Extract from The Guardian
Parliamentary committee hearings often get heated.
Politicians, from all parties, have made names for themselves with sharp and persistent questions that expose important information or embarrassing facts, or sometimes just provide a look-at-me shouty grab for the evening news.
In the 1990s, the then senator Bronwyn Bishop shot to public prominence with her combative questioning of the then tax commissioner Trevor Boucher in the joint committee on public accounts, accusing him – among other things – of bankrupting the tax office. Labor senators John Faulkner and Robert Ray were the bane of the public service with clinically calm forensic questioning that often lasted late into the night.
Sometimes the witnesses came off best – most famously when the late Kerry Packer fronted the print media inquiry. He introduced himself as “Kerry Francis Bullmore Packer. I appear here this afternoon reluctantly” and after much interrupting and table thumping left having stared down or batted back every question.
But the Queensland Liberal National party senator Ian Macdonald has perfected a whole new Senate committee style, sometimes in tandem with a couple of colleagues – highly disrespectful questioning that almost never elicits significant information.
Macdonald, you may recall, was the chair of the Senate estimates committee when it took evidence from the Human Rights Commission president, Gillian Triggs, last year at a time when the government was alleging she was biased and pressuring her to resign.
Presumably his job back then – in the nine-hour grilling – was to force the leading international and human rights lawyer to provide some evidence to back the government’s claim that the HRC’s “Forgotten Children” report on children in immigration detention was biased.
Instead, the hearing is remembered for Macdonald’s admission that he had not even read the report because he did not want to “waste my time on a report which was clearly partisan”, which does seem to prejudge the question.
He also got to express his deep concern about the title. “With so much time and money being spent on children’s welfare, how can anyone call them forgotten children?” he complained, rhetorically.
Triggs kept her cool throughout the highly combative questioning and will see out her five-year term as HRC president next year.
Macdonald rejected the outcry about what was widely viewed as hectoring with a rambling statement insisting the report he had not read was inaccurate.
“Thanks to all of those who have kindly (and not so kindly – they are the majority and are all Labor/Greens staffers, union heavies and staff and good old GetUp and old leftie journalists) – made media and social media comment on recent media reports on the Senate estimate committee on Professor Triggs and the partisan-ly titled report on children in detention, Forgotten Children.
“If any of those who have abused me for not reading this partisan, inaccurate report had themselves bothered to read the facts on children in detention from any number of estimates on immigration – which sadly the Human Rights Commission [AHRC] itself didn’t bother to read – then they may have not been so quick to rush to social media,” he said.
On Friday, Macdonald engaged in a similar performance with another highly respected lawyer and statutory office holder – the solicitor general, Justin Gleeson, who is locked in a very public argument with the attorney general, George Brandis.
The argument centres on a directive from Brandis to Gleeson that says no one in government, including the prime minister, can seek Gleeson’s advice without the attorney general’s permission. Gleeson says he considers the directive unlawful. His predecessor as solicitor general, Gavan Griffiths, says it is akin to treating the solicitor general as a “dog on a lead”. Brandis says it did not constrain Gleeson in any additional way.
There is also a related stoush over whether Brandis misled the parliament on the issue with a claim that he had consulted Gleeson over the directive, a disagreement which Brandis says rests entirely on the Oxford dictionary meaning of the word “consult” and Gleeson says hinges on the fact that the specific new directive was not discussed, something Brandis now concedes.
Despite their very public and vehement differences of opinion, Brandis and Gleeson got through their Senate committee appearances without making any nasty personal criticism of each other.
There was plenty of disagreement about the substantive matters – Gleeson regarding the directive, and Brandis of the fact that Gleeson had taken a phone call during the election campaign from the shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus where it was discussed.
And while the politeness was sometimes through gritted teeth, the first and second law offices of the land quite properly refrained from an all-in slanging match.
Not so Macdonald, who persistently interrupted Gleeson and at one point interjected: “If you want to get into the political game, join the parliament” – a statement he was quickly forced to retract.
When the chair, Labor’s Louise Pratt, tried to call him into line, he again stunned those listening.
“Senator Macdonald. Pause for a moment. I need to remind you of privilege resolution one. Your dealings with witnesses need to be conducted with respect and courtesy, “ Pratt said.
“I always give witnesses the respect they deserve, madam chair,” Macdonald replied.
Quite apart from the fact that his treatment of Gleeson was highly inappropriate, if he paid any attention to the history of Senate committees, Macdonald would quickly learn that tough but respectful questioning usually gets better results.
