Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 8:47:37 to 8:55:37
Debate over the balance between parliamentary privilege and proposed powers for committee chairs to manage inappropriate behavior or personal attacks on officials.
Topics: Parliamentary privilege, Integrity
Speakers: Dr Steven Kennedy, Hon Jane Hume, Senator Steph Hodgins-May, Hon Penny Wong, Andrew Walter, Senator Karen Grogan
for. We do understand Senator the effectively the inquisitorial style powers that you have as senators and the appropriate role you have in inquiring into the public service and its administration and as you said there there are judgments gray zones to be made. There is a gray zone in which you're operating and and and you have that overriding responsibility to the public in the broad to pursue these things. We're not in any way trying to diminish that. uh um um we're trying to actually promote the productive the most productive way that could occur um in the most productive way an apolitical service could respond to those types of inquiries. But your um but not in any way diminish um and I know I know you well your ongoing desire appropriate to pursue those matters to as far as they should be pursued. There's there's no attempt
all of the evidence that you've given today and the um response that you've seen from the cler, from the Senate, uh to the submission that you've made to the um standards committee, I'm wondering had you had your time over again, had the um the secretaries board had its time over again, would this document have had some legal advice? Would it would you have sought legal advice before it was submitted? Would you reword it differently or would you take the opportunity now to rewrite it and perhaps resubmit it to the standards committee?
>> I'm not concerned about its uh legal foundation. Um but Mr. Walter may wish to um uh respond. Um uh the we the secretary's board thought um this inquiry was the best way to raise issues because it was an inquiry into those into those um into those standards and um and we were mindful of um ensuring that the views were clearly seen as coming um um clearly seen as coming from us. a num a few secretaries I won't say a number a few secretaries have written at times to chairs I believe raising these issues in the past uh so I don't think they will be completely novel uh to the senate or or the cler I hope there's possibly an um a little bit of conflation between what the secretary's board did and the experience of Miss Perkins when she appeared at the def at at the inquiry on
>> because that was exactly what she was referring to was the secretary's board submission.
>> Uh well um she she was using some of the language that we spoke about that I mentioned earlier on the consent of the use of in the social media of uh people's people's image outside of the framework of of parliament. Um and uh and that's that's a matter for Secretary Quinn and Miss Perkins to address in their inquiry. But I guess all I would encourage in as you look through um I I actually thought the Clark's response was to that evidence rather than this the secretary's submission, but I may have misunderstood that. Um he he he I I thought that's what his evidence was uh but um look um uh we can always think of better ways to do things but we thought it's best rather than sitting quietly in a room not talking to you about it that we use an inquiry process to bring the issues forward and have a hopefully a constructive debate raise the issues and try to improve the operations of the Senate and so um uh um I don't regret at all um working with the secretaries to bring forward the issues. Um, but I also don't claim to be perfect in every way and bringing those issues forward.
>> When does the secretary's board >> going to rotate? >> Yes, I'll just finish up on this. When does the secretary's board next meet?
>> Uh, so we met last week, so it'll be in three weeks time.
>> In three weeks time. And at last week's meeting, was this issue raised?
>> I think Mr. Gifford's already answered that just to say that there was a brief discussion about it. Uh, noting that Dr. Kennedy had been called to this uh
>> and obviously at the next uh secretar's board meeting, will this issue be raised again? And would the secretary's board take that opportunity to potentially uh rewrite its submission or adjust its submission so that it might withdraw or amend those recommendations that clearly the Senate is going to reject?
Um um I don't I don't think we will rewrite or withdraw our submission that it was to the committee and it's up to the committee. The committee can of course choose to reject uh any of the uh suggestions we made around guidance. Um um that that is now on the record. We actually provided a couple of options in the suggestions that we made uh to as I as I said to try and encourage a um uh um an open debate. But I guess I don't I'll check I can check if you like with my colleagues but I don't think any of my colleagues would resile from the importance of raising uh these issues with you even if in your view they weren't raised in the most um constructive way. I will say having been a secretary now for nearly nine years, these issues have been present for quite some time and are perhaps increasing over time. And so the inquiry and we thought that the very positive steps taken by parliamentarians around these standards look to be to us a good opportunity to to make a make the contribution. My preference would be to leave it at that. It's not as you've said it's not a matter for us, it's a matter for parliament. we've made our submission. >> Um, you can choose to reject or the committee can choose to reject the advice. Take it no further. That's entirely a matter for you and that's entirely appropriate. >> Probably leave it there.
>> Thank you. I think that the Senate has made it very clear that it's going to reassert its constitutional authority, but I understand that. Well, if I could
just be clear, Senator, if you don't mind me responding, chair, I said in my opening statement, we agreed with everything you said in your we thought you clarified your roles and responsibilities very carefully, very expertly, and there was nothing there we disagreed with. And I don't believe the submission sought to overturn those. You may feel our language did, but certainly it wasn't our intent. And I don't believe the language did seek to over overturn in any way [laughter] what are your legal constitutional responsibilities which is why I made a point of saying we agreed with what you said in that um in what the Senate agreed
>> and the Senate we should always exercise our constitutional powers responsibly
>> here um the document is public if anyone would like to have a read of it. Um, I will take the opportunity at this point to advise that we will be releasing the National Australia Day Council and uh the Office of um uh National
Intelligence from the program. Um I'll now go to uh Senator Hutchkins
>> Thank you, Chair. Um is it possible for me to use this opportunity with Mr. Kennedy Kennedy to ask about some unrelated questions?
The only issue is Senator
>> Not much longer. Yes.
>> No, no, no, no. It wasn't that. It was just Dr. Kennedy's presence. He was he was scheduled for an hour. Is that right? That's right. So, so I think
>> maybe I'll start and then as
>> I think for him,
>> if Dr. Kennedy needs to leave, he can leave um midway through. But um Dr. Kennedy, >> have you been involved in the fuel security coordination role?