Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:

Having regard to the statements made to the Senate by Senators Patrick and Lambie on 16 September 2019, and the documents tabled by the President on 18 September 2019:

(a) whether there was any attempt to improperly interfere with the free performance by any senator of their duties as a senator;

(b) whether there was any attempt to improperly influence any senator in their conduct as a senator, by intimidation, force or threat of any kind; and

(c) if so, whether any contempt was committed in respect of those matters.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before us today asks us to abandon an important democratic principle in order to take action against someone whose behaviour we all find reprehensible. John Setka's behaviour has been disgraceful. Anyone who has followed his case in the media knows that he has been accused of acting in a misogynistic manner towards women and, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions, he's been dismissive of the harm that his behaviour has caused. As recently as last week, he was caught on tape speaking dismissively about conduct that any decent person knows is completely unacceptable. He's not taking the issues confronting him seriously and he clearly does not get it.

But the referral today is not about those matters. It's not about whether John Setka is a good person or a bad person. It's not about whether or not you think he's a good representative for the union movement. The only question before us today is whether John Setka interfered with the operations of the Senate or exerted improper influence on senators and whether doing so meets the test for a referral to privileges. That's the only question we have to decide today and, on the basis of the information before the Senate, he clearly does not.

We accept that Senators Patrick and Lambie are aggrieved by his comments, and we're not saying that they're wrong for feeling the way that they do. What we're saying is that those comments do not meet the test outlined in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The statements made by Mr Setka with regard to Senators Patrick and Lambie, when stripped of their profanity, amounted to nothing more than an organisation stating it would run a campaign against a publicly contested policy position.

A union has the right to run a campaign to protect the rights of Australian workers and the members it represents. Indeed, any organisation or citizen has the right to campaign; it is not a threat to engage in a democratic process. Part (b) of this referral refers to two other CFMEU members, at a time when former senator Nick Xenophon was in parliament, accused of accosting the senator with their views on legislation before the parliament. While these allegations may be legitimate, the Committee of Privileges should not be used to pursue one individual for the behaviour of others. We note that this matter has already been referred to the Federal Police for criminal investigation and we await the result of any subsequent investigation.

However, to support this referral today would send us down a very slippery slope, a slope of politicians abusing an important parliamentary committee to punish their political competitors. We have seen the referrals process abused in the past and we must ensure that it does not happen now. This sets a very dangerous precedent that could be used in future to pursue the leader of any organisation or indeed any citizen seeking to mount a political campaign against something they oppose. If any other evidence should emerge, we will reconsider our position. And, if the Senate does choose to refer this matter to the privileges committee, then we will of course respect that decision.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted. I'll remind people this is not a forum for debate. Requests by party leaders to make statements are granted leave to explain positions adopted by parties, but it is up to any senator to grant or otherwise deny leave. I'm going to put the motion moved by Senator Patrick.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't anticipate that there would be opposition to this motion, so I apologise that I've run into the chamber.

I understand the Greens are opposing this and I understand that they don't intend to call a division, so I thought that it would perhaps be useful to put on the record that the Labor Party supports the motion from Senator Patrick. I would make the point that the President made yesterday—that the relevant matters are those set out in privileges resolution 4. I would also make the point that backing the President on a procedural matter, such as the granting of precedence, we believe, as a party of government and a responsible actor in this chamber, is important. We believe it is a very significant thing to do in those circumstances where precedence has been granted by the President to fail to support the motion.

And if I may be so bold as to say this: it seemed to me, from listening to the contribution from Senator Di Natale, that he was essentially prejudging the consideration of this matter by the Privileges Committee. The whole purpose of the referral is so that the committee can make a judgement on this. I think that in those circumstances it's disappointing that the Greens political party have chosen to take the course they have. That's a matter for them, but I did want to place on record the Labor Party's position, which is that we will be supporting the referral.

Question agreed to.