After reading the documents it's hard not to think of this as a political conspiracy

ABC TV 7.30 Report 26 July 2012:

There’s mounting evidence of a concerted plot against Peter Slipper in the form of hundreds of pages of fresh evidence filed with the Federal Court based on emails and text messages between the key players. There've always been questions about whether the claims by Mr Slipper's accuser, James Ashby, were politically motivated. That's the basis of Peter Slipper's defence in a case that could have serious repercussion for the Federal Parliament. …..

Now in the Federal Court, hundreds of pages of evidence, emails and text messages that reveal a web of planning and prior knowledge by key political figures. The two Slipper staffers, James Ashby and Karen Doane, were in frequent contact with several players before the case blew up. The first is Mal Brough, former federal minister, arch enemy of Peter Slipper, rival for his seat. Karen Doane was seeking his help to line up a job with the new Queensland Government or with the mining magnate Clive Palmer….

Mr Brough also met with James Ashby and had many contacts via text and email. He told him to get a lawyer, a point he's acknowledged publicly….

But it's the effort to expose Mr Slipper's travel records that's one of the most intriguing aspects of the new evidence. Ashby and Doane secretly accessed their boss' diary…..

The diary extracts were sent to the journalist Steve Lewis and to Mal Brough. He replied ... "Can that be emailed, James? It is hard to read."…..

The next figure to emerge is the Queensland Government minister Mark McArdle. He too appeared to have inside knowledge of the Ashby complaint before it went public. He promised to keep it to himself and Ashby kept him in the loop…
JAMES ASHBY...."One day I'll ask you to don a shirt that says 'Vote 1 Ashby'."

On and on the alleged plot wends its way towards eventual publication the mainstream media.

The evidence has been made public by the Federal Court of Australia and can be found at Online file - Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia NSD 580 of 2012.

Australian Federal Election 2016: bolting to the ballot box before arrests are made?

It is looking more and more as if Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to go to the polls early has less to do with so-called Senate obstruction and a lot more to do with a number of allegedly criminal skeletons in Liberal and National Party closets……..

ABC News 29 April 2016:

Australian Federal Police (AFP) have ramped up their investigation into the copying of former speaker Peter Slipper's diary.

The ABC has been told the AFP has made an application to the Federal Court, which, if granted, would allow police to use evidence from an earlier civil case in a criminal prosecution.

That evidence includes text and picture messages exchanged between Mr Slipper's former staffer, James Ashby, and Liberal National Party MP Mal Brough.

Mr Brough is under investigation by the AFP, who executed a search warrant at his Queensland home last year as part of that probe.....

Now the AFP has asked the Federal Court to grant it permission to use the material harvested from Mr Ashby's phone, including excerpts from Mr Slipper's diary sent by Mr Ashby to Mr Brough.

In its application, the AFP has said the messages will be used in the current investigation, and any subsequent prosecution.

Permission is necessary because the exhibits were originally only to be used in the civil case.

Mr Ashby's sexual harassment suit was rejected by a Federal Court judge, who said Mr Ashby had been part of a "combination" including Mr Brough, which had used the legal action as a political weapon against Mr Slipper.

Mr Ashby then appealed and the original judgement was set aside, but Mr Ashby later dropped the case.

However, it subsequently emerged the AFP is investigating whether Mr Brough committed a crime by encouraging Mr Ashby to copy pages of Mr Slipper's diary.

Mr Brough stood down from his role of Special Minister of State in December, saying he would not contest the upcoming federal election.

Is Pauline Hanson failing to fully comply with state and federal electoral laws - again?

It almost beggars belief. Is Pauline Hanson failing to fully comply with state and federal electoral laws – again?

ABC News PHOTO: Pauline Hanson stands in front of the plane that former One Nation members say Bill McNee funded. (Supplied: One Nation)

The Saturday Paper, 29 April-5 May 2017:

One Nation risks deregistration in Queensland following the failure of Pauline Hanson to advise the Electoral Commission of Queensland about a botched incorporation that has left it with a noncompliant constitution. The party secretly switched legal structures last November without telling members, using a draconian clause in its superseded governance rules that allowed One Nation state executive members to do whatever they chose without question. Former insiders have said a principal purpose for the incorporation was to put in place a corporate veil so the entity rather than members of the executive would be the subject of legal action.

The method of incorporation and the failure to consult is consistent with a trend of centralising all of One Nation’s power in Queensland, which has in the past been illustrated by attempts to close branches across the country through the use of proxies to forcibly remove “troublesome” state leaders, attempts to close bank accounts over which the One Nation national committee had no authority, and the initiation of complaints to police to intimidate a sub-branch in the Northern Territory.

