Senator HILL (Minister for the Environment) —by leave—The government will agree to this motion being called formal and, obviously, it will then pass. However, we should reflect on what is occurring because, as I understand it, this is the first time that such permission has been sought from the Senate.

Senator Chris Evans wants to move that the Senate give permission for Mr Robert King, who in 1994 was secretary of the Senate Select Committee on ABC Management and Operations, to give evidence at the hearing in the matter of Alston against Carr, which is listed for hearing in the County Court in Melbourne on 12 August 1996 as matter No. MC9500490. In other words, permission is being sought from the Senate for an official of the Senate to give evidence in litigation being conducted in the court between two senators. It is necessary for the Senate to give such permission in a matter of a procedural or formal nature because of standing order 183, which provides:

A Senator or officer of the Senate—

which is the relevant designation in this instance—

or a person involved in recording the proceedings of the Senate or a committee, may not give evidence elsewhere in respect of proceedings of the Senate or the committee, without the permission of the Senate, or, if the President is authorised to give that permission, of the President.

In agreeing to the passage of this motion, I understand that what is being sought is permission under standing order 183 for Mr King to be able to give evidence in respect of the proceedings of the Senate or a committee—in this instance, a committee.

The point I want to make is that this in no way affects the provisions of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. That act was introduced for a vitally important purpose— that is, to protect the public and members of parliament. It ensures that senators, members and the public are able to engage in parliamentary processes, which includes committees, without the fear of action following what they might say or do within such processes. That protection is specifically set out in section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.

I will not read that section in full, but the point I am wishing to make and put on the record is that, whilst we are agreeing to let this official attend the court to give evidence of a formal or procedural nature, as that is what is being sought by one of the senators, we are in no way—even if we had the power to do so, which I do not think we do—agreeing to waive principles of parliamentary privilege as they might exist in the common law or as they have been codified within the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.

My interpretation of those privileges is that the immunity prevents evidence of parliamentary proceedings being used in any substantive way in proceedings before the court or the tribunal, either to support an action or to provide a defence. It would be an intolerable situation if officials of the parliament were being called to help build a case for either the plaintiff or the defendant.

That situation would put officials of the parliament in impossible positions, because they simply would not be able to carry on their work in the future in a way we would expect of them. They would not be able to give advice to senators in a way we would expect of them. It would inhibit their work in such a way that the proceedings of the parliament, either in the Senate or through its committees, would become unworkable. I put on the record that we expect parliamentary privileges and the full conditions of the act to continue, notwithstanding this motion.