about alleged corrupt conduct by the Prime Minister placed in the public arena.
• There was no inappropriateness about any discussions involving Mr Grech, Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull concerning questions and answers that might be put to or responded to by Mr Grech at the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.
• There was no improper interference with Mr Grech in respect of his evidence and no improper pressure placed upon him by any person.

Although evidence was given to the Economics Legislation Committee by Mr Grech that was objectively false and misleading, and although the committee was also misled by references to an email later revealed to have been fabricated by Mr Grech, the committee has not been able to make any findings about Mr Grech’s state of mind at the time he took those actions because of the state of Mr Grech’s physical and mental health at relevant times. A finding of contempt constituted by misleading a Senate committee depends upon the existence at the relevant time of a subjective intention to do so. The fact that the statements were objectively false is not sufficient. The committee has not been able to conclude that Mr Grech knowingly and deliberately gave false or misleading evidence or that he knowingly and deliberately misled the Economics Legislation Committee about the basis of his inquiry.

The committee has been frustrated by its inability to arrive at a conclusion about Mr Grech’s culpability, both because of the state of his health and because of the practical difficulty of testing the claim of medical incapacity advanced by his treating doctor. Nevertheless, the committee has not found itself in a position to dispute the medical evidence of Mr Grech’s incapacity to participate in its proceedings. In these circumstances, the committee is unable to arrive at, and therefore has not arrived at, a conclusion that a contempt was committed by Mr Grech.

Might I make three observations in relation to the report. First of all, the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee at which these events took place was a hearing at which a potentially very grave scandal—a scandal potentially involving the Prime Minister of Australia and the Treasurer of Australia—had been raised. It ultimately transpired, as we know, that the allegations against certain individuals including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were based on a faked email. Nevertheless, at the time the reference to the Economics Legislation Committee was made, that fact was unknown to those responsible for the reference and could not reasonably have been known to them. It is absolutely the work of the parliament, including through its committees, including through Senate committees, to expose misconduct and corruption. The reference to the committee of these matters, on the basis of the knowledge of the individuals responsible for the reference at the time the reference was made, was an example of the parliament discharging its highest function. Not only was there nothing inappropriate about it; it was the very course of action that ought appropriately to have been pursued by Senator Abetz.

The second observation I want to make is in relation to natural justice. As honourable senators who read the report will see, the committee has bent over backwards to afford Mr Grech natural justice. We have, in the end, not found a contempt because we have been unable to test his state of mind by examination of him or by an exchange of questions and answers with him. Late in the day—in fact on Tuesday—the committee received from Mr Grech’s solicitors some detailed responses, which we have included as an appendix to the report of the committee. Nevertheless, I am at pains to stress—and both government and opposition senators who sat on the committee have been at pains to ensure—that natural justice has been fully afforded to Mr Grech in this process.

Finally, I want to pay a particular tribute of regard to the staff who served the committee through this very difficult inquiry involving many meetings, taking dozens of hours, particularly meetings in the last few days which, for other unrelated reasons, have become quite difficult. Dr Rosemary Laing, the Secretary of the Privileges Committee, has served the Senate in her work on this particular report magnificently. This is the last of many, many Privileges Committee reports for which Dr Laing will be responsible in view of her promotion, news of which was gladly received by the committee during the course of its meetings on this reference, to the post of Clerk of the Senate. On behalf of the committee, I congratulate Dr Laing on that promotion and thank her most sincerely for her superb professionalism.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the motion I, too, join the chair in commencing my comments by highlighting the difficult circumstances in which the committee’s inquiry was conducted and the committee’s attempts to put politics aside and, with the assistance of the Senate privilege resolutions, establish the facts and make findings by its usual means. I, too, commend all senators who participated in this committee consideration. These efforts, as evidenced by the report, were largely successful, and I note here that the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges has only split in its findings on one occasion. This was back in 1974 during the loans affair, again a highly contentious matter, but on this occasion, with another very contentious matter, we have been able to reach a unanimous report.

Because the matters it deals with are so serious—going as they do to the protection of the integrity of the Senate and its processes—unanimous reports by the committee are highly desirable. This is more difficult to achieve where senators may be subject to investigation, as Senator Brandis indicated, and there will necessarily be some element of partisanship. Such was the case with the second of the committee’s terms of reference. It is a matter of record that the opposition opposed these terms of reference on the first occasion—and, I think, on the second occasion. Consequently, government members of the committee were very mindful to ensure that the inquiry was not a witch hunt, as was alleged at the time, and that the report was unanimous so far as possible. The chair should be commended for some of his suggestions about how we could achieve this.