At the same time, the party neglected to observe mandatory rules contained in Commonwealth and Queensland electoral laws, which must be included in its constitution for One Nation to be a political party with legal standing. Breaches of provisions that specify which clauses must appear for a constitution to be compliant under law are grounds for the cancellation of a party’s registration under Section 78 of Queensland’s Electoral Act.

Neither Senator Hanson nor the deputy registered officer – party treasurer and Hanson’s brother-in-law Greg Smith – informed the electoral commission of the changes in legal structure of the entity. There were two reporting deadlines missed by One Nation – notification of the changes should have been delivered seven days after December 31 and March 31. 

News of One Nation’s constitutional high jinks follows revelations over the past six months related to the party’s preselection and disendorsement processes during the West Australian election, questions about its compliance with goods and services tax legislation, and doubts about the donation and declaration of an aeroplane to Pauline Hanson for campaigning purposes.

It also follows a network-wide ban of the ABC, announced in a Facebook video posted by Hanson after the April 3 airing of a Four Corners report that highlighted a range of issues faced by One Nation. The program, criticised by Hanson and her colleagues as a media “stitch-up”, has resulted in a formal investigation by the Australian Electoral Commission, related to the donation of the two-seater plane.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is the business name of One Nation Queensland Division Incorporated, which was an unincorporated association since it registered on January 23, 2001. That changed last year when the entity was incorporated with the same ABN. 

The entity is regarded as the same for tax purposes and the name of the unincorporated body has transitioned into the incorporated form……

Crikey.com.au, 5 April 2017:

And that’s where the law comes in. The facts as we know them are that Ashby has a plane, in which he flies Hanson around the country on what is clearly One Nation business. Hanson herself has made numerous public statements, including on the party website, asserting that the plane belongs to One Nation. It is literally plastered with her name and face.

One Nation is a registered political party. The Commonwealth Electoral Act requires each party, and each of its state branches, to lodge an annual return with the Australian Electoral Commission, within 16 weeks after the end of each financial year. The annual return must include disclosure of all amounts received by, or on behalf of, the party from any single source totalling more than $13,000 (for the 2015-2016 year).

Donations are expressly defined as including the value of a gift. There is no room for doubt that, if a generous supporter gave an aeroplane to an official of the party, so that that official could fly the leader of the party around the countryside on party business, then the gift of the plane (or the cash to buy the plane, if that’s what happened) would be required to be disclosed in the party’s next annual return to the AEC.

Queensland has its own political donation disclosure laws, which are tougher than the federal regime. Returns are required to be lodged six-monthly, all gifts over $1000 must be disclosed, and any gift worth more than $100,000 has to be reported within seven business days.

One Nation’s Queensland Electoral Commission return for the relevant period in 2016 discloses nothing about the aircraft purchase or gift, but it does include an expenditure item of $1187.09 paid by the party to “Jabiru Aircraft Service”. There are numerous payments to Ashby’s companies for printing services, totalling some $17,000 in the same period. Who was paying for the running costs of the aircraft is a mystery.

But it’s pretty simple, really. Whoever paid for Hanson’s plane — however they paid for it and who legally or beneficially owns it — it was, in form and substance, a gift to the direct benefit of her eponymous political party, and she has treated it and talked about it as exactly that for the past two years…..

The Australian, 2 May 2017:

One Nation’s Senator Hanson shifted her story again on Monday night and said a $106,000 plane “came from” party donor Vicland’s Bill McNee to be used by her chief of staff James Ashby, but it was not a donation.

“So the plane came from Bill McNee, but it was not for the party it was to James for his business?” Sky News’ Andrew Bolt asked.

“Correct,” she answered……

Last night Senator Hanson said the Victorian businessman had allowed Mr Ashby to use the plane.

“He didn’t donate the plane to James Ashby. Having met James, they became friends,” Senator Hanson told Sky News.

“Bill’s a developer and he actually has a lot of business that he does in Queensland, and Bill was continually looking around for a plane.

“He found out James was a pilot (and) he thought: “Here’s a great opportunity to actually have a plane and to actually ¬use it as well.’ ”

The Australian, 3 May 2017:

Pauline Hanson’s controversial chief of staff says he has a “crossover” business relationship with the Melbourne property developer and political donor at the centre of a disclosure row over the purchase of the light plane used by the One Nation leader for election campaigning.

But James Ashby, whose iron-fisted control of Senator Hanson’s office has created ructions inside the party, insisted yesterday that he bought the $106,000 Jabiru 23-D aircraft in 2015 for recreational use and for his printing business in Queensland.

