Senator McGAURAN (11:29 AM) —I move:

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

Whether there was an unauthorised disclosure of the report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority on the committee's third evaluation of the National Crime Authority and, if so, whether any contempt was committed by that disclosure.

I move this motion on behalf of the Chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority, Senator Ferris, although I am a member of the committee and am aware of the issue before the Senate that we seek to move off to the Senate Committee of Privileges.

It should be noted that the procedure followed in this matter has been proper and has the unanimous support of the committee. I need only refer to the President's words on Tuesday when she determined that the motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee may have precedence. The President said:

I am advised that the committee has followed the procedures laid down by the Senate in the resolution of 20 June 1996. This resolution requires that, in cases of unauthorised disclosure of committee documents, the committee concerned shall seek to discover the cause of the disclosure and come to a conclusion that the unauthorised disclosure has caused substantial interference with the work of the committee, before raising a matter of privilege under standing order 81. The committee having followed that procedure, the matter meets the criteria which I am required to consider.

The matter relates to the following. The committee had undertaken a comprehensive inquiry into the procedures and authority of the National Crime Authority. It was entitled, `Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority'. The committee examined such matters as the constitution, role, functions and powers of the authority; the efficiency and effectiveness of the authority; the accounta bility and parliamentary supervision of the authority, and the need for any amendments of the National Crime Authority Act 1984.

At the time, the inquiry was undertaken in an atmosphere of great publicity and controversy over the role and actions of the National Crime Authority. I need only remind the Senate of the criticism of the authority and the publicity given to it by Mr John Elliott, let alone his appearance before the committee. I think it is agreed that, in that atmosphere, there are very few committees like the one that deals with the National Crime Authority. That warrants the utmost confidentiality and the confidence of the general public—and, indeed, of this parliament—because the committee members are exposed to extremely sensitive briefings, particularly in relation to organised crime and investigations under way.

This particular inquiry was no exception. It was important that the witnesses that came before the inquiry could be confident and assured that the evidence they gave, albeit in camera, would not find its way into the media and that it would remain confidential. Yet I have to say that this committee, during this inquiry, suffered a number of leaks—or, to give it its technical term, unauthorised disclosures of material regarding its proceedings. Inevitably they always turned up in the Melbourne Age.

Overall, the disclosures have hurt the committee's reputation as a watchdog over the National Crime Authority. Nevertheless, on each occasion—and I am referring to previous unauthorised disclosures—the committee secretary wrote to committee members asking them whether they had any further knowledge to add regarding the unauthorised disclosure, but we could not progress the matter any further than that. It was then judged by the committee that each individual unauthorised disclosure was not material in itself and, therefore, on those occasions we did not refer matters to the Committee of Privileges.

But the problem was that each disclosure added up to hurt the committee and to create a very material situation. Therefore, when it came to the unauthorised publication on 6 April in the Age newspaper, with this series of unauthorised disclosures behind us, the committee simply could not ignore the matter any further. A description of the contents of the report and its major recommendations appeared in an article on the front page of the Age of 6 April headlined, `Call to boost NCA's powers'. This was on the day the report was tabled. No respondent and no committee member has been able to explain the unauthorised disclosures.

Therefore, at a meeting on 25 June, the committee resolved that the disclosure had a tendency to substantially interfere with its work and that accordingly the matter should be referred to the Senate Committee of Privileges. I believe it would have been negligent of the committee to have done otherwise.

It can be said that, frequently, committee reports around this place are leaked on the day of their tabling. There is evidence of that. It is true that the culprits are rarely, if ever, found. This should not lead to an attitude that no action should be taken, least of all with this particular committee dealing with the National Crime Authority, because the cascading effects and the consequences of being blase about these matters, about the fact we have been unable to find the person, are obvious. Discredit will be brought to the committee system.

To give a measure of the importance of this matter and why we are referring it to the Privileges Committee, I quote from the Age, which indeed had the report lock, stock and barrel. The opening lines read:

A parliamentary committee has recommended substantially greater powers for the National Crime Authority and has cleared the organisation of running a political vendetta against the Melbourne businessman Mr John Elliott. . .

The committee has rejected Mr Elliott's claim that he was the victim of a politically inspired vendetta and that the NCA knowingly acted illegally.

From there it quotes directly from the report:

. . . is of the view that there is no evidence that the vigorous investigation and prosecution reflects a vendetta.

Then it quotes five recommendations straight from the report itself. Therefore, the NCA committee unanimously has considered the matter material and worthy of referral to the Privileges Committee.