Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (1:09 PM) —I also, having heard that speech, would like to talk about some matters going to the operation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Like all parliamentary committees, this committee has a number of important responsibilities—among them, to inquire into and report on the conduct of elections, and to recommend reform to electoral laws. Members of parliament understand that the committee has an important and politically sensitive brief. Historically, the committee has handled that brief well and has not allowed political differences to corrupt the fair processes of the committee. Traditionally, controversial references to committees come by way of a reference from both chambers, with non-controversial references coming from the minister. However, with the reference to JSCEM regarding the integrity of the electoral rolls, this important convention has been turned on its head. Motivated by rank opportunism, Minister Ellison abused his position of trust as a minister by making this partisan reference to JSCEM himself.

Of course we have had our differences on the committee. Of course we have had majority and minority reports. That is the bread and butter of committee work, and it is to be expected in a committee dealing with electoral law. But the focus of JSCEM has always been to propose substantive recommendations to improve the Electoral Act. Not any more. Now, with this sleazy and opportunistic reference from the minister and the blatantly partisan chairmanship of Mr Christopher Pyne, the committee has been turned into a star chamber to attack the Labor Party.

The Prime Minister slotted Mr Pyne into the chairmanship of the committee on 6 November 2000. He was Mr Howard's man for the job. The government obviously felt that the former chairman, Mr Gary Nairn, was not up to the job. Mr Nairn's excuse was that he wanted to spend more time campaigning in his electorate. I suspect he was dumped because he was a traditional parliamentary committee chairman and had behaved accordingly. So the government chose Mr Pyne, and it did not take the new chair of the joint committee long to show his partisan colours: at his very first meeting on 7 November 2000 JSCEM's inquiry into the highly important area of funding and disclosure was junked and put on ice for six months. Instead, a witch-hunt into the Labor Party became the committee's sole focus.

Even though the Special Minister of State had referred the funding and disclosure issues to the committee in June 2000, and even though the committee had received an extensive submission from the AEC with a range of recommendations, Mr Pyne stepped in and used his casting vote to stop that inquiry. Why? Simple. It was not in the Liberal Party's interests for the joint committee to look into their own murky arrangements with the Greenfields Foundation. It was not in the Liberal Party's interests for the rules on disclosure of donations to parties to be tightened. By contrast, both the Labor Party and the Democrats wanted funding and disclosure laws examined, and the committee had advertised for submissions in early September 2000.

Enter Mr Pyne with his brief from the Prime Minister. The very day after his appointment, he used his casting vote to put the inquiry into funding and disclosure on hold. Since that inauspicious start, things have got worse on JSCEM. The committee now operates in an overtly biased and partisan way. The chairman's casting vote has been used to ensure that a Liberal Party MP who has allegedly been involved in rorting the electoral roll will not be invited to appear before the committee. Labor Party witnesses have been dragged before the committee willy-nilly and faced the threat of a summons if they did not attend. But Liberal Party members, such the Leader of the Queensland Liberal Party, Dr Watson, who ducked the committee's public hearing in Brisbane, are merely excused for non-attendance.

Mr Pyne's response to last week's revelation that the member for Longman, Mr Brough, was told about the deliberate false enrolment of his staff members was instructive. He simply declared Mr Brough to be `entirely innocent'—before the police and the AEC had even finished investigating the matter. As a result, Mr Pyne and the committee's behaviour drew highly critical editorials from the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Courier-Mail and the Australian newspapers.

Mr Pyne's high sounding words about the need for the joint committee to `investigate rorting wherever it may be found' were again shown to be hollow and hypocritical. The committee has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect Liberal MP Miss Jackie Kelly from appearing before it. Mr Pyne has twice used his casting vote to veto Miss Kelly's appearance, to stop her being scrutinised by the joint committee—firstly on 5 December 2000, and then on 9 January 2001. On 18 January, as well, the committee minutes record for a third time my view that Minister Kelly should be invited to appear.

There are important questions for Minister Kelly to answer. It is not unreasonable to expect Minister Kelly to appear and respond to serious allegations that she and two of her staff members were involved in electoral enrolment fraud and other potentially criminal conduct in relation to local government elections in Penrith. We are entitled to expect Minister Kelly to provide answers to our questions, and entitled to ask why the committee has gone to such extraordinary lengths to protect her. Perhaps it is because the case against Minister Kelly is so strong.

