Senator PARRY (Tasmania—Deputy President of the Senate and Chairman of Committees) (18:23): Mr President, I certainly support your ruling. I rise primarily in my capacity as Deputy President in support of the statement you have just read to the chamber. Mr President, you have covered a number of matters that I was going to cover so I will not go over those in detail. However, I was concerned yesterday during the debate. Again, with all respect to my colleague Senator Boswell, the subject matter of the debate has been lost in the fact that we are only dealing with the dissent in you not granting precedence to the motion moved by Senator Brown. This is what the Senate needs to clearly understand, because there has been some confusion with the two motions and there has been a crossover of debate, and that is what disturbs me as a custodian, with you, of the practices and procedures of the Senate. Mr President, I believe you have rightly ruled in what you have said and you have also moved towards addressing some of the confusion about the debate. I will highlight what happened. Senator Kroger wrote to you, Mr President, prior to 23 November last year setting out a matter of privilege and asking for that to be given precedence. That is the first trigger in this whole debate. The second matter was that you gave a statement on 23 November giving precedence to Senator Kroger's letter, followed up by a motion that went through the Senate on the following day, 24 November. That motion was then disposed of in that particular point in time by resolution of the Senate to give precedence to a matter of privilege raised by Senator Kroger referring to Senators Brown and Milne. That was dealt with there and then. That is the first item. The second item is that, subsequent to that, Senator Brown wrote to you again—I am not sure of the time he wrote to you but I believe it was subsequent to that motion—and sought precedence on a matter of privilege for Senator Boswell. You then reported back to the Senate on 25 November and indicated that no, you would not give precedence. Senator Milne: Then it is a question of consistency. Senator PARRY: Consistency was not given, but equally the report back to the Senate was then dissented upon by Senator Brown on that day. The timing of that was at the end of the parliamentary year, which we have all discussed. From there, it comes to the commencement of this session of parliament. Yesterday the debate which concerns me moved into the detail of the matters raised by Senator Kroger and the defence given by Senators Brown and Milne, and again today by Senator Boswell. It is on both sides of the chamber. That is not the substance of what was before the Senate. What is before the Senate is dissent in your ruling, Mr President, and you have outlined why you believe your ruling is adequate and accurate. I support you in your statement and I support the rationale behind your ruling. I move to a couple of matters that were raised and which I think need to be clarified. They were raised in debate yesterday and have, I think, left a gap or some misunderstanding as to what the role of the Senate or the Privileges Committee can be in these matters. I particularly refer to Senator Brown yesterday raising the matter of criminal proceedings. There are numerous safeguards and matters that happen under the Constitution in our standing orders. In relation to what Senator Brown raised so there is no doubt left as to where this matter is heading, Senator Brown and, I believe, Senator Milne, raised the matter of potential criminal proceedings. With respect to paragraph (b) of privilege resolution No. 4 there are various criminal offences that may be relevant, and these include: (a) section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914, which provides for an offence of interfering with the exercise of a political right or duty; and (b) various offences in the Criminal Code Act 1995 relating to corruption and bribery of Commonwealth public officials, which includes members of parliament. Senator Brown indicated that it was apparent that criminal proceedings could flow from this. However, the asking of the questions by Senators Brown and Milne is central to the case in Senator Kroger's report that such actions are proceedings of the parliament. Being proceedings of the parliament within the meaning of article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, and section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which we have been discussing, there is no capacity for such proceedings to be examined for the purpose of any criminal investigation or proceedings. As a consequence, the only remedy of the allegations and the conduct lies within the Senate's contempt jurisdiction. To state that clearly, it was left hanging yesterday that there was a potential criminal action resulting from what the Senate can determine. That is not the case. It is not the case because the statements were made under privilege here in this parliament. In relation to the matter raised about Senator Boswell, and again it was the subject of debate yesterday and today, Senator Boswell has clearly outlined the matters concerned. Mr President, you determined—and this was some time ago now—that the matter: … addresses criterion (a) on the basis that the need for senators to be seen to be free of any improper external influence is of fundamental importance to the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions … You also said: … the inquiry instigated by Senator Boswell is 12 months old and was completed in February this year. The committee, in effect, determined not to investigate the matter further after legal proceedings were instituted. Furthermore, as is evident from the material provided by Senator Bob Brown, Senator Boswell made a personal explanation to the Senate on 26 November 2010 in which he clarified allegations about the relationship between political donations and the reference to the committee. In these circumstances, it is difficult to identify what, if any, other remedy could be provided by invoking the contempt jurisdiction and, in the circumstances, whether the threshold requirement for improper interference continues to be sufficiently apparent. Mr President, whilst we have delved outside of the strict matter that was raised by Senator Brown—and it is his right to do so—in dissenting from your ruling, I wanted to clarify some of the points because I think it has left a cloud over what the real debate is and what the real issues are; hence my comments. I reiterate again that I do support your statement and your rulings.