Navigation: Contents
Members of the Committee
Senator the Hon. John Faulkner (Chair) (New South
Wales)
Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson (Deputy Chair) (Victoria)
Senator Gary Humphries (Australian Capital Territory)
Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp (Victoria)
Senator Marise Payne (New South Wales)
Senator Robert Ray (Victoria)
Senator the Hon. Nick Sherry (Tasmania)
Possible false or misleading evidence and improper refusal to provide
information to the Finance and Public Administration Committee
Introduction
1. On 7 February 2007, the Senate referred the
following matter to the Committee of Privileges on the motion of Senator Forshaw,
also on behalf of Senator Murray:
Having regard to the material presented to the Senate by the President
on 6 February 2007, whether any false or misleading evidence was given to
a Senate committee, whether there was any improper refusal to provide
information to a committee and whether any contempt was committed in that
regard.[1]
2. The reference of the matter derived from a letter
written by Senators Forshaw and Murray to the then President of the Senate,
Senator the Hon. Paul Calvert, on 7 December 2006.[2]
3. Senator Forshaw had been the chair, and Senator Murray
a member, of the former Finance and Public Administration References Committee
which reported on its inquiry into the regional partnerships and sustainable regions
programs in October 2005. The report included the following account, quoted by Senators
Forshaw and Murray:
Possible offence by a witness
1.46 The Committee took evidence from Mr Greg Maguire, a central
figure in the allegations of Mr Tony Windsor MP that he was offered an
inducement not to stand for the seat of New England at the 2004 federal
election. During his appearance before the Committee Mr Maguire claimed that
his companies had made contributions to Mr Windsor's state and federal election
campaigns. When asked to provide details to the Committee, he refused to answer
but instead undertook to provide the information on notice. The information was
important for corroborating some of Mr Maguire's evidence and was material to
the Committee's examination of the matter.
1.47 Contrary to his undertaking at the hearing, Mr Maguire
subsequently failed to provide the information to the Committee. The Committee
wrote to Mr Maguire on three occasions to remind him of his undertaking. On the
final occasion the Committee drew his attention to Senate procedural resolutions
which make it an offence for a witness to fail to answer questions and provide
information when required to do so. Mr Maguire informed the secretariat that he
would not be making a response.
1.48 During this process the Committee received fresh evidence
which raised serious doubts about the veracity of Mr Maguire's statements. The
Committee provided this evidence to Mr Maguire and invited him to comment. Mr Maguire
also refused to respond to this material.
1.49 The Committee is deeply concerned by Mr Maguire's
evasiveness on this matter. His refusal to provide relevant information made it
difficult to not only corroborate his evidence before the inquiry but also to
verify whether Mr Maguire had disclosed these election contributions to the
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
1.50 Given the obligation on both donors and recipients to
disclose both cash and in-kind contributions to election campaigns, the
Committee is concerned that Mr Maguire may be in breach of the Electoral Act.
The Committee is particularly troubled by the conflicting evidence provided by Mr
Maguire and Mr Windsor, as well as Mr Maguire's refusal to clarify the matter
despite repeated requests by the Committee for him to do so. The Committee
intends to write to the Australian Electoral Commissioner asking that the
matter be investigated. [3]
4. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was
unable to pursue an investigation into possible breaches of electoral law by Mr
Maguire because the only relevant material it could identify was protected by
parliamentary privilege and could not be used.[4]
Subsequently, the Finance and Public Administration Committee (the successor
committee to the separate legislation and references committees from 11 September 2006) wrote again to Mr Maguire requiring him to provide the information
previously requested. According to the letter from Senators Forshaw and Murray
to the President:
Mr Maguire informed the committee secretary that he would not
provide the information, nor would he respond to the committee's latest
approach to him.
5. Senators Forshaw and Murray then decided to raise
Mr Maguire's conduct as a matter of privilege on two counts:
- first, that Mr Maguire refused to respond to the committee's
requests that he provide the information that he had undertaken to provide at
the hearing, namely, a list of his companies ; and
- secondly, that in failing to corroborate his claim that his
companies made substantial financial contributions to Mr Windsor's political
campaigns, a claim denied by Mr Windsor and his campaign chairman, Mr Stephen
Hall, and unable to be substantiated by the AEC, Mr Maguire knowingly gave
false or misleading evidence to the Finance and Public Administration
References Committee.
