Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am making a statement in reference to a matter of privilege referred to in the report of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia. I apologise; it is rather long.

On 16 May 2013, the honourable member for Bendigo, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia, presented the committee's report on its investigation into a possible contempt of the House arising from a newspaper article and an editorial in the West Australian which contained details of an unpublished committee report. The chair of the committee, the honourable member for New England, had advised the House on 11 February 2013 of a possible matter of privilege and indicated the committee would undertake its own investigation of the matter.

In undertaking such investigations committees are asked to:

On the first point, the committee has reported that, as its deliberation on the report had concluded, the unauthorised disclosure did not interfere with its work on the direct matter. However, there were other effects which, the committee concluded, are likely to cause substantial interference with its future work. It also noted the impact on the committee system more widely.

On the second point, the committee identified that a member of the committee had confirmed that he had consulted with a third party in the course of considering his dissenting report but he had not made a disclosure to the journalist who wrote the article in the West Australian. The member for Wannon apologised to the committee.

While I note the committee's view that there are wider implications of such disclosures on its work and the work of other committees, I also note its conclusion that the disclosure did not interfere with its immediate work. There is an important principle that the penal jurisdiction of the House should be exercised with self-restraint. I believe this principle is reflected in the practice of the House of having committees themselves conduct a preliminary investigation of unauthorised disclosures rather than such matters being referred directly to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In considering whether precedence should be given to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests a prima facie case of substantial interference with the work of a committee or the committee system needs to be made out. In particular, the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests has suggested that there should be special circumstances such as the protection of sources or witnesses such as to warrant a reference to it. However the Committee on Regional Australia did find the issue would cause substantial interference with future work and negatively impacted on the reporting of the inquiry.

I note that the Committee on Regional Australia identified the source of a disclosure and that the member who was involved has apologised. I would hope that the committee's report will provide caution to all members about the importance of preserving the confidentiality of committee information that has not been authorised by a committee.

I note the comments by the committee about the preparation of the article by the journalist involved and its publication, and the publication of an editorial, in The West Australian. The committee was astounded to find that whilst the journalist knew of the rules prohibiting publication of confidential reports, he firmly believed that he had not breached these rules and was not in contempt. I share the committee's concern with the media's disregard for the privileges of the House. I refer the press gallery to the comments made by the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in relation to such matters, most recently in August 2012—the report is on the website.

Finally, I note the Committee on Regional Australia also has recommended that the House adopt the resolution proposed by the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests to give guidance to the House and its committees in dealing with unauthorised disclosures and to better inform the parliamentary press gallery about the prohibition on the publication of unauthorised disclosures. I thank the Regional Affairs Committee for its report on these important matters.

The unauthorised disclosure of a draft report of a committee prior to presentation to the House is contrary to standing order 242, and such matters can be pursued as matters of contempt. Having regard to the committee's investigation of this matter and the recommendation it has made to the House in its report, I am however not prepared to give precedence to a motion for this matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, as the committee found the disclosure did not immediately interfere with its work. This incident does however present a great concern and it demonstrates the need for all members and all media representatives to understand that unauthorised disclosure can be a contempt that can be punished by the House.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I would just briefly respond as chair of the committee that made the two recommendations to you.

I understand what you have said, Speaker, in terms of the committee's report not being impugned by the release of information during the draft stage, and the committee is aware of the apology that has been given by one of its members and understands the circumstances in which the breach may well have occurred in an inadvertent sense. The issue, though, still revolves around the media's misuse of the rules, and in this particular case—and, in fact, upon his own admission—the journalist has actually admitted that he knew what the rules were and had decided that in view of his readership et cetera, and the issue of fly-in fly-out and the importance of that issue in Western Australia, essentially to ignore those rules and go to print.

I do understand the position that you are placed in, and I recognise that the Father of the House and others are here, who were involved with the Privileges Committee. Having been on the committee as well and looked at a similar issue in relation to another journalist in the not-too-distant past, I do understand that there are significant issues here of actually getting something through the Privileges Committee in terms of contempt at the journalistic level. But the one thing that I would say is that we are seeing too many examples of this. I understand that with this current parliament coming to its conclusion it would be almost impossible to get a resolution through the Privileges Committee in that time—and who knows what will happen after 14 September? But I think that the media really need to recognise that they cannot operate not only in contempt of privileges but in contempt of the rules that they understand to be there. I think that the parliament—and there have been various recommendations in the past on this that have essentially been ignored by the parliament—needs to look very closely at what this issue is about and how these circumstances can be avoided in the future.

I will not get into the significance of those reports, but I would ask you, Speaker, if in fact the due processes could be put in place where we revisit some of the recommendations of the past, look at how we can make sure that we do have the freedom of the press and, in this case, I agree with your comment that I do not think the breach has in fact impacted on the report at all. It was a breach at the draft stage so there would be some argument if it did in fact go to the Privileges Committee that they would not make a finding against. I think the very important fact still remains that we need to address this issue.

Some of the recommendations that have been made in the past go part way to doing that. The parliament itself has not been of a mind to do something and we get this continual referral to the Privileges Committee to do something, and the privileges committee does very little. I am not being critical of that committee—it is the way that processes have worked.

The journalists have wised up to the arrangement and they are, in fact, thumbing their noses at the parliament and the various privileges that they and we have. It is something that does need to be addressed. The journalists themselves are well aware—the senior journalists in this parliament—of the rules. I know there are some briefings that take place from time to time. It is beholden on them to educate the younger ones as to what the rules are about.

In conclusion, Speaker, the committee accepts your finding not to make a recommendation to go to the Privileges Committee, but I would ask that you do whatever is in your power to make sure that this issue has further airing, both within the House and within the media circles.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for New England for his constructive comments and for the way the committee conducted itself during its inquiry.