Labor MP Julian Hill has revealed he is facing a defamation threat over a media release and several of his social media posts about the political fundraiser and business associate of former minister Stuart Robert.
Mr Hill on Wednesday asked for the House of Representatives powerful privileges committee to take a view on a possible contempt of Parliament by the legal action to try and head it off.
He warned allowing a defamation case to proceed could breach parliamentary privilege and establish a precedent for interfering in the Parliament’s work.
The committee will consider it, potentially bolstering his defence against John Margerison, who Mr Hill says had sent him a concerns notice foreshadowing defamation proceedings.
Mr Hill last year led the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit’s scrutiny of Synergy360, a Canberra-based consulting firm linked to Mr Robert. The committee heard the firm was part owned by Mr Margerison through one of his companies.
Synergy 360, which is majority owned by another associate of Mr Robert, David Milo, helped technology firms win government work, including organising meetings with Mr Robert, in exchange for millions of dollars in retainers and success fees.
The audit committee heard that the ownership of Synergy 360 had been structured to allow funds to flow to Mr Margerison and the then minister. But it was not provided evidence of funds changing hands.
Mr Robert and the company’s owners have strongly denied acting improperly and InnovationAus.com is not suggesting they did.
The audit committee was frustrated by not gaining access to all requested documents and testimony, including Mr Margerison not appearing at hearings.
In a committee media release last July, Mr Hill said “Mr Margerison’s lawyer now claims he has left and severed all ties with Australia is a somewhat surprising turn of events indeed”.
Later that week, Mr Hill posted on Twitter asking “do you or anyone know where Stuart Robert’s mate John Margerison is”.
Other posts by Mr Hill linked to media coverage of the committee proceedings and Facebook and YouTube videos of his comments during question time. In the videos he said Mr Margerison was impeding the committee by failing to answer its questions.
The committee’s interim report focussing on the Synergy 360 affair was tabled last September. It outlined the conflicting evidence and recommended the National Anti-Corruption Commission examine it and consider launching its own investigation.
In March this year, Synergy 360 and chief executive David Milo attempted to sue the Nine newspapers over their reports on the allegations, claiming they were defamatory and caused reputational and financial damage.
Nine defended the case and it was dropped two months later.
This week, Mr Hill revealed he is facing his own defamation case an on Wednesday moved a referral to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests.
The motion, which was passed, asks the committee to consider whether a concerns notice Mr Hill says he received from Mr Margerison “foreshadows court proceedings that could not be pursued without breaching parliamentary privilege”.
The motion asks the House to express a view and consider intervening in any case to protect parliamentary privilege. It also asks the committee to consider whether the threat of legal action may constitute a contempt of Parliament and interfere with the work of committees.
Speaker Milton Dick was informed of the matter on Monday, when Mr Hill tabled the posts and videos. The Speaker allowed a vote on Wednesday morning after reviewing the posts that would form the basis of a defamation claim.
“The question of whether the publication of material is likely to attract parliamentary privilege is clearer in some cases than in others,” Mr Dick said.
“Whether publications such as social media posts referring to parliamentary proceedings would attract any level of protection has not been determined. However, 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.”
Mr Dick said any act or omission that impedes Parliament or its members from discharging their duties could be considered contempt.
“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 possibly, therefore, be classified as a contempt,” he said.
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.