The Senate Committee of Privileges
Whether there was any improper influence in relation to political donations made by Mr Graeme Wood and questions without notice asked by Senator Bob Brown and Senator Milne.
Findings and conclusions
1.55 The committee considers that the evidence before it does not establish a causal connection between the donation made by Mr Wood, and the conduct in the Senate about which Senator Kroger complains. The committee does not consider that there is any cogent evidence to support the contentions set out in the terms of reference. Such questions as arose from the material provided by Senator Kroger in raising the matter are answered by the accounts of Senator Brown, Senator Milne and Mr Wood.
Senators seeking benefits etc.
1.56 As has been noted above, the focus of Senator Kroger’s letter was on paragraph (b) of the terms of reference. In relation to paragraph (b), as outlined above, the committee found that the evidence before it did not support either of the following contentions:
• that Senator Brown received any benefit for himself or another person on the understanding that he would be influenced in the discharge of his duties as a senator
• that Senator Brown entered into any contract, understanding or arrangement having the effect, or possibly having the effect, of controlling or limiting his independence or freedom of action as a senator or pursuant to which he or any other senator acted as the representative of an outside body in the discharge of their duties as senators.
1.57 To the extent that questions were raised on these matters in the letter from Senator Kroger, those questions were answered by the accounts of Senator Brown and Senator Milne.
Improper influence of senators
1.58 The question of improper influence was included in paragraph (a) of the reference, but the letter raising the matter seemed to the committee to include this element almost as an afterthought. As noted, however, the committee considered this allegation and the allegations in paragraph (b) as two sides of the same coin. Given that the committee has found that the evidence does not support allegations that an improper arrangement existed, nor that one was sought, the committee accepts the position put by Mr Wood rejecting any suggestion of impropriety.
1.59 In relation to paragraph (a) of the terms of reference, the committee found that there was no evidence that Mr Wood, by the offer or promise of an inducement or benefit, or by other improper means, attempted to influence a senator in the senator’s conduct as a senator.
Conclusion
1.60 Given that the committee has found that the evidence before it did not support the contentions in either paragraph of the terms of reference, the committee concludes that no question of contempt arises in regard to the matter referred.
Download full report: http___www.aphref_.aph_.gov_.au_senate_committee_priv_ctte_report_150_report_.pdf
• Senator Bob Brown: Abetz/Kroger’s ‘defamation’ thrown out of Senate
The claims by Coalition Senator Kroger against Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown and Deputy Leader Christine Milne, referred to the Senate’s powerful Committee of Privileges, have been thrown out as having “no cogent evidence”.
Similarly, the committee found Senator Kroger had no evidence for her claims against Mr Graeme Wood and that “no question of contempt arises”. These findings were unanimous.
The claims, if proven, had opened the Senators to a sentence of six months in jail.
But, in a split decision, the committee found against reimbursing approximately $50,000 in legal costs for Senators Brown and Milne, and indicated that legal representation was unnecessary.
“This outrageous political finding means that Senator Abetz, who engineered the Kroger motion, has succeeded in having myself and Senator Milne left to pay this bill for this entirely justified defence. That is manifestly unjust and will be challenged,” Senator Brown said.
