Download Fragment

Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Page: 2286

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:57): That is a very interesting speech from Senator Brandis in relation to what evidence there is or there is not. I draw to the attention of the Senate a number of documents. On 22 December 2011 a letter went to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges asking that Senator Brandis recuse himself. Included with it—and I note again the date, 22 December 2011—is the Hansard of the remarks that Senator Brandis made so inappropriately on 6 July 2011.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I had been following this on the TV monitors before I came to the chamber. My understanding is that this is a motion by Senator Brown to set aside standing orders. If that is correct then Senator Milne should not be canvassing the substantive issues but should be telling the Senate why it is essential that standing orders—the standing orders, I might say, that the Greens and the Labor Party have guillotined through this chamber—should be set aside to allow the statement to be made.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, there is a technical point of order, but debate has been allowed in previous times on suspension motions to have a wide-ranging latitude, which other speakers have exercised. Senator Milne, you have the call.

Senator MILNE: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. It goes to a statement by Senator Brandis, a senior counsel. This is not just somebody who does not know the law; this is someone who was appointed a senior counsel in exceptional circumstances in Queensland after he became a senator. This person stood in the Senate and said:

But what makes this a particularly serious case, what makes this case approach the borders of corruption is that we now know that in public speeches both beyond parliament and within the Senate chamber Senator Brown and Senator Milne have sought to advance the commercial interests of that donor …

That is completely untrue and without evidence or substance, as was shown to be the case. Therefore, when this matter was referred to the Privileges Committee, a person who has a senior counsel attached to his name ought to have recused himself at the point of reference because he should have realised that he had already compromised himself, but he did not do so.

As to the next point, the letter went there. It should have happened straight away when the reference was made. The letter was received by the chair of the committee, Senator Johnston. It was sent on 22 December 2011.

Senator Brandis: Circulated the following February, you fool.

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask that Senator Brandis withdraw that comment he shouted. It is unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It would be helpful, Senator Brandis, if you withdrew the comment.

Senator Brandis: The comment I made was: the letter was circulated the following February, you fool. I withdraw the words 'you fool'. The letter was circulated the following February after I had recused myself. It never came into my possession or my notice.

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Deputy President, I have a further point of order. It is not in the standing orders to allow an argument like that on a withdrawal of an unparliamentary comment and you should apply the rules.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brown. The matter has now been resolved.

Senator MILNE: As I was saying, the letter was sent on 22 December. The chair of a committee has an obligation to circulate matters of this kind, especially since, as it has been said, matters before the Privileges Committee need to be resolved as a matter of urgency to protect the reputations of people involved. However, apparently, based on what Senator Brandis said, the chair of the committee failed in his duty to the rest of the committee to circulate that letter. However, having said that, the legal advice went to the chair of the committee—and this is important, Senator Macdonald; you listen to the sequence of events—on 8 February.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask for you to have Senator Macdonald desist. He is right next to Senator Milne and he should desist from shouting across the chamber. He might be losing the case, but he should desist from that bad behaviour.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, I remind all senators, including yourself, not to interject and shout across the chamber.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, perhaps you have ruled but, just on the point of order, Senator Milne was quite able to respond to my interjection. She did not need the assistance of a leader like that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! There is nothing further to the point of order.

Senator MILNE: Just to put it on the record, on 8 February legal advice went to the chair of the committee, which he should have circulated to all members of the committee. Senator Brandis, by his own admission, said he was approached by Senator Johnston on 8 February, drawing his attention to the fact that legal advice had been received requesting a recusal.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator MILNE: May I finish, Mr Deputy President?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Brandis, it is disorderly to interject. Senator Milne, you have the call.

Senator MILNE: Thank you. As I said, on 8 February that legal advice went to the chair, Senator David Johnston, who then been raised it with Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis is careful to say that he did not read the legal advice. I do not know what Senator Johnston told Senator Brandis about the advice, but it should have been circulated to all members of the committee because that is the chair's responsibility and it was subsequent to that—

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: that is a clear inference against the chair of the Privileges Committee and it should be withdrawn by Senator Milne.

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: it is nothing of the sort. It is a clear statement of process as seen by Senator Milne and it is part of this debate. Senator Macdonald is quite out of order to try to have you rule that way.

Senator Brandis: Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: in fact what I said in my statement to the Senate, as the Hansard will reveal, was that Senator Johnston drew to my attention Senator Brown's speech, not the legal advice. Senator Johnston at no time showed me the legal advice and at no time have I seen it because, by the time it was recirculated, I had asked the secretariat not to circulate any of the papers concerning the reference to me.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! That is not furthering the point of order, Senator Brandis. Just before I call you, Senator Milne, I think you were sailing close to the wind. I remind all senators not refer to other senators in any disparaging manner contrary to the standing orders.

Senator MILNE: As I said, on 8 February a letter was received by the chair of the Privileges Committee, which gave the legal advice supporting the call made in December asking for Senator Brandis to recuse himself. Subsequent to that, Senator Brandis, on 9 February, did recuse himself. That legal advice had been received by the chair and I note we are still hearing from Senator Macdonald about substantive matters which were proved to be false and he is continuing to prosecute falsities in this Senate.

The facts of the matter are: a request for recusal on 22 December 2011; legal advice on 8 February 2012; Senator Brandis recused himself on 9 February 2012. It is pretty obvious and the real question here is: why weren't matters dealt with in a timely manner and why weren't they circulated to all members of the committee as requested?