Download Fragment

Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Page: 9380

The PRESIDENT (15:36): By letter dated 22 November 2011, Senator Kroger has raised a matter of privilege under standing order 81. The matter concerns a possible relationship between Senator Bob Brown and Mr Graham Wood and whether, on the one hand, Senator Brown sought a benefit from Mr Wood in the form of political donations on the understanding that he would act in Mr Wood's interests in the Senate or, on the other hand, whether Mr Wood, through large political donations, improperly influenced Senator Brown and other Australian Greens senators, including Senator Milne, in the discharge of their duties as senators, including by the asking of questions without notice.

Under standing order 81(2), I am required to determine, as soon as practicable, whether a motion relating to the matter should have precedence of other business, having regard to the criteria set out in any relevant resolution of the Senate. The relevant criteria are in Privilege Resolution 4 as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should have precedence of other business, the President shall have regard only to the following criteria:

(a)    the principle that the Senate ' s power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and

(b)    the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt.

With respect to paragraph (a), there is no question that the matters raised by Senator Kroger are very serious ones. The freedom of individual members of parliament to perform their duties on behalf of the people they represent and the need for them to be seen to be free of any improper external influence are of fundamental importance. Matters such as these go directly to the central purpose of the law of parliamentary privilege, which is to protect the integrity of proceedings in parliament. They meet the test posed in paragraph (a) of the need to provide reasonable protection for the Senate against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct it in the performance of its functions.

With respect to paragraph (b), while there are various criminal offences that may be relevant, the asking of questions without notice by Senators Brown and Milne is central to the case put by Senator Kroger. Such actions are ' proceedings in parliament ' within the meaning of a rticle 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 and section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 , and there is therefore no capacity for them to be examined for the purpose of any criminal investigation or proceedings. As a consequence, the only remedy for the alleged conduct lies within the Senate's contempt jurisdiction.

I therefore determine that a motion relating to this matter shall have precedence of other business and I table the correspondence from Senator Kroger.

Senator Kroger, you may now give notice of a motion to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report.