Conduct of the inquiry
6. On 1 March 2007, the Chair of the Privileges
Committee wrote to Mr Maguire enclosing a copy of its terms of reference,
the letter and attachments from Senators Forshaw and Murray raising the matter
of privilege with the President, and information about its procedures. The
letter sought Mr Maguire's response by no later than 4 May 2007 to the terms of reference.
7. On the same day, the Chair also wrote to the then
Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Senator Mason, seeking
copies or records of all previous communications between Mr Maguire and the
committee (or its predecessor), together with any response the committee wished
to make to the terms of reference.
8. The Privileges Committee has had considerable
experience inquiring into cases of possible false or misleading evidence before
committees. A summary of its findings in these cases and of its approach to
contempt inquiries in general may be found in its most recent overview report
which covers the period 1966 to December 2005. The overview report also confirms,
however, that the committee has not had occasion to investigate a case of
improper refusal to provide information to a committee. The committee therefore
decided to seek advice from the Clerk of the Senate on certain factors that
might affect the committee's determination of whether an action may constitute
contempt. The Clerk's advice was provided on 12 March 2007.
9. The Secretary of the Finance and Public
Administration Committee responded on behalf of the committee on 29 March 2007, enclosing documents which that committee had authorised for release in
response to the Privileges Committee's request and indicating that the
committee had decided not to provide written comments.
10. Mr Maguire did not meet the committee's deadline
of 4 May 2007, but was allowed an extension of time until 12 June 2007 and a response from a firm of Tamworth solicitors acting on his behalf was received on 7 June 2007. In accordance with its usual practice, the committee provided a copy of the
solicitor's response in confidence to Senators Forshaw and Murray for any
response they wished to make. Similarly, a copy of the senators' joint
response, received on 21 June 2007, was provided in confidence to Mr Maguire
for any comment he wished to make by 13 July 2007. The committee also provided Mr
Maguire with a final opportunity to honour his initial undertaking to the
Finance and Public Administration References Committee to provide the list of
companies he owned that he claimed had made financial donations to the various
election campaigns of Mr Tony Windsor MP.
11. A response from Mr Maguire's solicitors was
received on 11 July 2007, but the requested list of companies was not provided.
12. The committee initially received all documents in
camera, but in accordance with its usual practice, reserved the right to
publish them at a later stage of the inquiry and does so now in the form of
attachments to this report.[5]
Consideration of issues
13. Paragraph (12) of Senate Privilege Resolution 6
sets out relevant matters which the Senate may treat as contempts:
A witness before the Senate or a committee shall
not:
...
(b) without
reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness
when required to do so; or
(c) give
any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material
particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be
true or substantially true in every material particular.
Possible false or misleading evidence
14. In raising the matter of privilege, Senators
Forshaw and Murray were concerned that Mr Maguire may have given false or
misleading evidence to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee
by claiming that his companies had made contributions to the state and federal
election campaigns of Mr Tony Windsor MP. This claim was contradicted in later
evidence to the committee by Mr Windsor and, separately, by his campaign
chairman, Mr Stephen Hall, both of whom denied that any such contributions had
been made. The committee reported on its concern at Mr Maguire's evasiveness,
and that serious doubts had been raised about the veracity of his evidence. At
a subsequent estimates hearing by that committee's successor, witnesses from
the AEC testified that they could find no evidence apart from the information before
the committee (which was covered by parliamentary privilege) to substantiate
the claim. A prosecution was therefore unlikely.[6]
15. Mr Maguire was given several opportunities by the
Finance and Public Administration References Committee to substantiate his
claims to have supported Mr Windsor's campaign, by providing details of his
companies to the committee in accordance with an undertaking given at a public
hearing on 10 March 2005[7].
He failed to do so. In the absence of that information the references committee
was unable to make a specific finding that Mr Maguire had given false or
misleading evidence to that committee. The matter was followed up by the
successor committee but Mr Maguire continued his silence.
16. Despite two further opportunities given to him by this
committee, Mr Maguire continues to withhold the information he initially
volunteered. Leaving aside, for the time being, its great concern at Mr Maguire's
conduct, the Privileges Committee therefore finds itself in the same position
as the Finance and Public Administration Committee in being unable to make a
specific finding on whether Mr Maguire gave false or misleading evidence to a
committee. It would be open to the Senate or the Privileges Committee to
conclude, as urged by Senators Forshaw and Murray in their joint response to
the submission from Mr Maguire's solicitors, that Mr Maguire probably gave
false or misleading evidence to the Finance and Public Administration
References Committee. A conclusion of this nature, however, cannot form the
proper basis for a finding of fact or support an assessment of whether an
alleged contempt occurred.
