David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 10 August 2006 alleged matters of privilege were raised with me by the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Ballarat and Chisholm concerning an answer to a question given by the Minister for Education, Science and Training. The matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition was whether privilege was breached by the minister disclosing to the House the content of correspondence that members had had with her in relation to an invitation from the minister to submit proposals for infrastructure projects in schools in the members’ electorates.

In its report on the records and correspondence of members, the House Committee of Privileges noted that there was no general protection of privilege afforded to the correspondence of members, including their correspondence with ministers. The committee did not recommend any change to the current status.

There is no general impediment on a member, whether a minister or not, disclosing the content of any correspondence with other members. In fact, such disclosure is not unusual in the House, including disclosure by members of responses they have received from ministers to queries they have raised with them. I do not believe the imposition of a blanket restriction on the disclosure of the contents of such correspondence would receive general support.

The Committee of Privileges did note the special nature of the correspondence between members and ministers, which could go to very sensitive matters raised by the member on behalf of constituents. While there is no legal impediment to disclosure in such cases, judgements should be made by individual members whether disclosure could damage the trust that is placed by constituents in having their members make representations on their behalf.

The member for Ballarat and the member for Chisholm raised whether the disclosure by the minister of the representations they had made on behalf of their constituents impeded their performance of their duties as members. The Committee of Privileges had noted in its report that members could raise the issue of possible improper interference with the performance of their duties as a member in relation to any action that may be taken against them as a result of their correspondence with ministers. In this particular case, I do not see that the minister’s disclosure of the contents of representations made to her by the members concerned was designed to interfere with their ability to raise such matters in the future, and so I do not consider a prima facie case has been made out such as would permit precedence over other business being given to a motion concerning these matters.