Politicians, from all parties, have made names for themselves with sharp and persistent questions that expose important information or embarrassing facts, or sometimes just provide a look-at-me shouty grab for the evening news.
In the 1990s, the then senator Bronwyn Bishop shot to public prominence with her combative questioning of the then tax commissioner Trevor Boucher in the joint committee on public accounts, accusing him – among other things – of bankrupting the tax office. Labor senators John Faulkner and Robert Ray were the bane of the public service with clinically calm forensic questioning that often lasted late into the night.
Sometimes the witnesses came off best – most famously when the late Kerry Packer fronted the print media inquiry. He introduced himself as “Kerry Francis Bullmore Packer. I appear here this afternoon reluctantly” and after much interrupting and table thumping left having stared down or batted back every question.
But the Queensland Liberal National party senator Ian Macdonald has perfected a whole new Senate committee style, sometimes in tandem with a couple of colleagues – highly disrespectful questioning that almost never elicits significant information.
Macdonald, you may recall, was the chair of the Senate estimates committee when it took evidence from the Human Rights Commission president, Gillian Triggs, last year at a time when the government was alleging she was biased and pressuring her to resign.
Presumably his job back then – in the nine-hour grilling – was to force the leading international and human rights lawyer to provide some evidence to back the government’s claim that the HRC’s “Forgotten Children” report on children in immigration detention was biased.
Instead, the hearing is remembered for Macdonald’s admission that he had not even read the report because he did not want to “waste my time on a report which was clearly partisan”, which does seem to prejudge the question.
He also got to express his deep concern about the title. “With so much time and money being spent on children’s welfare, how can anyone call them forgotten children?” he complained, rhetorically.
Triggs kept her cool throughout the highly combative questioning and will see out her five-year term as HRC president next year.
Macdonald rejected the outcry about what was widely viewed as hectoring with a rambling statement insisting the report he had not read was inaccurate.
“Thanks to all of those who have kindly (and not so kindly – they are the majority and are all Labor/Greens staffers, union heavies and staff and good old GetUp and old leftie journalists) – made media and social media comment on recent media reports on the Senate estimate committee on Professor Triggs and the partisan-ly titled report on children in detention, Forgotten Children.
“If any of those who have abused me for not reading this partisan, inaccurate report had themselves bothered to read the facts on children in detention from any number of estimates on immigration – which sadly the Human Rights Commission [AHRC] itself didn’t bother to read – then they may have not been so quick to rush to social media,” he said.
On Friday, Macdonald engaged in a similar performance with another highly respected lawyer and statutory office holder – the solicitor general, Justin Gleeson, who is locked in a very public argument with the attorney general, George Brandis.
The argument centres on a directive from Brandis to Gleeson that says no one in government, including the prime minister, can seek Gleeson’s advice without the attorney general’s permission. Gleeson says he considers the directive unlawful. His predecessor as solicitor general, Gavan Griffiths, says it is akin to treating the solicitor general as a “dog on a lead”. Brandis says it did not constrain Gleeson in any additional way.
There is also a related stoush over whether Brandis misled the parliament on the issue with a claim that he had consulted Gleeson over the directive, a disagreement which Brandis says rests entirely on the Oxford dictionary meaning of the word “consult” and Gleeson says hinges on the fact that the specific new directive was not discussed, something Brandis now concedes.
Despite their very public and vehement differences of opinion, Brandis and Gleeson got through their Senate committee appearances without making any nasty personal criticism of each other.
There was plenty of disagreement about the substantive matters – Gleeson regarding the directive, and Brandis of the fact that Gleeson had taken a phone call during the election campaign from the shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus where it was discussed.
And while the politeness was sometimes through gritted teeth, the first and second law offices of the land quite properly refrained from an all-in slanging match.
Not so Macdonald, who persistently interrupted Gleeson and at one point interjected: “If you want to get into the political game, join the parliament” – a statement he was quickly forced to retract.
When the chair, Labor’s Louise Pratt, tried to call him into line, he again stunned those listening.
“Senator Macdonald. Pause for a moment. I need to remind you of privilege resolution one. Your dealings with witnesses need to be conducted with respect and courtesy, “ Pratt said.
“I always give witnesses the respect they deserve, madam chair,” Macdonald replied.
Quite apart from the fact that his treatment of Gleeson was highly inappropriate, if he paid any attention to the history of Senate committees, Macdonald would quickly learn that tough but respectful questioning usually gets better results.
No comments:
Post a Comment