Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

On Tuesday, 24 February 2009, the member for Sturt raised, as a matter of privilege, an alleged interference with members performing their duties as members due to certain arrangements put in place by the government for the participation of members in school infrastructure programs. The member tabled a range of documentation, which I have examined carefully. As I noted in my earlier written response to the member for Sturt, an act or omission which obstructs or impedes members in the discharge of their duties as members can be regarded as contempt. It has been recognised that, as well as participating in proceedings in parliament, members’ duties extend to electorate responsibilities, although the range of these duties to which parliamentary privilege would apply have not been fully defined.

It is a moot point as to whether a necessary involvement in government sponsored programs and activities in their electorates is within members’ responsibilities for the purposes of the protection against improper interference. I refer to a similar matter that was raised in the 41st Parliament by the member for Swan. The member raised the issue of an invitation he had received to a launch of the then government’s Green Corps program in his electorate which was subsequently withdrawn. The then Speaker noted that:

The attendance of members at the launch of Green Corps programs in their electorates does not seem to be an essential part of members’ duties and hence attendance is by invitation, just as members may or may not be invited to other events within their electorates.

I find that this sentiment is relevant in the present case.

There are two matters of detail raised by the member for Sturt. The first concerns a letter sent by the Deputy Prime Minister to members, on 5 February 2009, inviting them to register as a participating member of parliament in the Building the Education Revolution program. Members were invited to complete a registration form to be informed about and involved in a range of programs’ activities. Setting aside the issue of whether the involvement of members in this program is an essential part of their duties, members were being invited freely to register to be involved in the program just as they can freely choose to involve themselves or not in any activities in their electorates. I am not persuaded that this constitutes an interference with members performing their duties.

The second matter concerns issues raised by the member for Hinkler in a letter to the member for Sturt relating to the Investing in Our Schools Program and the recognition arrangements for the opening ceremonies of projects funded under that program and other programs. The member for Hinkler suggests that his role as a member has been diminished by not being directly involved in the ceremonial arrangements for the events. As a general comment: these programs are government programs and the administrative arrangements for them, including the ceremonial arrangements and responsibilities for representing the government, are matters for the government at the time. Unless these arrangements are shown to interfere improperly in members performing their general responsibilities in their electorates or having the effect of interfering with members, I do not see them as raising any matters of privilege.

Specifically in relation to the Investing in Our Schools Program, I note that the detailed guidelines for recognition under the program state who will be the representative of the government at the opening ceremony of the projects. I also note that the guidelines provide for alternative arrangements if a government representative is unable to attend the opening ceremonies. Finally, the guidelines state that schools are welcome to invite any member of parliament—federal or state—as a guest to an opening ceremony and that those invited guests may speak at the ceremony if invited to do so but they may not officiate at the ceremony. Again, I do not see how these arrangements amount to an interference with members being able to perform their duties as members.

For these reasons—while I acknowledge the importance of these matters to all members—I iterate the conclusion in my letter to the member for Sturt that I have not seen evidence sufficient to support a view that a prima facie case of contempt has been made out by the member in relation to the matters he has raised. Consequently, I would not give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests. I present a copy of all the documentation I have referred to in my statement.

See this speech in context