A threat of legal action against a Labor MP, made by a business associate of the former Liberal minister Stuart Robert, will be assessed by the powerful privileges committee to see whether or not it could amount to a contempt of parliament.
The committee will review the claim after parliament referred the complaint from Labor’s Julian Hill.
Hill revealed in parliament on Monday he had received a concerns notice from the lawyers of businessman John Margerison, an associate of Robert, the former member for Fadden.
The notice foreshadowed possible defamation action over a media release issued by the audit committee, which Hill had previously chaired, and several social media posts.
Hill told parliament: “The notice raises concerns about a number of publications, including an official media release published by the parliament of Australia pursuant to a resolution of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the JCPAA, and a video of me answering a question in question time. The notice asks me to retract the publications referred to, including the official media release of the JCPAA, and apologise to Mr Margerison, failing which I can anticipate court proceedings will be filed against me.”
In parliament, Hill argued the material in question was likely to be covered by parliamentary privilege. Therefore, he said, the threat may constitute a contempt of parliament “by way of improper interference with the free exercise” of his duties as an MP and the committee’s work.
In April, Margerison was due to appear in front of the audit committee, which was investigating procurement at Services Australia and the National Disability Insurance Agency. Margerison’s lawyers said at the time that he could not appear because he no longer lived in the country and had “severed all ties” with Australia.
On Monday Hill tabled the media release and other publications Margerison had complained about. Multiple Facebook posts were tabled, including Hill querying “where can he be” and suggesting there were “serious questions” to be answered. A Twitter post, asking “do you or anyone know where Stuart Robert’s mate John Margerison is”, was also included.
On Wednesday the speaker, Milton Dick, told the House of Representatives it was unclear if the social media posts were protected by privilege. But he said “a properly authorised media release by a parliamentary committee could reasonably be considered to be part of the committee’s business, and therefore be considered proceedings in parliament”.
“Threatening a member with legal action, at least partly on the basis of the business of a parliamentary committee in the publishing of an authorised media release could … be classified as a contempt,” he said.
Dick concluded there was a “prima facie case” that threatening legal action in relation to the media release may constitute a contempt of parliament.
Dick granted precedence to a motion to refer the issue to the privileges committee, but noted this “does not imply a conclusion” that a breach of privilege or contempt had occurred.
Hill, promoted to assistant minister for citizenship and multicultural affairs in July’s reshuffle, then put a motion to refer the matter to the privileges committee to express a view on whether a court case could be pursued “without breaching parliamentary privilege”.
He also asked it to consider whether the threat of legal action might “set a precedent if not addressed by the house”. The motion passed.
Last year the audit committee heard allegations that lobbying firm Synergy 360 proposed a structure that would benefit Robert financially, including a plan to transfer shares to United Marketing, a company controlled by Margerison.
Robert has rejected the allegation “in the strongest possible terms” and said there was “zero evidence” for it. He said he had “never part-owned any company that ever received anything from Synergy 360”. He has denied any wrongdoing and said that departmental procurement was conducted with the “highest levels of probity”. Lawyers representing Robert have described the release of the allegations as “egregious” and an “abuse of privilege”.
In September the audit committee recommended the matter be referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for their consideration. At that time, Hill noted that Robert, “his longtime friend, business partner and political fundraiser” Margerison and others “strongly deny any improper conduct”.
The Nacc has not made any public comment on the referrals.
Addressing the house, Hill explained he was authorised to issue media statements in relation to Hill and Margerison and all other inquiries.
“The long-established practice of parliamentary committees is that public communication in relation to inquiries is part of the responsibility of any chair of a committee. This ordinarily includes media releases, media interviews and media comment addressing issues in the house, complemented these days by social media.”
He told parliament he was taking the concerns notice “seriously” and was consulting with his lawyers. He said he was obliged to raise the matter of privilege in advance of responding to the concerns notice, “as the standing orders require me to do so at the first available opportunity”.
“The protection of privilege is provided to much or all of the material Mr Margerison’s lawyers referred to, and precludes this material being able to be used as evidence – or, frankly, misused in defamation proceedings,” he said.
He claimed the precedent of the threat of legal action set was problematic.
“If the house does not firmly assert and protect privilege in these circumstances, this sort of threat may have a chilling effect if lawyers around the country advise their clients that the threat of legal action will curtail the ability of members of the House – and especially committee chairs – from doing their jobs in the future.”