Senator Hanson raised further questions about the status of the plane on Monday when she confirmed on Sky News it had “come from” Bill McNee, but was for Mr Ashby’s firm, not her travel for One Nation.

This conflicts with the media-shy businessman’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the aircraft or how Mr Ashby acquired it. Mr McNee’s company, Vicland, is the Hanson party’s biggest donor, though in a rare interview last November he told The Australian he was stopping all political donations because “it’s something I don’t believe in any longer”.

Pressed on whether he had provided funds to Mr Ashby to buy the plane two years ago, Mr McNee said: “My God, if I am going to buy a plane, I would buy one for myself.” He hung up when contacted yesterday.

The Australian Electoral Commission is investigating whether the acquisition of the plane by Mr Ashby and its use to fly Senator Hanson to campaign events in Queensland before her re-election to federal parliament last July subverted financial disclosure laws.

BACKGROUND

The Guardian, 20 August 2003:

The fiery redhead, renowned for her garish wardrobe, had pleaded not guilty to fraudulently registering One Nation in the state of Queensland. She also denied dishonestly obtaining A$500,000 (£206,000) in electoral funds used for the campaigns of 11 politicians elected to the Queensland state parliament….

Prosecutors had accused Hanson and Ettridge of passing off a list of 500 supporters as genuine, paid-up members of One Nation in order to register the party and apply for electoral funding.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 August 2003:

Former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and party co-founder David Ettridge have been jailed for three years each after being found guilty of fraud charges by a Brisbane District Court jury.

Judge Patsy Wolfe made no recommendation for parole.

           

Hanson, 49, and Ettridge, 58, had pleaded not guilty to fraudulently registering One Nation in Queensland on December 4, 1997.

Hanson had also pleaded not guilty to dishonestly obtaining almost $500,000 in electoral reimbursements after the 1998 state election.

But a Brisbane District Court jury found the pair guilty on all counts after more than nine hours of deliberations.

ABC Radio, PM, 6 November 2003:

MARK COLVIN: But first, the freeing of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge. The One Nation co-founders have won their bid to get out of jail, after successfully overturning their convictions and their three-year sentences for electoral fraud.

Eleven weeks ago, Hanson and Ettridge were both sentenced to three years jail, after a jury found that they'd fraudulently registered the One Nation Party which they'd founded. Hanson was also found guilty of fraudulently obtaining nearly half a million dollars in electoral funding.

But they'll soon be released from jail, and family and friends were elated by the decision when it came down at Queensland's Court of Appeal this evening.

What Manager of Opposition Business Christopher Pyne doesn't want canvassed in the Australian House of Representatives

Online file - Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia NSD 580 of 2012

In view of the high number of media requests for file access in this matter, the Court has established an online file on to which publicly accessible material has been placed and will be placed in the future. Consistent with Rule 2.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 restricted documents, such as affidavits and exhibits, only become public once admitted into evidence and approved by the Judge.

Material will be added here as it becomes available.  

Three excerpts from one court document now publicly available:

Ashby: Hmmm interesting. I had no idea of that rule... I bet the likes of Jacki and Bruce McIver have some influence. Jacki is definitely a key player in the party these days. To arrange a lawyer for $1 of that caliber is a big thing in my mind.

Doane: Agreed. It is also due to the barrister's ties to the LNP and the way this will tip the govt to Mal's and the LNP's advantage. Definitely a good move for us to meet with him so he gets to know us other than w the black mark from being w Peter!!

Doane: The email for Mal doesn't seem to work. I have: Mal.brough1@bigpond.com . Do you have something different?

Ashby: Whoops it's Mal.brough2@bigpond.com sorry bout that. My fault.

Doane: I want to balance your harassment charge with one of my own. He is demeaning, aggressive and w his bcc's unprofessional at the very least. However I don't want to diminish your claim in any way. As you said last night, both claims may strengthen the case. I might look for a lawyer myself if we don't have contact soon.

Ashby: Yeah I will contact Mal again today. Failing that I will make contact with someone myself as well.

Update

The Australian 27 June 2012:

LNP president Bruce McIver has conceded that Howard government minister Mal Brough approached him, and possibly party donor and mining magnate Clive Palmer, searching for a job for a Slipper staffer, believed to be Karen Doane, who in April proposed launching a harassment case against the Speaker.

The Queanbeyan Age 27 June 2012:

NEWS Limited and one of its journalists were involved in an elaborate plot to bring down parliamentary Speaker Peter Slipper, according to documents filed with the Federal Court.
The documents expose private communication between News political correspondent Steve Lewis and Mr Slipper's former staff member James Ashby, including one in which Lewis says: ''We will get him.''
The documents also reveal that News - the Australian arm of Rupert Murdoch's media empire - paid for Mr Ashby to stay in a Sydney hotel and meet Lewis on April 10 this year. In one text, the reporter told Mr Ashby: ''I will sort out payment'', and: ''Just tell hotel to book u in again and News will sort''.

