Chapter 30 - Witnesses

Witnesses have been called to the bar of the Senate on only two occasions: Sir Robert Gibson, Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board in 1931 [1]; and, in 1975, in connection with the notorious overseas loans negotiations.[2]

The appearance by Sir Robert Gibson before the Senate to give evidence on the Commonwealth Bank Bill followed the standing orders, except that, with the concurrence of senators, Sir Robert was admitted to the floor of the Senate and to a seat at the end of the Table.[3] Before questioning commenced, President Kingsmill explained the procedure required by standing orders and how he intended to proceed. All questions would be addressed through him, as the President, and he would not allow any question that was not relevant to the terms of the bill. He further indicated that each senator would have the call in turn until completing his questions and then only given the call again if leave of the Senate were obtained. Points of order were frequently raised and, as the questioning became more heated, Senator Dunn (Lang Lab, NSW) accused the opposition of a “frame-up” in bringing Sir Robert before the Senate for the purpose of political propaganda. Dunn was suspended for refusing to obey the Chair and withdraw the objectionable words, while Sir Robert, a model witness, remained quietly at the Table. President Kingsmill apologised for the “scene” and questioning of the witness continued.[4]

In July 1975, senior public servants including Sir Frederick Wheeler, Mr John Stone, Sir Lenox Hewitt, Mr Clarrie Harders, Mr Maurice Byers, Mr Andrew Menzies, Mr Peter Bailey and Mr Dennis Rose (among others), were summoned to the bar of the Senate to provide information about the overseas loans negotiations. The day they were due to appear, letters from the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, relevant ministers and the Solicitor-General were read by President O’Byrne and tabled, making claims of Crown privilege (now called public interest immunity) in respect of all evidence to be sought from the witnesses in relation to the loans affair.[5] The following day, the Senate affirmed its powers to require persons to appear and produce documents, and its right to determine claims of privilege.[6] The witnesses were in attendance but before they were called and sworn a motion setting out procedures for their examination was moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Withers (Lib, WA). In proposing a detailed set of rules for the examination of witnesses, he argued that the existing standing orders were “not up to date or altogether satisfactory”, that they had not really been followed in the examination of Sir Robert Gibson and that the examination of Fitzpatrick and Browne by the House of Representatives in 1955 was not a model that the Senate wished to emulate.[7] The motion was carried by a small majority and the examination of witnesses proceeded, punctuated by points of order, with all witnesses indicating that they intended to obey ministerial directions and claim Crown privilege in respect of all relevant evidence.[8]

A further witness was examined on 22 July 1975, Mr Gerasimos Karidis, an agent for Mr Tirath Khemlani, the businessman at the centre of the overseas loans controversy. A further resolution of the Senate allowed Mr Karidis to be accompanied by, and to consult, counsel. Mr Karidis made a statement to the Senate and presented numerous documents. Questioning then proceeded, again, not without controversy.[9]