Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

) ( ): I seek clarification on an issue and I want to put a question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, last Thursday it was brought to my attention that the Outlook services of several members of parliament in the parliamentary network were part of a serious security issue. The issue involved the ability for people viewing an email with the member's address within to gain visual access to the member's Outlook calendar by simply hovering the cursor over the email address. I asked my staff to make some short reports of their experience with this which they did. That prompted me to send an email to the department at about 5.30 on Thursday night. Following on from the incident on Thursday the Outlook calendar privileges for one of my staff in my electorate office in Cowra were removed overnight, Thursday, by persons unknown. These have since been restored and they were restored because there was a phone call from my senior secretary to the department which stimulated the issue.

I then asked the department for a report on the above matters with answers to the following questions: (1) When did 2020 first become aware of the security issue and why did they not alert offices to the problem? (2) Were staff also affected? (3) Given the seriousness of the matter can you please confirm that: the problem was a glitch which occurred with the changeover and installation of Windows 7 and the Office 2012 upgrade, or an event which was caused due to persons hacking into the parliamentary system? (4) Who removed the permissions for staff member Maree Ireland? (5) I would also like a response addressing these matters as soon as possible—preferably Monday morning at the latest.

Madam Deputy Speaker, on the following night at 6.32 pm a security-in-confidence email went out to all senators and members reporting the procedures relating to Outlook access on the PCN.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:21): Member for Hume, I think there is going to be quite a deal in your question—

The point I am getting to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:21): No, I think it is a very important issue. If you could refer the written documentation to me—

The response I got did not address the issue. It simply told the staff to follow a procedure, which they already had done and were capable of doing. I have received no answers to this date. I would ask you as Deputy Speaker to chase the issue up on behalf of all members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:21): I thank the member for Hume for raising the issue and I will ask the Speaker to follow it up with the various individuals. Mister Speaker has asked me to deliver the following statement on his behalf:

Last Thursday, the honourable member for North Sydney raised a matter of privilege following a request that had been made during question time for the Deputy Prime Minister to present a document. Standing order 201 provides if a minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs, a member may ask for it to be presented and the document must be presented unless the minister states that it is confidential.

The practice of the House is that when a request for presentation is made, the Speaker first asks the minister whether he or she read from the document. The Speaker always accepts the minister's response as the Speaker is not in a position to determine whether or not in fact the minister had been reading from a document. If the minister's answer is 'no', that ends the matter. If the answer is 'yes', the Speaker then asks whether the document is confidential. Again, the Speaker always accepts the minister's response as the Speaker is not in a position to determine whether or not a document is confidential. More detail on this practice is given in House of Representatives Practice 6th edition page 606.

On 22 May, on my behalf, Madam Deputy Speaker read out a statement about the consideration of claims that a member had deliberately misled the House. The statement read in part:

To establish that contempt has been committed, it would need to be shown that: (1) a statement had in fact been misleading; (2) the member knew at the time the statement was incorrect; and (3) the misleading had been deliberate. There needs to be prima facie evidence in these matters to establish a case for a precedent to be given for a motion. The matter of deliberately misleading the House is a very serious one and, rightly, there should be prima facie evidence that the House has been misled and that the misleading has been deliberate.

The Speaker informs us that having examined the Hansard record of the matter now in question and the photo presented by the honourable member, although different in its particulars, this complaint has elements in common with other claims that have been made that a member has deliberately misled the House. I explained to the House on 22 May claims of this kind have been raised as a matter of privileges or contempt on a number of occasions but no Speaker has ever given precedent to allow such a matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. This position is consistent with the policy of restraint in the exercise of the penal jurisdiction that has been cited many times by Speakers and by the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests since the review of the law of privileges and contempt that was conducted in 1982 to 1984.

It is always open to the House to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. The Speaker's role is to determine whether priority over other business should be given to a motion's referral. In terms of approach to such matters in the past, it is clear to me that the present complaint would not require a departure from the approach that has been taken by successive Speakers to such complaints.

See this speech in context