The electorate still mocking Abbott

This time it’s @AshbySlipper who says “Since @TonyAbbottMHR hasn't had time to read the judgement, I thought I'd tweet it to him. One line at a time.”

The beginning of this Tweetathon in reverse order:

@AshbySlipper .@TonyAbbottMHR suggested that he was planning to use the record of his texts with Mr Slipper to empower others in a way that would affect
@AshbySlipper .@TonyAbbottMHR contemporaneous texts with his friends, of Mr Ashby feeling upset as a result of sexual harassment. Rather those texts
@AshbySlipper .@TonyAbbottMHR Ashby went to see Mark McArdle, a senior frontbencher in the then Queensland State LNP opposition. There was no hint, in
@AshbySlipper .@TonyAbbottMHR "closer", and hence sexual, relationship. Mr Ashby rebuffed whatever the proposed closer relationship was. The next day Mr
 @AshbySlipper .@TonyAbbottMHR text messages with Mr Slipper. That exchange could be read as conveying a proposal by Mr Slipper that the two have a
@AshbySlipper .@TonyAbbottMHR pages of Mr Ashby's text messages with Mr Slipper and many other people. On 1 February 2012, Mr Ashby had an exchange of

Australian Press Council finds The Daily Telegraph not fair and balanced in its 2012 reporting dismissal of case against Slipper

Australian Press Council:

Adjudication No. 1573: Margo Kingston/The Daily Telegraph (February 2014)  

Document Type: Complaints

Outcome: Adjudications

Date: 27 Feb 2014

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in The Daily Telegraph on 13 December 2012, headed “Court rejects Slipper case”. The article reported a Federal Court decision on the previous day to dismiss as an abuse of process a legal action for sexual harassment brought against Peter Slipper MP by James Ashby. It appeared on page 17 of the newspaper and on the publication’s website.

Margo Kingston complained that the report of the dismissal on page 17 did not give it sufficient prominence in light of the newspaper’s very prominent and detailed coverage earlier in the year of Mr Ashby’s commencement of the legal proceedings and his allegations against Mr Slipper. The “exclusive” report on 21 April 2012 about commencement of the proceedings and Mr Ashby’s allegations had occupied all news space on pages 1 and 2 and most of page 3. On the next day, Mr Slipper had stood aside as Speaker.

The Daily Telegraph said page 17 was a prominent page and the top half had comprised the report on the dismissal, a photograph of Mr Ashby and an article on another aspect of the proceedings. It had also published reports about the matter on its website on the previous afternoon and in the next few days had published related reports online and opinion pieces in print. The story also was covered widely in other media outlets.

The newspaper said placement on page 17 was partly because of an unusually high number of other important articles on that day. The greater length and prominence of the coverage in April was due to the topic having much greater political significance as Mr Slipper was then the Speaker and his acceptance of that position had crucially influenced the balance of votes in the House of Representatives. It was also partly because the April story was an “exclusive”.

The Council agrees that the political significance and “newsworthiness” of an event are obviously relevant to the length and prominence with which it is reported. By the time of the dismissal of the proceedings, the political situation had changed considerably, especially because Mr Slipper had stood aside and then, in October, resigned as Speaker. Also, several unrelated news stories (especially the funeral of a police officer) clearly merited prominent coverage in the issue of 13 December.

The Council’s relevant Principle states: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced”. The Principle does not necessarily require complete, or almost complete, fairness or balance. But a combination of factors meant that avoiding serious unfairness or imbalance was of special importance in this particular case.  

First, the commencement of legal proceedings was a story the newspaper had “broken” in April, describing the allegations as “amongst the most serious ever raised” in Australian political history and “potentially deadly”.

Second, the allegations, and progress of the proceedings, were reported prominently on many occasions in ensuing months, often in the first few pages of The Daily Telegraph.

Third, dismissal of the proceedings raised important questions about Mr Slipper’s decision to stand aside as Speaker, which in the words of the newspaper happened “after The Daily Telegraph revealed allegations of sexual harassment and Cabcharge misuse - [which] means the government loses a precious vote in parliament”.

Fourth, readers of a daily newspaper of this kind can reasonably expect to be informed by it of such a key development as the dismissal of these proceedings as an abuse of process for political reasons, especially when it had previously given the matter great prominence.

