Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests on the issue of the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi on 28 May 2008 and the subsequent withdrawal and apology by the member for Robertson on 29 May 2008.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

This report relates to a reference from the House on 17 June 2008 that asked the committee to examine the issue of the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi on 28 May 2008 and the subsequent withdrawal and apology by the member for Robertson on 29 May 2008. In examining the circumstances of the exchange and subsequent withdrawal, the committee invited submissions from the member for Robertson, the member for Indi, the member for Canberra and the member for Maranoa, all of whom were present during the exchanges in the Main Committee on 28 May 2008 referred to in the reference. The member for Indi and the member for Canberra made submissions, and there was correspondence with the member for Robertson. The committee obtained a variety of records from Hansard relating to the proceedings in the Main Committee during the period of the exchanges on 28 May 2008. The committee also obtained and viewed a DVD recording of the relevant proceedings in the Main Committee and the member for Robertson’s withdrawal on 29 May 2008.

The committee provided copies of the evidence it had received to the member for Robertson and the member for Indi and invited them to make any comments on the material. Both members submitted responses. As the House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, the committee is essentially concerned with matters which may constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt. Unusually, this reference did not come to the committee as an alleged breach of privilege or a contempt; rather, it was referred as a series of events for the committee’s review. The committee has considered that, in being asked by the House to review this series of events, its role was to assess whether there was a breach of privilege or a contempt that arose from the events and whether the committee had any other relevant comments to make about the events.

The only potential matter of privilege arising from the events referred by the House is a question of possible deliberate misleading of the House by the member for Robertson in denying that she made certain statements in the Main Committee. Deliberate misleading of the House of Representatives can be regarded as a contempt, although, as House of Representatives Practice notes, there have not been any findings of contempt for deliberate misleading to date. In the events which the committee has reviewed, the member for Robertson clearly made offensive personal comments outside the formal proceedings of the Main Committee to the member for Indi in terms recorded in the report. The member for Robertson was asked by the member for Indi to withdraw the comments because she found them offensive.

The member for Robertson denied that specific comments were made and refused on two occasions to withdraw. The member for Robertson explained in her submission that the words the member for Indi claimed she had stated were not accurate and that all the words had not been recorded, as the member for Robertson was not speaking into a microphone. In denying that she had made comments in the precise terms alleged by the member for Indi, the member for Robertson had not been deliberately misleading such that it would give rise to a contempt; however, the committee notes that comments of a very similar nature to those raised by the member for Indi had been made by the member for Robertson. The member for Robertson’s withdrawal in the House on the following day was an acknowledgement by the member that she had made comments of that general nature. The member for Robertson’s remark during the withdrawal—that ‘the comments were not completely accurate’—is, strictly speaking, also correct and hence not deliberately misleading such that it would give rise to a contempt.

In drawing its conclusion on the matter of privilege, the committee is constrained by the very tight interpretation that surrounds a finding of deliberate misleading. The committee concludes that the member for Robertson did not deliberately mislead the Main Committee and the House such that it would give rise to a possible contempt; hence no breach of privilege arises from the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi. However, the committee observes that the member for Robertson’s responses in the Main Committee fell well below the standards expected of a member and do not reflect well upon her. The committee noted in the report the specific comments made as interjections by both the member for Indi and the member for Robertson in the Main Committee on 28 May 2008. The committee also notes that there were other exchanges between the two members, although these were not audible on tape or picked up by Hansard staff logging the proceedings. In this case, both members involved were on duty as whips in the Main Committee, imposing a particular responsibility on them to behave appropriately. While the exchanges do not give rise to any issues of privilege, the committee considers that the terms used by the members and the tenor of the exchange fall well below the standards expected of members and do not reflect well upon them.

The committee notes the provisions of standing order 92(a)(i):

The Speaker can intervene:

(i) to prevent any personal quarrel between Members during proceedings …

The committee also notes that it is usual, where the chair asks for a withdrawal because another member has found words offensive, as happened in the Main Committee, that the chair insists on a withdrawal regardless of the circumstances. Members are expected to cooperate with the requests of the chair in such situations. The member for Robertson should have cooperated with the request of the chair and withdrawn at the time. Had she done so, this matter would most likely have gone no further.

After the committee had concluded its draft report on the inquiry, in accordance with its procedures it provided a copy to the member for Robertson and the member for Indi and invited them to make submissions before it presented the report. The member for Robertson made a submission which the committee considered before concluding the final report. In her submission the member for Robertson raised two substantive matters as well as a number of more minor matters. The two substantive issues raised by the member for Robertson were the issue of the jurisdiction and mandate of the committee under standing order 216 to assess and comment on a member’s conduct in proceedings in the House beyond whether there was a breach of privilege or contempt and the issue of whether the committee failed to provide procedural fairness.

The committee does not accept either of these substantive issues. In relation to the issue of jurisdiction, the committee notes that the reference was made to the committee by the House, that it was broad in scope and that committees of privileges have in the past reported on matters arising during or as a consequence of their inquiries. In relation to the issues of procedural fairness, the committee has, in accordance with its own published procedures, outlined in some detail in the report the process by which it has proceeded in this inquiry. It considers that this has given all those involved with the inquiry the opportunity to make submissions and representations to the committee throughout the inquiry. The committee sought advice from the Clerk of the House on these substantive issues, and the Clerk’s advice supported the committee’s view.

The actions of the members involved in this case raise issues that are more to do with appropriate standards of behaviour and the conduct of members than to do with matters of privilege. While the standing orders cover most aspects of the behaviour of members when they are in the chamber and Main Committee and while they can be used to enforce appropriate standards of behaviour, there is no broader code of conduct to cover the conduct of members generally. The committee is aware of the work done in the early 1990s to develop a code on the standards of conduct expected of members and senators. However, this work was never brought to fruition. The committee considers that the issue of a code of conduct for members should be revisited. There are strong reasons for a code being established, not least of which are community expectations about appropriate standards of behaviour for members of parliament. The committee proposes to review the question of a code of conduct for members and report back to the House.

See this speech in context