Despite having a multi-million dollar payout in his back pocket and a substantial free flights package with
But the former
Now,
Many Australians believe the whole Qatar Inquiry is something that does not justify an expensive, full senate inquiry.
But others feel it is important to provide transparency and get to the bottom of the reasoning behind the decision, including to ensure there has been no corrupt conduct which promotes an anti-competitive environment and potentially denies Australians the choice of airlines - especially given the increase in the prices of plane tickets post-Covid.
Middle-Eastern airline company
The airline asserts it was “surprised” by the Australian Government's decision and states it has not been given a satisfactory explanation for it.
Now, it has requested a full formal response, which the Government is required to provide by
There is widespread speculation that lobbying by
There are also questions around the close relationship between
There are also concerns about the way Transport Minister
Some weeks ago,
However, the deputy secretary for Transport,
The Senate Inquiry is being run by Bridget McKenzie who has now officially gone on record saying that
He is a master at side-stepping even the most pointed questions, so
However,
New
Section 49 of the Australian constitution gives each
Pursuant to the section, the
And although the
Most people attend Senate Inquiries without issue - after all, such inquiries are an important part of the democratic process.
The legal responsibilities of those summonsed by a Senate Inquiry include:
- To attend the
Senate committee hearing, - To refrain from releasing written submissions regarding the matter unless the committee has authorised its publication,
- To give full, frank and honest evidence before the committee, and thereby refrain from making false or misleading statements,
- To produce relevant documents if ordered to do so, and
- To be prepared to fully justify any legal objections to answering questions or providing materials.
The legal rights of those summonsed by a Senate Inquiry are protected by the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.
The Act prevents the use of the evidence, whether oral or in documentary or other form, from being used against the witness in proceedings before another court or tribunal, except for proceedings which relating to the criminal offence of perjury or contempt for conduct pursuant to the summons.
There are also a number of procedural protections afforded to witnesses, which include being:
- Given reasonable notice of the
Senate committee hearing, - Supplied with the committee's terms of reference for the hearing and, where appropriate, a transcript of relevant evidence already given,
- Able to provide the committee with written submissions before attending the hearing to give oral evidence (those submissions cannot be otherwise published without the committee's permission),
- Only required to answer questions that are relevant to the committee's inquiry,
- Able to apply to be accompanied by a legal representative to the committee hearing,
- Able to object to answering questions on grounds that include self-incrimination and invasion of privacy (although the committee may nevertheless compel answers),
- Able to give evidence in private session or make confidential submissions to the committee (although the committee may subsequently publish that evidence or those submissions),
- Given a reasonable opportunity to write and/or appear before the committee to respond to evidence that adversely reflects on him or her, and
- Given a reasonable opportunity to correct any errors in the transcript of the committee hearing and/or to submit additional evidence.
Obstructing the inquiries of a Senate Committee constitutes the criminal offence of contempt of the
Examples of such conduct include:
- Failing to attend or to produce documents when required to do so;
- Refusing without reasonable excuse to answer a question;
- Giving false or misleading evidence;
- Intimidating a witness;
- Treating a witness adversely; and
- Wilfully disturbing a committee while it is meeting.
The penalties that apply are not legislated and are 'at large', which means a broad range of penalties including prison time can be imposed.
There is no maximum prison sentence, although criminal justice principles dictate that a sentence cannot be disproportionate to the offending conduct.
In September, the ACCC filed legal action against Qantas alleging it engaged in 'false misleading or deceptive conduct' when it advertised tickets for flights it had actually cancelled.
Around the same time, the
New CEO
Ms
Sydney Criminal Lawyers
503/
Tel: 29261 8881
Fax: 29264 0880
E-mail: info@sydneycriminallawyers.com.au
URL: www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source