In the circumstances of this case, it is not reasonable to assume that readers who saw the very prominent coverage across pages 1-3 of the 21 April edition were likely to see the very much less prominent report of the dismissal on page 17 of an edition eight months later or see the report on its website. It also is not reasonable to regard the newspaper’s obligations of fairness and balance as having been met by the story being widely covered in other media outlets.

The Council upholds the complaint due to the very stark difference between the detail, tone and prominence of the newspaper’s initial coverage on 21 April and of its report on 13 December of the dismissal. The later report did not need to match the prominence and detail of the earlier report by, for example, being of similar length and on the same pages. But in the circumstances of this case the degree of difference was so great as to constitute a clear breach of the Council’s Principle concerning fairness and balance.

It is not the Council’s role to say precisely how this unfairness or imbalance should have been avoided. There were clearly a number of possibilities between which the publication could choose.

Additional note (not required for publication by the newspaper):
The newspaper said that the prospect of an appeal by Mr Ashby influenced its decision not to give the issue more extensive treatment. The Council notes, however, that it is common and accepted practice to report court decisions, sometimes in great detail, even though they may be subject to an appeal.

The newspaper also quoted from an Advisory Guideline of the Council on bias. The words which it quoted relate to bias and fairness in publishing different political opinions, but this adjudication relates to fairness and balance in the reporting of facts.

Relevant Council Principles (not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies part of General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced.”

The Daily Telegraph’s hissy fit ‘editorial’ on Page 59 of its 27 February 2014 issue:

@margokingston1

A hint of what the Australian Federal Police know concerning the Ashby-Brough affair

What Senate Estimates tells us this month: 

* Liberal MP for Fisher Mal Brough has been formally interviewed by federal police at least once; 

* hundreds of thousands of emails, documents and images have been seized from the homes of Mal Brough, James Ashby, Karen Doane and elsewhere; 

* the official charge being considered is unauthorised disclosure¹; 

* federal police have read “Ashbygate” by Ross Jones; 

* the Kingston Hotel in Canberra is well-known in Senate circles; and

* LNP Senator Ian Macdonald has no understanding of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates (Public) Tuesday, 9 February 2016:

[Labor, Victoria] Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I would like to ask some questions about the status of the AFP investigation into the theft of the official diary of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. I appreciate the sensitivity of the matter, as the investigation obviously remains on foot, so I will be attempting to ask some fairly factual questions, but please let me know if you think it is inappropriate, given that the investigation is on foot. It has been reported publicly that the AFP raided the homes of Mr Brough, Mr Ashby and Karen Doane, looking for evidence in relation to the theft of the former Speaker's diary. Are those reports accurate?

[Australian Federal Police Commissioner] Mr Colvin: The way that you have characterised them, Senator, I guess is relevant to the investigation. We are making an investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of and access to the diary. I would draw a distinction between that and theft. I just want to be very careful about what we say.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. So you do not think it is appropriate to discuss at this stage whether you have raided the homes of those people?

[Federal Attorney-General] Senator Brandis: Senator Collins, I think the point Mr Colvin was making to you is that there is no investigation into theft.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay. What language would you like to use, Mr Colvin?

Mr Colvin: We refer to it as unauthorised disclosure.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: All right, we will use that language and I will ask the same question.

Mr Colvin: Yes. I am not trying to be picky on that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is fine.

Mr Colvin: In relation to matters that we have or have not done, some aspects of this investigation are already in the public arena, and I am happy to confirm matters that are in the public arena. But, to the extent that matters are not, it is not our normal course, as you would appreciate, to talk about what we may be doing. Deputy Commissioner Close has the details.

[Deputy Commissioner, Operations] Ms L Close: Senator, I can confirm that the search warrants were executed on premises for the three people that you have just mentioned.

Senator COLLINS: Are there any other search warrants that are fitting in with Mr Colvin's point and that are a matter of the public record?

Ms L Close: No, there are none on the public record.

Senator COLLINS: Am I correct in concluding that you do not want to discuss any that may have occurred but are not on the public record?

Ms L Close: That is correct.

Senator COLLINS: Okay. What is the current status of the investigation into Mr Brough's conduct?

Ms L Close: The investigation continues. As you can understand, we are relying heavily on electronic records, which we have obtained from various entities. Because of the complex nature of this matter we have also had to obtain legal opinion in respect of search warrants and other avenues of inquiry. Just to demonstrate, some of the investigation time frames are quite lengthy, because we have recovered, to date, in excess of 7,600 emails, 141,000 documents, 116,000-plus images and thousands of email attachments. That just highlights for you the extent of the investigation we are undertaking. 

Senator COLLINS: Are you able to tell me when you expect to be able to finalise the investigation?

Ms L Close: No.

Senator COLLINS: Does all that material you just referred to cover the book Ashbygate?