17. It would also be open to the Privileges Committee
to exercise its powers to require Mr Maguire to attend before the committee and
produce the information. This option is considered further in the next section
of the report which deals with improper refusal to provide information to a
committee.
Improper refusal to provide information to a committee
18. The second issue for consideration is whether Mr Maguire
refused, without reasonable excuse, to provide information to the Finance and
Public Administration References Committee and its successor. Documents
received from that committee and published in the appendix to this report show
five attempts by the references committee and its successor to elicit the
promised information from Mr Maguire.[8]
19. At this point, several questions arise in relation
to the allegations against Mr Maguire with reference to paragraph (12)(b)
of Privilege Resolution 6:
- did the committee's numerous requests to Mr Maguire to provide
the information amount to a requirement to do so within the terms of the
resolution?
- was the question which the committee pressed Mr Maguire to answer
a relevant question within the terms of the resolution?
-
if Mr Maguire did refuse to answer a relevant question when
required to do so, was the refusal an improper refusal, or did he have a reasonable
excuse?
Was there a requirement to provide
information?
20. In addressing the first question, the committee
was assisted by advice from the Clerk of the Senate. The committee had sought
the Clerk's advice on whether it should assess the following scenarios
differently:
- a witness gives an undertaking to a committee to provide
information on notice but fails to do so despite several requests;
- a witness fails to produce information to a committee after
having been formally ordered to do so.
The pertinent parts of the Clerk's advice are as follows:
It is clear from this formulation
that the contempt of refusing to answer a question occurs when there has been a
requirement for a witness to do so. In other words, a witness is not guilty of
the contempt unless there has been a requirement to answer a question.
This necessity of a requirement to answer is also made clear by
paragraph (10) of Privilege Resolution 1, which sets out the process to be
followed by a committee when a witness objects to answering a question. Under
that provision, a committee is not to report a witness to the Senate for refusal
to answer a question until the committee has considered the objection and
informed the witness that the committee requires an answer to the question.
It has always been thought that it would not be fair to a
witness to require the witness to answer a question where the witness appears
voluntarily, and that a requirement to answer should be imposed only on a
witness who has been formally summoned to appear. In the past, therefore,
committees have formally summoned witnesses to appear before requiring that they
answer questions, and have made a break in their proceedings for that purpose
where a witness initially appears voluntarily. In effect, that practice is
preserved in paragraph (10) of Privilege Resolution 1, and a witness who, in
accordance with that provision, is recalled and informed of a requirement to
answer is effectively under summons.
There is no prescription in the rules of the Senate of any
particular form of words which must be used by a committee in requiring a
witness to answer a question. The only obligation imposed on a committee by the
Senate’s rules is that the committee must indicate that it requires an answer.
Committees have used various terms to indicate that they require answers to be
provided or information to be supplied.
In that context, and with reference to the first of the two
situations postulated by the Privileges Committee, it may be that repeated
requests from a committee to supply information which a witness, appearing
voluntarily, has undertaken to supply, may be regarded as sufficiently
indicating that the committee has required the witness to respond. This may be
particularly so where the committee has informed a witness of the possible
consequences of a failure to respond, as the Finance and Public Administration
Committee apparently did, according to the letter of Senators Forshaw and Murray
in which they raise the matter now before the Privileges Committee.
Whether the committee sufficiently indicated that it required
the witness to respond is a matter for the Privileges Committee to assess in
the course of its inquiry and in the light of all the facts of the case.
In relation to the second of the two situations postulated by
the Privileges Committee, clearly where a witness has been formally ordered by
a committee to produce information and fails to do so, the primary condition
for the contempt, that is, a requirement by the committee to respond, has been
met.
The Senate’s formulation of this contempt, whereby a requirement
or order to answer is a precondition of the failure to do so being held to be a
contempt, concurs with the traditional understanding of this contempt in both
parliamentary and judicial proceedings.
21. Having considered each of the letters written to Mr
Maguire by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee and its
successor, this committee is satisfied that Mr Maguire can have been in no
doubt that he was required to respond. Letters sent by the committee in August
and September 2005 to follow up two earlier reminders indicate clearly that the
committee required the information, and the second letter informed Mr Maguire
of the possible consequences of his failure to respond. These possible
consequences were explained in more detail in the successor committee's letter
of November 2006 which informed him of its decision to pursue the matter
further in the wake of evidence given by the AEC at an estimates hearing,
referred to previously in paragraphs 4 and 14.