The irony is that, while Mr Grech and some senior Liberal Party identities sought, as the chair indicated, to bring against the Prime Minister and the Treasurer very serious allegations of political interference and misleading the parliament, what is before the committee is an enormous amount of material that indicates that Mr Grech himself was involved in what I would describe as cronyism, duplicity and misrepresentation. This material, consistent with the normal practices of the Senate privileges committee, has been included in the three volumes of material, and members of the public will be able to reach their own conclusions on reviewing some of this subject matter. But let me cover some of it.

Mr Grech was engaged in doing exactly what he was falsely accusing the Prime Minister of doing. Mr Grech was giving preferential treatment to a car dealer who was a Liberal Party supporter and donor and who was known to Mr Turnbull. While engaged in giving this preferential treatment, Mr Grech was gloating about misleading the Prime Minister to promote his cause of helping that car dealer. This duplicity and misrepresentation is demonstrated repeatedly in the email communications attached to the committee’s report, with Mr Grech’s use of derogatory terms accusing the Prime Minister of being ‘a fraud’, ‘dodgy’, ‘a left-wing loony’, ‘a pure fake’, ‘dishonest’ and ‘misleading’. What I conclude from the material is that Mr Grech and his cronies were often simply projecting their own behaviour onto others, particularly the Australian Labor Party and the Prime Minister. As an aside, Senator Brandis himself said only last week on Sky News:

We all know about the Labor Party and mates.

Much of the material in this case before us is a story about Liberal mates. Mr Sinodinos, for instance, actually adopts the language usually attributed to the Labor Party with his use of the reference ‘mate’ in his communications.

But, on a more serious note, the committee was also presented with material relating to the pressure Mr Grech was under with respect to his evidence by virtue of his relationship with senior Liberal Party identities. As rumours of a document linking the Prime Minister and Mr Grant turned into reports that there may indeed be such a document, Mr Grech would have been under pressure in the lead-up to his evidence before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee hearing. These matters are closely associated with Mr Grech’s relationship with some senior Liberal Party identities, including Mr Turnbull. This relationship and the consequences for Mr Grech as the results of his assistance to the opposition began to surface in the public may in themselves have been a source of pressure for him.

The nature and depth of that relationship was such that Mr Grech provided Mr Turnbull and other senior Liberal Party identities with a range of advice on policy and strategy, including drafting detailed policy documents and advice directly to Mr Turnbull. Further examples of the nature and type of this comprehensive advice provided by Mr Grech to Mr Turnbull and senior Liberal Party identities include the following. There are examples of policy direction and strategies for dealing with the media as well as backgrounding the media on lines of inquiry to pursue the Rudd government. There are strategies on the focus and direction of Senate hearings such as the agenda, the order of appearance of witnesses and the provision of questions for Senate hearings. There was advice on Mr Turnbull’s elevation to Leader of the Opposition and nominating personnel for positions within Mr Turnbull’s office. This is a phase in the documentation that I refer to somewhat glibly as ‘recruitment central’.

There was advice on how the opposition should deal with the ETS issue, suggesting the backing of amendments, the avoidance of a double dissolution and then the attacking of the shortcomings of the legislation once it was passed into law. Mr Grech’s advice also extended to providing Mr Turnbull advice on his dealings with the National Party, an assessment and strategy for the 2010 election, and plans for a Turnbull victory in 2012-2013 and, indeed, on fundraising. Some of the advice offered by Mr Grech was taken up by Mr Turnbull. I should also take the time to make an aside that much of this material was circulated on Mr Grech’s Treasury email address, utilising government resources and presumably occupying some of the lengthy amounts of time during which, it was described, Mr Grech was working tirelessly in his role as a public servant.

There is no doubt from the material as I would assess it that Mr Grech believed that Mr Turnbull saw him as a dedicated operative of the Liberal Party with a partisan political agenda. In a series of emails between Mr Grech and a Liberal Party contact, it was suggested to Mr Grech that he consider a senior role within Mr Turnbull’s office as either a strategic or an economic adviser. A Liberal Party contact also told Mr Grech that Mr Turnbull held him in high regard and with absolute respect. It would have been clear to Mr Turnbull and, perhaps less so, to Senator Abetz that in Mr Grech they were not dealing with a public servant trying to discharge a public duty but a dedicated operative of the Liberal Party with a partisan political agenda who was placing himself at some risk in doing so.