At the recent committee hearing in Sydney, Nicolas Berman, a staff member of Minister Kelly's from December 1996 to early 2000, stated that he had `been accused of false enrolling in the electorate of Lindsay' and that `this was not true'. He then said that Minister Kelly offered him a place in her home in Penrith in early 1998 and that `up until October 1998 my principal place of residence was within the Lindsay electorate'. This statement was drafted and presented with the assistance of Mr Alex Howen, a barrister and the Vice-President of the NSW Liberal Party.

Well, Mr Berman and his former boss certainly have not got their lines right. The Western Weekender on Friday 8 December 2000 reports Minister Kelly as being:

It goes on to directly quote her:

`Nick should have known better ... It happened, but there are no excuses. Naturally I'm disappointed.'

Minister Kelly's statement to her local paper correlates with her statements to the House; but, like most cover-ups, when they start to get exposed the lies start to show up. There is a case to answer. With at least one person definitely fraudulently enrolled at her own home, and with possibly more fraudulent enrolments at her addresses in Lapstone and Penrith, it beggars belief that she had no knowledge of these activities. Minister Kelly's homes have become a Hotel California of itinerant conservatives, with young Liberal Party apparatchiks being placed on the electoral roll in exchange for political advantage. Again I ask: why wasn't Minister Kelly invited to attend the committee? Why did Mr Pyne veto her appearance?

Minister Kelly was president of the Liberal Party's local government committee in Penrith. Reliable Liberal Party sources have told us that she actually chaired the local government campaign committee meetings in her office where the strategy was hatched to create bogus micro parties for the 1999 Penrith Council election. The bogus micro parties were created to give their preferences to the Liberal Party. She knew about the scams. Minister Kelly needs to front up and answer questions about the fraudulent enrolments associated with those bogus micro parties.

The candidates for two of those bogus micro parties—Adam Brown for the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party and Paul and Josip Matosin for the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party—were fraudulently enrolled at 15 Avon Place, St Clair. We are confident that they never lived at that address. Minister Kelly knows the story. She was a very key player in the campaign, but Mr Pyne is shielding Minister Kelly from questions. What has Minister Kelly got to hide?

We know that the house at 15 Avon Place, St Clair is owned by the niece of Councillor Steve Simat. Steve Simat was No. 1 on the Liberal Party ticket for the elections and—surprise, surprise!—was on Minister Kelly's staff. He has since been removed from Minister Kelly's staff. Steve Simat gave evidence to the committee on 30 January that he advised the micro party candidates of the residency requirements for their nominations and that they would have to be on the roll in Penrith. He then organised his niece's empty house for them to claim residency, enrol to vote and stand for public office.

Two of Minister Kelly's staff members, Nicolas Berman and Steve Simat, were up to their eyes in the fraudulent enrolments and operations surrounding the bogus micro parties in Penrith. And now a Liberal Party insider has leaked the fact that Miss Kelly overrode the concerns of others on the campaign committee about the bogus parties and how those would be organised. Apparently she `thought it would be a lot of fun'. She, Minister Kelly, was the chair of the campaign committee and the local federal member. Her judgment carried a lot of weight.

After the pounding Mr Pyne's activities took in the media, you would think that some lessons would be learned. But no: at yesterday's committee meeting, Mr Pyne moved that Labor MPs Kevin Rudd and Craig Emerson, and Senator Stephen Conroy, be invited to appear before the committee—while again, for the fourth time, refusing to invite Minister Kelly to give evidence. Lee Bermingham, a self-confessed electoral rorter and the witness who mentioned the names of Kevin Rudd and Craig Emerson, made it quite explicit at the recent Sydney hearing that Mr Rudd and Mr Emerson knew nothing about enrolment fraud nor were involved in any such activities. As for Senator Conroy, he has categorically denied the accusation levelled at him—not an allegation regarding the integrity of the electoral roll but a hearsay allegation related to fundraising. Regardless, all of these Labor parliamentarians have been invited to appear before the committee—one rule for the Labor Party, but a very different rule for the Liberal Party, as far as the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and its chairman, Mr Pyne, are concerned.

