Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has agreed to the following statement which I make to the House in relation to the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Sturt.

Earlier today the honourable member for Sturt raised as a matter of privilege that, in his statement to the House on 21 May 2012, the honourable member for Dobell deliberately misled the House.

The honourable member for Sturt provided detailed information in relation to the statement by the honourable member for Dobell and the reasons that he believed the honourable member had intended to mislead the House in making the statement.

Deliberately misleading the House is one of the matters that can be found to be a contempt. While claims that members have deliberately misled the House have been raised as matters of privilege or contempt on a number of occasions, no Speaker has ever given precedence to allow such a matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.

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 of these matters to establish a case for precedence to be given to a motion.

The Speaker has considered the principal information provided by the honourable member for Sturt. He understands that this matter is surrounded by conflicting views. However, 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.

While it does not seem that a prima facie case has been made out in terms of the detail that Speakers have always required in relation to such allegations, the Speaker understands the concerns many members have about the matters raised by the honourable member for Sturt.

While in accordance with the practice of the House, precedence as of right to a motion for this matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests cannot be given, it is still open to the House itself to determine a course of action in relation to this matter.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests: Whether, in the course of his statement of 21 May 2012, the Honourable Member for Dobell deliberately misled the House.

I wish to speak briefly to the motion. I do not think I need to canvass the issues that were canvassed at two o'clock this afternoon. I think they are all on the record in the Hansard and in the general public firmament, and the documents that I tabled have obviously been considered by the Speaker. I accept the Speaker's ruling that no matter of this kind has ever been referred before or given precedence. I am grateful to the Speaker that he has indicated in the statement that it is a matter of great concern to the parliament and that, therefore, if it was possible for this to be referred to the Privileges Committee by leave, then such a motion should be moved and, if supported, it would go to the Privileges Committee. I am grateful to the Leader of the House that he has indicated to me that he has given leave and is prepared to allow this matter to go to the Privileges Committee without division.

Obviously the argument that the opposition has put on this matter time and again, but particularly today, is that it is uniquely in the power of parliament to determine its own actions and whether its privileges have been breached. Charging a member with misleading the House is one of the most serious charges that anyone can make of either opposition or government. I do not do it lightly. I do believe that the Privileges Committee is the correct forum to determine this matter and, therefore, I commend this motion to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be opposing this motion. I think that the Speaker's statement before the House with regard to this matter is pertinent indeed. The Manager of Opposition Business raised the issue of misleading the House. Of course, that is not the charge. The charge is whether the House has been deliberately misled. To establish that that contempt has been committed, three things need to be shown: (1) that a statement had been misleading; (2) that the member knew at the time the statement was incorrect; and (3) that the misleading had been deliberate.

I note that no Speaker has ever given precedence to this matter and therefore that precedent is not being established by this ruling and I think that is very important. I think it is critical that, whilst we debate these issues surrounding allegations against the member for Dobell, we are very careful that we do not establish precedence that would change the nature of the way that this parliament operates and change the nature of the way that the separation of powers operates. It is my view, however, that the Manager of Opposition Business's motion, were it to be not supported—and the government could have, of course, not supported this motion even being brought on. I indicated earlier today that the government would allow leave because I did not want it argued that the government was somehow seeking to block a proper consideration of these matters by the Privileges Committee.

The statement says, in accordance with the practice of the House, that precedence as of a right to a motion for this matter would normally be granted by the Speaker. It is open to this House to refer the matter, and if the motion of the Manager of Opposition Business is carried of course that will occur. But I do note the Speaker's statement that a prima facie case has not been granted. I do note that no Speaker has ever granted precedence. In this fine Westminster House there are quite often disagreements as to statements, as to economic policy, as to whether there is a $70 billion black hole or not in the opposition's funding, whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. A whole range of statements are made that are contradicted by the two sides of the House. That occurs every single day.

What the government wants to indicate here is this: the fact that we are permitting this motion to be moved, by leave, by the Manager of Opposition Business should not establish a precedent whereby we say that, when disagreements arise as to what facts are, they should be the subject for a reference to the Committee of Privileges. That indeed would be abuse of that process and would undermine the very functioning of this parliament. We go further and say that—when it comes to matters which are quite rightly, because of the seriousness of their nature, subject to potential legal action, either criminal or civil—the idea that this parliament should sit in judgment undermines the rule of law, undermines the separation of powers and indeed, under other circumstances whereby the convention that these matters would only be considered if the Speaker were to grant precedence, is of some concern indeed. It is of some concern because in the future a majority government should not use the fact that it is a majority government of whatever political persuasion to determine that matters should be referred to the Privileges Committee or to determine outcomes of these matters. That is why we have these conventions. We have these conventions so that the Speaker determines these things separately from partisan politics. I am confident that the Committee of Privileges will also consider these matters separately from partisan politics, and I would certainly encourage the members to do so.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to this motion and note that I am the formal seconder of the motion. I am very pleased that the Leader of the House has agreed that the motion as moved by the opposition will proceed to the Privileges Committee. I think everybody in this House knows how serious a matter of privilege is. It is not something that is taken lightly or in a frivolous manner, and I think that the material that was outlined by the Manager of Opposition Business earlier today, when he moved his original motion, did place on the record many of the questions that need to be investigated and dealt with. But the question, in the terms of this motion, of whether, in the course of his statement of 21 May 2012, the honourable member for Dobell deliberately misled the House, is one that certainly must be addressed by the Privileges Committee.

Question agreed to.