Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

Earlier today, the honourable member for Fisher raised a matter of privilege relating to the taking of a photograph of him in the House of Representatives. Acts which may obstruct or impede the House in performing its functions, including causing this indirectly by bringing the House into odium, contempt or ridicule, or by lowering its authority, may constitute contempts.

While the taking of an unauthorised photograph in the chamber could potentially be seen as a contempt, as I said in my statement to the House earlier today, I would take action directly against a member for disorderly conduct should I become aware of such behaviour. I indicated to the House the responsibilities of members generally for their conduct and the implications for all members if such actions were to become more common.

In the only comparable example of which I am aware, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly raised as a matter of privilege the taking of an unauthorised photograph in the chamber. After investigation, the Speaker reported to the assembly that a staff member in the Premier’s office had admitted to taking the photograph, had apologised unreservedly and had destroyed the photograph. No further action was taken.

The honourable member for Fisher refers to an interference with the free performance by him of his duties as a member as a result of the photograph being passed onto his local newspaper and being published. He states that the photograph was passed on by email but has not provided evidence of the email or its source. Acts which attempt to interfere with the free performance by a member of his duties as a member can be regarded as a contempt under section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Such acts must amount to or be intended or likely to amount to improper interference in the free performance of a member’s duties.

In this case, I can understand that the publication of the photograph is embarrassing to the member and I can see how it might influence the views that his constituents may have of him. In the absence of more specific evidence of the effect that this has had on the free performance of his duties, and given the consistently held view that the House’s privileges and contempt powers should be exercised sparingly, I do not find that a prima facie case has been established.

The honourable member asked me either to conduct a forensic examination of the photograph to establish who may have taken it or to permit him to undertake a forensic examination. I have already noted in my statement earlier that the examination of the available footage is not conclusive. Whilst I am concerned about the matter and its implications, I do not believe that further forensic examination as proposed would be conclusive, so I do not propose to agree to the member’s request.

See this speech in context