Ms L Close: No.

Mr Colvin: No.

Senator COLLINS: What are the possible outcomes of the investigation? What will happen when you conclude all of that work?

Ms L Close: We then make an assessment as to whether we believe there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to have a prima facie case to put to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The Commonwealth DPP will then make a determination of whether there are any charges to be laid in respect of any people.

Senator COLLINS: And at this point in time you are not able to advise me of the time frame on which you think you will conclude your review of the material?

Ms L Close: Not at this point, no. 
Mr Colvin: Further to that, there are aspects of all investigations, and this one is no different, that are out of the control of the organisation. We are in the hands of processes, and sometimes individuals, that mean that we cannot give you a time frame with any degree of certainty.

Senator COLLINS: Mr Brough has remarked that he is willing to be interviewed by the AFP in relation to the criminal accusations that have been made against him. Has that interview occurred?

Ms L Close: We have spoken to Mr Brough, and that is on public record.

Senator COLLINS: When was that, and where did the interview occur?

Mr Colvin: I think in fairness to Mr Brough, if he wishes to make some of that material public then he may do that. We have not said that publicly and I do not think it is appropriate. We would not normally make that public. That is a matter for Mr Brough, if he wishes to.

Senator COLLINS: When you say, though, that you have spoken to Mr Brough, is that what would be regarded as an interview? Or have you a need for further interview?

Ms L Close: It really will depend on the analysis of all the material that I outlined to you earlier as to whether we need another interview or not.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay, but in terms of you looking at all the material before you, it was not just simply a preliminary discussion.

Ms L Close: We have had preliminary discussions—

[Nationals, Queensland] Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, could I just raise a point of order? I am struggling to see the relevance of this in the context of estimates. I would understand if the senator were pursuing details about the cost of these investigations, the volume of resources and the like. But we have quite literally hundreds of investigations underway at the moment that would have a political interest, and the trade movement and the like. We could spend the next week here examining the AFP's involvement. I just do not understand the relevance, and I would like you just to consider it and perhaps rule on it.

[LNP Queensland, Senator Ian Macdonald] CHAIR: It is relevant to the expenditure on wages and equipment.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, if the questions were that, I would understand that, but that is not—

CHAIR: Well, that is not how they are being used, I guess, but I would allow it at this time.

Senator Brandis: I think the point is that Mr Colvin and Deputy Commissioner Close have made it clear that they cannot go beyond that which is on the public record, and that which is on the public record is already on the public record. So, I just wonder what it profits us to ask questions to which we already know the answer, since only matters to which we do already know the answers are appropriate objects of inquiry.

CHAIR: It is really up to the senator to use her time in whatever way she seems fit. As you say, even if the information is already there, if the senator wants to keep asking the same questions and gets the same answer, that is really up to her.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you.

Mr Colvin: In answer to your question: I do not wish to discuss investigational strategies. Whether we decide to re-speak to Mr Brough in a formal or informal capacity, they are all matters that my investigators will make a judgement on depending on where the investigation takes them, and it is not something I wish to discuss openly.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, and that was not really the point of my question. I was simply seeking to establish whether we were both talking about an interview, which is what Mr Brough had referred to, as opposed to some preliminary conversation to establishment.

Mr Colvin: I will leave that for Mr Brough to talk about, not us.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It has been reported that Mr Ashby has offered to provide the AFP with a copy of the document which he says proves that Wyatt Roy instructed him to steal the former Speaker's official diary. For example on 1 December—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That is an emotively embedded question when the commissioner has made it very clear to you that there is no investigation on foot regarding theft. At least keep your language in accordance with the fact that have been presented to you in the evidence.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I suggest you go back to the buffet.

CHAIR: You have made your point of order on that one.

Senator Brandis: Mr Chairman, on the same point, if I may—and I know Senator Collins is a serial offender here—but if words are to be attributed to someone then the precise words they use, not a paraphrase of them, has to be put to the witness. On numerous occasions, in this forum and in the chamber, it has been discovered after Senator Collins has put a paraphrase of words to a senator or a witness that what she has put to the senator or the witness was not an accurate rendering of what they said.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is simply untrue.

Senator Brandis: On numerous occasions I have caught you out doing this.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, that is untrue. On numerous occasions you have practised malapropism, because you do not know how to apply words that you think are big and attractive. Senator Brandis: If you are going to attribute words which bear a very, very important insinuation against somebody's reputation then in fairness both to the witness and to the person whom you are trying to smear—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: 'Smear' now? Stop imputing improper motives.

Senator Brandis: please put the direct speech to the witness or not at all.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Your behaviour is outrageous. I really do not know how Mr Turnbull puts up with you.

