Joe O'Toole (Independent)

On the Order of Business yesterday I noted how important it is for Senators to deal with the process of impeachment and for us to have clarification on the Government's thinking on the issue. I noted that the Government must also recognise that Members of this House must have an input. I express my appreciation to the Leader for setting up a meeting with the Attorney General to clarify some of these issues. While that is very useful and may move the issue forward, this House is required under the Constitution, the same one which gives us the power of impeachment, to order its own business. There is no precedent in this area. It is inappropriate and quite unacceptable for the Government, which under the Constitution has no part in the impeachment process, to establish the procedures by which we would conduct our business in this House. The Government might well have views on that, but it is reasonable that those views should come through the Government parties in the House.

We need a discussion, which will not deal with the individual case, on how the matter is to be handled. Before we begin, we must know how we will proceed. I have looked closely at how such a matter was dealt with in the Indian Parliament more than ten years ago. I will not go into the details, but it became an extraordinary mess.

Yesterday I suggested a discussion with the Attorney General in order to clarify matters. Subsequently I want this House to ask how it should deal with the issue and advance matters. It may be that the matter must then be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It might be reasonable to suggest that, but it would be unreasonable to ask CPP members to deal with the matter in a vacuum. The views of all Members of this House on this matter are important. We should listen and understand. In a situation such as the one under consideration, what would be the burden of proof? Must it be beyond reasonable doubt, or what? We do not know. There are many issues to be discussed so that people can subsequently say they dealt with the matter as honestly and openly as possible, and then came to certain conclusions. People might criticise our conclusions but at least we could then show that we did our business honourably, dutifully, responsibly and in terms of procedure, correctly. At that stage someone might want to test the procedure or process in the High Court or the Supreme Court. If so, so be it, but we will know that we are safe in entering such a situation. If we proceed otherwise, the process might then be challenged in 20 different venues and we would be left in this House waiting for the outcome.

We must deal with this matter on an all-party basis, with every Member having an equal voice. I would be horrified to think the Government would attempt to advance this matter by itself. That would be wrong and unacceptable and would put many of us offside on the issue, whatever the critical issue might be.