Senator MARK BISHOP (6:26 PM) —In taking note of the 100th report of the Senate Committee of Privileges, I refer to page 10 of the report—the page just referred to by Senator Hogg—and read into the record some comments made about me in the last paragraph of the letter dated 27 August by Ms Pauline Moore, the secretary of the committee, to Senator Ray. Under the heading `After the unauthorised release' it says:

That is the end of the letter. It seems to me that that raises a number of issues. For the record, I want to state that I never participated in this particular committee report, did not attend any of its deliberations and never had access to or saw the committee report until after it was a public document tabled in this place. It seems that this letter from Ms Moore to Senator Ray raises two issues. Firstly, it is apparently the practice of this committee and this secretary and some or all of her staff members to keep records of the attendance of members of parliament at various offices in this place. How is it anyone's business that a member of parliament, either in this chamber or in the other house, attends the offices of other senators—as they do regularly all day every day—to discuss routine or other business? And why is it the business of the secretary of the committee and her staff to keep written records of the activities of members of parliament in this place and then put them in public documents under privilege? As Senator Hogg said, it is simply outrageous. The apparently grossly improper activities of committee secretariat staff in keeping tabs on the activities of members of parliament should be the subject of an inquiry by the Clerk of the Senate. I formally request that.

The second issue it raises is that of the professionalism and the ability of Ms Pauline Moore to carry out her duties as a member of the staff providing support services to the various senators in this place. I say that because there is a clear implication in her correspondence of improper behaviour by me. She linked attendance at a meeting with later events without a shred of evidence suggesting any such linkage at all. So, in my view, it would be quite pertinent for the Clerk of the Senate to pay heed to this correspondence and the comments that are now formally on the public record and to institute an inquiry into the professionalism of Ms Moore and other persons who may have been involved in these activities and report accordingly.