Mr Grech met Mr Turnbull and Senator Abetz in Sydney on 12 June, at Mr Turnbull’s wife’s office. Mr Grech’s actions when he tabled the emails, allowing them to be viewed and notes to be taken but not copied, suggests that he considered the emails themselves would not be used but merely the information contained in them. Mr Grech may have believed that there was enough information provided in the content alone for Mr Turnbull to pursue the issue without the need to table any of them in parliament or in a Senate inquiry. But, subsequent to that meeting, a more comprehensive set of interactions took place between Mr Turnbull and Mr Grech than Mr Turnbull stated in a joint press release on 4 August 2009. On 16 June a strategy was proposed by Mr Grech on how to deal with the journalist, Mr Lewis, and this approach was approved by Mr Turnbull. The information was to be passed on to Mr Lewis as strictly background, off the record and on a not-for-publication basis. Mr Grech made it clear to Mr Lewis in an email, which was also forwarded to Mr Turnbull, that the information needed to be treated in accordance with Mr Grech’s views. Given the clear instructions from Mr Grech on how the information was to be handled, Mr Turnbull would have known that the information needed to be treated in accordance with Mr Grech’s wishes.

When Mr Turnbull discussed it publicly at the press gallery ball, and gave an indication that documentation existed, Mr Grech would have been placed under further pressure. Such pressure may have been compounded by any other backgrounding that may help explain Mr Lewis’s preparedness to publish details beyond any understanding with Mr Grech.

In conclusion, it is hard to reconcile Mr Turnbull’s and Senator Abetz’s claim in their joint press release that they had not had any reason to doubt the bona fides of a senior public servant such as Mr Grech. Mr Grech was clearly a zealot, projecting his own cronyism and duplicity on the Labor Party. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will not come as a surprise to honourable senators that I am pleased with the report of the privileges committee. I thank all senators involved in it for their detailed consideration of the matters that were before them. At the outset, I would make the observations: (1) this is an unanimous report, (2) this is a committee that has a majority of Labor senators and, (3) without being too unkind, I think it would be fair to say that if Labor senators did find a way clear, subject to all the appropriate proceedings of the privileges committee, to make an adverse finding they may well have been tempted to do so.

The fact that they did not is very pleasing to me. I think it would be fair to say that I engage robustly in the activities of this parliament and in its committees, but at all times I trust I abide by the rules and also by the conventions. In a document that I have only had the opportunity to peruse now for 20 minutes, I have noted the findings on pages 100 and 101. I note that the committee unanimously found:

Senator Abetz did not give false or misleading evidence to, or cause any improper interference with, the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.

‘He’—that is, me—’did not know at the time’ that what he was dealing with was a false document:

The committee does not dispute that Senator Abetz was acting in good faith in using material supplied by a source he did not doubt.

Further on, the committee found:

There was no inappropriate pre-arrangement by Senator Abetz of questions and answers for the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.

They also found that the hearing of the economics legislation committee:

… was an entirely legitimate use of Senate procedures to explore a matter of possible misfeasance.

When I addressed the Senate on this matter on 11 August 2009, amongst the comments I made were these:

I would point out to the Senate that talking to witnesses before they give their evidence is common practice, so is asking questions provided by a third party. Every senator knows this is true.

Whilst the Hansard does not disclose it, I did pause after that to see—and we had a full Senate chamber at the time—whether any senator was willing to interject and put themselves on the record in denial of that proposition. Not a single senator did and, of course, the committee has now found that there was ‘no inappropriate pre-arrangement’.

This has been a particularly distasteful experience for me in relation to the matters I found myself involved in. Allegations were made by some fellow senators and put on the public record, asserting that I had been into manipulation and involved in inappropriate pre-arrangements et cetera. I refer in particular to the interviews undertaken by Senator Milne and Senator Cameron. They may like to reflect on that. Some journalists took to their keyboards and to the airwaves with a vengeance, making all sorts of allegations. I have got a funny feeling that those same commentators and reporters will not be giving the findings of pages 100 and 101 of this report the same sort of publicity as they did when they sought to condemn and besmirch me. I daresay that is the way that public life is conducted, unfortunately; but if you are willing to make the allegations in your columns and programs, once the findings are made that you are wrong, then I would invite you to give equal airspace and column inches to say, ‘Well, we made the assertions but, in fact, they are now found to be not the case.’

I thank the committee for their diligence and, in particular, the Labor senators who very graciously looked at this with an open mind and came to the findings that they did. It is a relief to me and in particular to my family. I thank the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Brandis) adjourned.