CHAIR: A point of order was raised and I am ruling on it. There is no point of order—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, there is not. That is right.

CHAIR: but I am sure Commissioner Colvin will take the warning and will, himself, be cautious in how he answers the questions, as he always is, of course.

[Labor, Tasmania] Senator BILYK: It is all very draining now.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I mentioned that it had been reported and I was about, if I had been given one extra moment of oxygen, to quote that report. If Senator Brandis wants to take issue with the quotation he is encouraged to take issue with the ABC.

Senator Brandis: Then you will be kind enough to provide us with the source from which you are quoting.

CHAIR: The ABC.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Certainly, which I just did.

CHAIR: That is a reliable source. We can all rest assured now that this will be accurate.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: On 1 December last year the ABC reported that: Mr Ashby has also claimed today that Assistant Minister for Innovation Wyatt Roy advised him to copy Mr Slipper's diary. CHAIR: And the question is?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, I am going to go through the full quote, because I do not want to— Senator Brandis: Are you reading from the report or are you reading from words attributed in direct speech to Mr Ashby?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I am about to go to words directly attributed to Mr Ashby now, in The Australian newspaper.

Senator Brandis: In direct speech?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, can we have a copy of this while this is happening so we can keep it in context and so we can follow the senator's efforts here?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. In quotation of Mr Ashby: "Wyatt said he didn't really know how to advise me and said he wanted to speak with Christopher Pyne," Mr Ashby told The Australian newspaper. Again in quotation of Mr Ashby: "He then called me back and I went and saw him in his office and he presented me a sheet of paper with instructions of what I should do, and one of the first steps was to get a copy of the office diary." Still in quotation: 'That is how I came to be printing off a copy of the digital diary. It was evidence in my case.' That is the end of the quote. This is still from the ABC, though: Mr Ashby confirmed the quotes on Macquarie Radio this morning and said the sheet of paper would have Mr Roy's fingerprints on it. Finally, referring to Mr Ashby: 'And Wyatt's never denied giving me any assistance in the beginning,' he said. Following that public reporting, has Mr Ashby provided a copy of this set of written instructions to the AFP?

Mr Colvin: I am not aware of that particular report. I know it is not necessarily relevant to your question, I just think it would be very unwise for me to give an indication to the committee while this matter is still ongoing. That is directly relevant to the ongoing nature of the investigation, and it is just not something I am prepared to talk about publicly.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Hear, hear.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I appreciate that. Senator O'Sullivan, maybe you were still down at the King O when I started these questions—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You do not know where I was, and your comments are offensive and you should keep them to yourself.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: We do know where you were.

CHAIR: Senator Collins, that is an offensive comment on a Senate colleague. I will not ask you to withdraw—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: For the record, I was not at the Kingston Hotel.

CHAIR: You do not have to say where you were.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, but I am just sick of this.

CHAIR: You should desist from that, though, because otherwise people will say you are always permanently drunk, Senator Collins, and that does not get us anywhere.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: They are welcome to say that. It would not have much credibility.

CHAIR: Well what you are saying about Senate colleagues does not have much credibility either.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The issue is that I said at the outset of this discussion, and Mr Colvin remembers that because of the response he just made—

CHAIR: You made a snide comment to another senator, which should not happen. Go on with your question.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: If you defended me as adequately as you are now him, obviously people would not feel encouraged to respond to poor behaviour. I understand that Mr Colvin does not want to respond to that question, and I accept his explanation of that. My next question—

Senator Brandis: I think Mr Colvin said it would not be appropriate to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes, and I said that I accept that.

Senator Brandis: You said that he said he did not want to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Will you stop being such a pedant? Seriously.

Senator Brandis: I think there is a difference.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It is very late at night, and your behaviour is very draining.

Senator Brandis: There is no reluctance on the part of these witnesses to respond to questions to which they feel they can respond appropriately. When the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police says that it is not a question to which he can appropriately respond, then that is the ground on which the question has not been answered—not because he does not want to provide the committee with all the information he appropriately can.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Senator Brandis, no one implying any differently. You are just making this tedious.

CHAIR: Let us move on. Your time has finished, but we can come back to you, Senator Collins. I will go to Senator O'Sullivan, but, before I do, as part of Senator O'Sullivan's time, could I just ask if the offence being considered or investigated is unauthorised disclosure? Is that right?

Mr Colvin: The circumstances that we are investigating is the unauthorised disclosure of the former speaker's diary. The offence that we may end up considering as the most appropriate—if we even get to that point—is still to be determined.

CHAIR: It is what?

Mr Colvin: It is still to be determined. We have a range of—

CHAIR: There is no technical offence of unauthorised disclosure, is there? That is not a criminal offence.