22. The references committee did not issue a formal
subpoena in exercise of its inquiry powers under standing order 24(14), but
there can be no doubt whatsoever, from the number of letters to Mr Maguire, the
language used and the explanation of possible consequences of non-compliance,
that the committee had sufficiently indicated its requirement that Mr Maguire
respond.
Was the
information relevant?
23. With respect to the second question posed in
paragraph 15 in relation to whether the pressed question was a relevant
question for the purpose of the contempt as formulated in paragraph (12)(b) of
Privilege Resolution 6, the committee notes the advice of the Clerk of the
Senate, as follows:
The Senate’s formulation of the
contempt also raises the issue of whether a question which a witness has been
required to answer was a relevant question. This is also in accordance with
the traditional understanding of this contempt.
It appears from the letter of the
senators raising the matter of privilege that the Finance and Public
Administration Committee determined that the information it sought from the
witness was relevant to the committee’s inquiry. Considerable weight attaches
to that committee’s conclusion. It would be open to the Privileges Committee,
however, to make its own assessment of the relevance of the information in
determining whether a contempt was committed, as the commission of the contempt
depends on the relevance of the information sought.
24. The committee received widely divergent
submissions on this point from Senators Forshaw and Murray on the one hand, and
Mr Maguire's solicitors on the other. The latter argued that the issue of Mr
Maguire's contributions to Mr Windsor's past election campaigns was "quite
peripheral" to the regional partnerships inquiry (and that, therefore,
failure to resolve it could not constitute interference with the proper
exercise by the Finance and Public Administration Committee of its functions,
given that the committee had been able to finalise its report without the
information). Senators Forshaw and Murray, in response, argued that Mr Maguire
was a necessary witness and his evidence was directly relevant to the
committee's examination of a particular regional partnerships program grant,
for the proposed Australian Equine and Livestock Centre in Tamworth:
In his detailed opening statement and
during evidence Mr Maguire vigorously claimed that statements made and evidence
given by the Member for New England, Mr Windsor MP, were misleading and
untrue. Mr Maguire directly challenged Mr Windsor's honesty and his
credibility as a witness. Mr Maguire also specifically stated that he and his
companies had "...made substantial financial contributions to his [i.e.
Mr Windsor's] political campaigns over the years."
It was therefore very relevant to the
Committee's inquiry that this particular project, where political interference
had been alleged and the honesty of Mr Windsor's evidence questioned, for the
Committee to seek documentary evidence of Mr Maguire's claims of financial
support to Mr Windsor. It was relevant to test the truth of Mr Maguire's claim
given that no record of such donations had been identified on the AEC register
of declarations.[9]
While it may be open to the Privileges Committee to make its
own assessment of relevance, the committee has found no reason to dispute the
assessment of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and its
predecessor in deciding to pursue the information and that of Senators Forshaw
and Murray in raising Mr Maguire's failure to supply it as a matter of
privilege. This committee accepts that the information sought was relevant to
the committee's inquiry and that the committee was entirely within its powers
to follow up the non-provision of the information. Moreover, it had a duty to
do so, notwithstanding that the committee had presented its report on the
regional partnership program, in order to protect the integrity of its
proceedings.
Did Mr Maguire have a reasonable
excuse not to respond?
25.
Although the terms of reference for the inquiry refer to an improper
refusal to provide information, the committee has taken this to mean, in the
terms of paragraph (12)(b) of Resolution 6, that the refusal was without
reasonable excuse.
26.
From March 2005, when Mr Maguire first agreed to provide the Finance and
Public Administration Committee with a list of his companies, until December
2006, when Senators Forshaw and Murray, members of both the former and
successor committees, raised this matter of privilege, Mr Maguire had provided
no explanation at all for his extraordinary conduct to either the references
committee or its successor. Apart from a single letter to the committee dated 23 March 2005 in which Mr Maguire reiterated that he had provided financial support to Mr Windsor,
details of which both Mr Windsor and his campaign manager, were "fully
aware", Mr Maguire remained silent. [10]
27.
