Warning longish post.
It took a while for the penny to drop; but this is curiously intriguing. So first question – WTF is this?. I found some cut and dried answers –
HERE – typically, dry as dust but of interest.
5. Matters of privilege
What is a matter of privilege?
A matter of privilege is any action which may constitute a contempt of the Senate and which the Senate may refer to its Committee of Privileges for investigation. The potential or actual improper interference caused by such conduct with the ability of a House, its committees or its members to perform their functions is a key factor in adjudging whether a contempt has been committed.
The following are examples of possible contempts:
• a witness gives evidence to a committee that he or she knows to be false;
• a government agency punishes one of its officers for giving evidence to a committee that goes against the official agency line;
• a potential witness is given an inducement not to give evidence to a committee;
• a key witness is uncooperative at a committee hearing and refuses to provide documents sought by the committee;
• a person threatens legal action against a senator to prevent him or her raising a particular issue in the Senate;
• a member of a committee gives a copy of the committee’s draft report to a journalist; the journalist writes an article about the implications of the committee’s proposed recommendations and the article is published before the report is tabled;
• a member of a committee gives a copy of a confidential submission received by the committee to a Minister’s office.
The Privilege Resolutions set out procedures for the investigation of contempts and the criteria for determining matters relating to contempt. Resolution 6 sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters that may constitute contempts.
Raising matters of privilege
Standing order 81 sets out the procedure for raising matters of privilege in the Senate for investigation. The first step is for the senator who intends to raise the matter of privilege to write to the President of the Senate describing the matter.
The President is required to consider the matter against criteria which are also set out in the Privilege Resolutions (Resolution 4). In determining, as soon as practicable, whether to give precedence to a notice of motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, the President must consider:
• 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
• the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt.
The President’s decision is conveyed to the senator and, in most cases, to the Senate. While the matter is under consideration by the President the senator concerned must not take any other action in relation to the matter or refer to it in the Senate.
In most cases, the President decides that the matter should be given precedence. After this decision is notified to the Senate, the senator concerned gives a notice of motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report. The notice appears at the top of the Notice Paper on the relevant day, under the heading “Matter of Privilege”. It is usually dealt with as formal business (see Brief Guide No. 8—Notices of Motion) but if debate is required, a matter of privilege is dealt with ahead of all other categories of business (see Brief Guide No. 4—Categories of Business). The question whether the matter be referred is then determined by the Senate.
If the President determines that a matter of privilege should not be given precedence, it remains open to the senator concerned to take any action that is in accordance with the rules of the Senate; for example, referring to the matter in debate or giving notice of a motion seeking specified action, including a reference to the Committee of Privileges. Again, it is then up to a majority of the Senate to decide if that action should be taken.
While only a senator may raise a matter of privilege (other than a right of reply or adverse reflection in committee evidence—see below), aggrieved persons may ask senators or committees to raise matters on their behalf.
Other common contempts
By far the most commonly investigated contempts involve conduct by or in relation to witnesses appearing before Senate committees, including:
• the giving of false or misleading evidence
• interference with witnesses (for example by punishing them for having given evidence or by giving them an inducement not to give evidence).
The Privileges Committee publishes summaries of the many cases of possible contempt which it has investigated.
Apparently, (I'm informed) this is a 'big deal' and unusual, can't get accurate figures but it seems there have only been 44 (or so) of these things since federation; but don't hold me to account on the very second hand numbers.
When Xenophon fired his Matters of Privilege (MoP) big gun on July 10, like Creamy, I thought fine, (ho-hum) yet another wet lettuce censure which will be water off a ducks back. Thought process error – I should have taken it in, with a little less cynicism. It seems these MoP have priority and can 'stop the works' until they are addressed, if those who raise them claim precedence. So, it's no light matter and with the parliament embroiled in the carbon tax debate and other 'serious' business, a thing like this, at this time, with the potential to hold up proceedings means someone, is very serious about the matter. When Heffernan and Searle popped up yesterday with a second almost identical MoP shout, any doubts about this not being serious vanished.
It's now up to the Senate to decide the MoP fate; they can turf it out, discuss the matter; or, flick pass it to the Privileges Committee, who will deliberate 'sub-rosa' and decide what's to be done. Lots of money for the flick pass option.
So to the puzzle, what's it all about? There are some thin clues.
"The matter of privilege concerns the possible imposition of a penalty by the taking of disciplinary action, either on a witness before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee or on a person providing information to the committee, in connection with its inquiry into aviation accident investigations which reported in 2013 and in connection with questions asked at the 2013 Budget estimates hearings." my bold
The 'When' is clear enough; the 'What' same-same: that leaves 'Who dun Wot to Whom'. Which is most unsatisfactory. Lots of possible runners for those trying to work out the field. But it has to be a 'big hitter' in the gun sight; they don't stop parliament for a storm in a tea cup. As Sarcs points out; perhaps someone rolled over and spilled the beans; or someone complained (not unusual); or, someone has done something really silly and been sprung. Telling the Senate fairy stories would qualify though, wouldn't it? and if that's ever proven, then someone needs to duck for cover, (or off) PDQ.
There are lots of choices for the connoisseur; have CASA been making life difficult for those who dared testify or provided evidence?, the answer is yes; not for anyone 'heavy' but I know of three lightweights' who were involved, who are receiving some unwelcome attention. But that, standing alone does not merit a MoP; nope, not even the three together would cause the Senate to break wind, let alone raise a MoP. There's also rumour of some undignified behaviour and hair pulling as a result of the WLR, but as that carried no parliamentary privilege and was not 'Senate' business, it's hard to parlay that into a MoP, anyway the date line is wrong.
A look at the winners and losers board does not provide much insight, but if you follow that line, you have to start with the heavyweights, here again the Senate is not going to raise a MoP for the sake of hammering a clerk who was rude to someone on the phone; it has to be a big, juicy morsel to make it all worth while. I agree with 004, Dolan don't signify. So, what are we are left with; McComic, Mrdak, Farkuhardson, Aleck and Anastasi – all were in attendance at one time or another; a date check may reduce the numbers; all were economical with words; all towed the party line. A beef with any or all of these 'executive' guys could, potentially trigger a MoP. If the Senators have nailed one; he'll 'peach', sure as eggs, and that boys and girls, could be very interesting. See the Sarcs link above; plenty of food for thought right there. Then there is the farce of the DAS selection process to consider?, that's got to be worth a second thought.
CASA made two strategic 'boo-boo's: one, by underestimating the Senators intelligence, sense of purpose, unity and integrity; then further infuriating them, dismissal by open contempt is not a recommended option. Compounding this error is the assumption that they, CASA, are indeed 'above the law'. Secondly, they grossly underestimated the anger and hostility from industry, arrogantly choosing only to hear what their selected handmaidens, Casaphile's and Casasexuals told them.
Truss clearly don't give a rats and is in no hurry to do anything for aviation, (Spring is the latest, precise best estimate) but has he also has underrated this Senate crew and industry determination?. He is certainly not well advised. Then again, maybe this is all just part of some Abbott generated scheme to get his bills through parliament. Not that it matters, just yet...
We shall have to wait and see. Happily, the day is my own and like Sarcs, I shall have quiet read through the pertinent parts of the Hansard; see if I can pick a winner. But, you'll admit, it's a worthy puzzle, a challenge not to be missed. Maybe it's a storm in a tea cup, but my Grand Mamma can read the tea leaves; perhaps I'll visit her today – tea and biccy's with Grand, my favourite.
Aye - the curse of curiosity strikes again...Is it to be the silence of the lambs, or the squealing of the three little pigs for a bedtime story? -.-