Mr Colvin: There are offences of unauthorised disclosure.

CHAIR: Where do they rate in the scale of offences? Are they like murder? Terrorism? Rape? Robbery?

Mr Colvin: Chair, that is very difficult for me to answer, because it depends upon the circumstances—for example, are there aggravated circumstances. All offences have penalties that the court can impose, and, clearly, unauthorised disclosure has a very different penalty to what a terrorism offence would.

CHAIR: There was a lot of discussion earlier about the cost and your resources and all this, and I was absolutely gobsmacked to hear Ms Close say that you have investigated thousands and thousands of emails and documents. I can well appreciate the questions on the use of your resources, when you are clearly involved in a huge amount of effort. Is someone, or are several people, going through every one of those emails, every one of those documents, with a magnifying glass, considering each aspect?

Ms L Close: Yes, we have investigators looking at every document that we have seized in relation to this matter.

CHAIR: That would be a very time-consuming exercise, I take it.

Ms L Close: Yes.

CHAIR: For something that I would have thought—and you can tell me I am wrong—in the course of criminal activities that the AFP look at would rank pretty low: unauthorised disclosure.

Mr Colvin: There are a few things there to consider. One is: the court will make determinations in terms of penalty of what gravity of offence the court may consider if somebody is convicted. But there are broader considerations for the AFP than just the penalty of the offence. It is the circumstances and the public interest in the matter. I am probably better off just leaving it at that.

Senator Brandis: I think, if I do not misunderstand what is being said, that it is actually not the offence of unauthorised disclosure; it is the offence of procuring another person to have unauthorised access. I do not think it is being suggested that Mr Brough himself had unauthorised access. I think it is being suggested by some that Mr Brough encouraged somebody else to have unauthorised access.

CHAIR: That would take it to being an even lesser matter, but I take Commissioner Colvin's point and will not pursue that. I hesitate to ask for this on notice, but can someone tell me the penalties that have been imposed on the last successful convictions for procuring someone to have unauthorised disclosure?

[Australian Greens, Tasmania] Senator McKim interjecting—

CHAIR: It is wasting resources, is my point, when we are dealing with criminals, thugs, rapists, murderers, and we have the AFP looking through hundreds of thousands of documents and emails for an offence which, even on conviction, I guess would get a good behaviour bond or something. That would be my experience of how lenient the courts are these days. How difficult would it be to get me some examples of the last time someone was convicted for procuring someone else to make an unauthorised disclosure? Would that be difficult to find?

Ms L Close: I am not aware of the last matter where a person was convicted, so we will have to take that on notice and do some research.

CHAIR: I do not want you to do too much research, because I for one appreciate that you have far more important things to do. But if it is easy to get the last couple of times there were convictions—if there have ever been any in the history of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth—I would be interested to see when they were, what the penalty was and how many there were. With that, I will pass to Senator O'Sullivan.

1. Section 70—disclosure ofinformation by Commonwealth officers

3.91       Section 70 of the Crimes Act is the only provision remaining in pt VI of the Crimes Act.[125] A version of s 70 was included in the original Crimes Act in 1914, and was based on a provision of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).[126] This original version of s 70 was repealed and replaced in 1960 to extend the prohibition on the unauthorised disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers to include former Commonwealth officers.[127] While minor amendments have been made to s 70 on three occasions since 1960,[128] the substance of the provision has not changed since that time.

3.92       The effect of s 70 is to apply criminal sanctions to the breach of secrecy obligations by public officials.[129] Section 70 provides that:

(1)  A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)  A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him or her), any fact or document which came to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he or she ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence....

What kind of information is protected?

3.100   Section 70 of the Crimes Act makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer to disclose ‘any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer’. On its face, s 70 could apply to the disclosure of any information regardless of its nature or sensitivity.

An example of conviction for unauthorised disclosure: R v Scerba (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 359 (5 November 2015)

Decision:

1.                   Michael Scerba be convicted of unauthorised disclosure of information by a Commonwealth officer. 2.                   Michael Scerba be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence today, 5 November 2015. 3.                   On 4 February 2016, after serving three months imprisonment, and upon giving security in the sum of $500, Michael Scerba be released on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 4.                   Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and upon application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the following items, seized by members of the AFP during the execution of a search warrant at [redacted], Richardson in the ACT on 21 October 2012, be forfeited to the Commonwealth: a.                   All hard drives contained in the black ‘ANTEC’ computer tower (item no 001 recorded on property seizure record A228052); and b.                  5 x shards/pieces of compact disc (item no MS/ET/45 recorded on property seizure record A228055)