As has been noted above, the AEC reported back to the committee on the
outcome of its investigation into possible breaches of the electoral law by Mr Maguire
at the estimates hearings on 31 October 2006. It was after this last occasion
that the Finance and Public Administration Committee wrote its final letter to Mr
Maguire in which it mentioned that the AEC's inquiry had been inconclusive.
28.
Mr Maguire's solicitors argued that the decision of the Finance and
Public Administration Committee to refer matters to the AEC should have been
the end of the matter and that any further pressing of the issue was either
beyond the committee's powers or, if not beyond its powers, beyond the
"proper and efficacious use of those powers". A possible breach of the
electoral laws was "not properly a matter for the committee in the context
of the inquiry that it was undertaking" and having been informed that the
committee had referred the matter to the AEC, Mr Maguire was entitled to
consider that he was not required to "expose himself...to the 'double jeopardy'
of further investigation by the committee".
29.
In this committee's view, this conclusion and the reasoning used to
reach it are unsound. The references committee was not inquiring into a possible
breach of the electoral laws. It was taking steps to ensure that Mr Maguire did
not find himself in contempt in relation to the evidence he gave to the
committee or to the evidence he offered, but ultimately refused to provide. These
are distinct matters, but even if they were not, there is nothing to prevent
proceedings for contempt being taken before, during or after criminal
proceedings for the same acts. There is no protection against double jeopardy
for an act that may be dealt with both as an offence and as a contempt,
although it is extremely unlikely that this would occur in practice and it has
not happened in Australia.[11]
30.
It is plausible that Mr Maguire believed, and his legal advisers
encouraged or supported his belief, that the committee's referral of the matter
to the AEC superseded its requirement that he produce information to the
committee; or that because the committee had presented its report, it had no
ongoing obligation to defend the integrity of its proceedings. Both
assumptions, however, are wrong.
31.
The committee has noted the circumstances in which Mr Maguire became
involved in the regional partnerships inquiry. In November 2004 Mr Maguire was
named by Mr Windsor in the House of Representatives as the person who allegedly
conveyed to Mr Windsor, on behalf on senior figures in The Nationals, an offer
of a government appointment in return for his withdrawal as a candidate for
federal Parliament. Mr Windsor's submissions and evidence to the regional
partnerships inquiry traversed this material and its connection with the
Australian Equine and Livestock Centre at Tamworth, a project which he alleged
was tainted by political interference. The references committee then provided
this evidence to Mr Maguire for his response in accordance with the adverse
reflection procedures in paragraphs (11) to (13) of Privilege Resolution 1
which provides for the protection of witnesses appearing before Senate
committees. Mr Maguire was therefore drawn into the inquiry because the
committee invited him to respond to adverse comments made by other witnesses,
not because he chose to make a submission in the first place.
32. Mr Maguire's solicitors have provided this
committee with accounts of the unwelcome media attention Mr Maguire and his
family received after he gave evidence to the inquiry. According to their first
response made on his behalf:
8. Our client notes that since giving
evidence he has been the subject of media comments and speculation on a number
of occasions, such as reports often relying upon comments provided by the
Member for New England.
In a relatively small community such
as Tamworth this adverse comment and speculation has been damaging to our
client and his family and, in consequence, our client has been reluctant to
further expose himself or offers to what could best be described as "trial
by media".
It has particularly been this factor
which has impacted upon our client's actions since he gave evidence in March
2005.[12]
33. These observations were reiterated in the second
response made on Mr Maguire's behalf:
...he has been the subject of repeated
media comment and indeed as late as June of this year has been the subject of
an article in the electorate newsletter of the Member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor.
This newsletter we understand was distributed to all private letter boxes
throughout the New England electorate.
In that newsletter Mr Windsor MP,
amongst other things quotes from a previous letter written by Senators Forshaw
and Murray.
Our client wishes to emphasise that
whilst he wishes no disrespect to the Senate, or indeed any of its committees,
it appears that anything he now does or any information he supplies, will lead
to further attacks on him by the Member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor. Our
client believes he has no appropriate avenue to seek redress to these attacks,
which are particularly damaging to his business and personal reputation. Of
equal concern is the impact that this continued publicity has upon his wife and
children.[13]
34.