Regrettably, the electoral matters committee is now more intent on pursuing a witch-hunt into the Labor Party than on investigating and properly assessing risks to the integrity of the electoral roll. The proof of this is there for all to see, both in this parliament and outside. The joint committee has become a biased and corrupted forum whose choice of witnesses and proceedings are governed by the short-term political interests of the Liberal Party.

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I was hoping earlier that, when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate referred to Minister Kelly in terms of a cover-up and then in terms of lying, it would be drawn to his attention and, in fact, he would be asked to withdraw, because that language is clearly unparliamentary. I would ask him to do that in retrospect. But, when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate impugns the integrity of a committee of this parliament and calls it biased and corrupt, that is clearly in breach of standing orders and, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would ask you to ask him to withdraw.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—I will take advice on whether or not the reference to a parliamentary committee would be in breach of the standing orders. I will quickly go through the relevant standing order. I have consulted with the standing order and I think, for reasons of the ruling I intend to make, I will read the relevant portion of the standing order, which is subparagraph 3. It states:

I have been advised also that it is deemed that the reference to `houses' also includes references to committees of the parliament. In that sense, I would ask Senator Faulkner to withdraw the references. In regard to the matter raised firstly in your point of order of earlier references, they were not raised at the time and I would not ask for a withdrawal at this time.

Senator FAULKNER —I will withdraw those words and say that the chairman of the committee and Liberal Party members of the committee have ensured that its activities have been biased and corrupted and, of course, the choice of witnesses and proceedings are governed by the short-term political interests of the Liberal Party.

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: you have given an absolutely accurate ruling in relation to a reflection under that standing order that you read so eloquently. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has not complied with your ruling. He has, in fact, flaunted it and then further gone on to compound his misdemeanour by again reflecting on the members of that committee, which of course is covered quite specifically in the standing order. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should quit while he is behind and make an uncategorical, unqualified withdrawal of his unparliamentary remarks, which are outside of the standing orders.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In listening to the Leader of the Opposition after I had ruled on the point of order, I understood him to withdraw the remarks that he made against the committee. That is what I understood. You did however then, Senator Faulkner, go on and make further references to members of the committee. I think that you are bordering on being unparliamentary by using those words and, in turn, I would ask you to withdraw those remarks.

Senator FAULKNER —I will withdraw those and make it absolutely clear, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the processes of this committee have become biased and corrupted.

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is now being churlish and childish. Reflecting on the processes of a committee is no different from reflecting on the committee. It is exactly the same as me reflecting on the processes of the Senate. It is a reflection on the institution of the parliament. If Senator Faulkner wants to play pathetic personality politics, to accuse the processes of the committee without quite clearly impugning those who are in charge of that process is, of course, slicing credibility very thin.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I was for obvious reasons listening carefully to the words that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate was uttering. I did hear the words and heard them quite clearly. I think that Senator Faulkner was referring to the processes of the committee and, in that sense, I do not believe that he was reflecting on either the committee or the members of the committee, who indeed are members of both houses of the parliament. In that sense, I will rule that there is no point of order.

Senator FAULKNER —There is nothing more pathetic than a so-called small `l' liberal crawling to a conservative Prime Minister. Mr Pyne accepted the chairmanship of this committee in the hope that it would advance his political career. It has not done that. He has compromised his integrity, he has ruined his reputation and he has thoroughly humiliated himself.

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has now been warned twice not to transgress the standing order that relates to impugning the integrity of another or reflecting on the member of the other house of parliament. He has again chosen to do that in relation to Mr Pyne. I ask you to again ask him to withdraw any reflection on Mr Pyne. Saying that he has compromised the integrity is an absolutely clear breach of those standing orders. I would ask you to uphold that standing order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I would take the point of order and would rule that the words `compromising his integrity' by a member of the other house would indeed be in breach of the standing orders. I would ask you, Senator Faulkner, to withdraw.

Senator FAULKNER —On the point of order: I do not agree with that ruling but I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Acting Deputy President. I just want to say this: Mr Pyne has `out-minchined' Senator Minchin. How low can you go?