While condemning Mr Maguire's cavalier attitude to the inquiry, this
committee acknowledges the invidious position he found himself in. It notes
that the entirely proper and appropriate actions of the references committee in
applying procedures for the protection of witnesses, by inviting Mr Maguire to
respond to adverse evidence from Mr Windsor and Mr Hall, may have had the
unintended effect of ensuring that an issue of intensely partisan local
political interest continued to receive attention in the federal Parliament,
thereby prolonging the normal duration of media attention such parochial episodes
usually attract. The inquiry by this committee may have had a similar effect. Neither
inquiry created the media interest. This was generated by Mr Windsor's
revelations in the House of Representatives in November 2004. Nonetheless, Mr Maguire
may have felt unprepared for the media storm and, as a result, decided, very
unwisely in this committee's view, to ignore the references committee's demands
of him in the hope that the problem would go away. The committee notes that Mr Maguire
appears to have taken legal advice throughout his period of contact with Senate
committees.
Use of coercive powers to require
the production of information
35.
In paragraph 17, the committee referred to the possible use of its
coercive powers to require Mr Maguire to attend before it and produce
information, as an alternative to the unsatisfactory finding that Mr Maguire probably
gave false or misleading evidence to the references committee.
36.
There is a significant difficulty facing the committee in taking this
aspect of the inquiry further. In order to make a finding whether false or
misleading evidence was given, the committee would need to obtain from Mr
Maguire not only the list of the companies he owned at the relevant time, but
also evidence that any of those companies had indeed made financial
contributions to Mr Windsor's election campaigns. The committee would need to
hold a hearing to question Mr Maguire about that evidence. The committee would
also need to address Mr Windsor's direct contradiction, in further submissions
to the regional partnerships inquiry, of Mr Maguire's claims. This would
inevitably involve the committee examining Mr Windsor's evidence.
37.
Mr Windsor is a member of the House of Representatives. He was
previously a member of the NSW Legislative Assembly. As a member of a House of
Parliament, he enjoys all the immunities of that House. It is a well
established rule that one House may not inquire into or adjudge the conduct of
a member of another House.[14]
Any attendance by Mr Windsor at a hearing of this committee would need to be
authorised by the House of Representatives in response to a formal request from
the Senate by message under standing order 178. Authorisation by the House of
Representatives for Mr Windsor's attendance would not, however, suspend the operation
of the rule. The rule would also prevent any cross-examination of Mr Windsor by
Mr Maguire or his counsel in accordance with the procedures under Privilege
Resolution 2 for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee.
In exercising its coercive powers to require Mr Maguire to attend a hearing and
produce documents, the committee could not therefore ensure that he received
procedural fairness because of the immunity enjoyed by Mr Windsor. The
committee does not intend that any adverse inferences be drawn about Mr Windsor's
evidence or conduct from its inability to examine his evidence. It is a
necessary effect of the rule of comity between the Houses that Mr Windsor's
role cannot be examined and this, in the committee's view, is an insuperable
barrier to reaching a definite finding.
Observations
38.
Senate committees rely on the willingness of witnesses from all sections
of the community to provide their knowledge, expertise and experiences. The
credibility of committees' conclusions and recommendations and the value of
their reports rely in large part on the truthfulness and sincerity of witnesses
and their testimony. Consequently, any conduct by a witness that undermines the
integrity or credibility of the committee inquiry process may be conduct that
amounts to, or is likely to amount to, an improper interference with a
committee's exercise of its authority or performance of its functions.
39.
This has been one of the more unsatisfactory inquiries of the committee.
Conduct by a witness that would normally warrant the most serious criticism
will remain unaddressed because jurisdictional issues prevent a full
examination by the committee of all the circumstances. In other circumstances,
a finding of contempt against Mr Maguire would appear to be almost a foregone
conclusion. As a result of his conduct, Mr Maguire emerges from both this
committee's inquiry and that of the former Finance and Public Administration
References Committee with little credibility. Mr Maguire has suffered the
embarrassment of national and local media attention and possible local
notoriety as a person who is willing to make allegations under parliamentary
privilege, but not willing or able to substantiate them.
Conclusion
40.
In respect of whether any false or misleading evidence was given by Mr
Maguire to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, the
committee is unable to make a specific finding in the absence of the relevant
information, but recommends that the Senate accepts that the matter is
not amenable to further pursuit by means of the exercise of formal inquiry
powers against Mr Maguire.
41.
In respect of whether there was any improper refusal to provide
information to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee and
its successor, the committee finds that Mr Maguire did refuse to provide
information, but that given the committee's inability to examine all the
circumstances, no contempt can be found.
John Faulkner
Chair
Navigation: Contents