Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 15 August 2017 the Manager of Opposition Business raised as a matter of privilege whether the circumstances surrounding the former member for Dunkley, Mr Bruce Billson, accepting an appointment as a paid director of the Franchise Council of Australia whilst still a member of the House gave rise to any issues which may constitute contempt of the House. I am satisfied the member has raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. The Manager of Opposition Business tabled a number of related documents, that I have examined, and I have examined these as well as his statement to the House on 15 August.

House of Representatives Practice, relying on the experience in the United Kingdom as noted in Erskine May's treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and the usage of parliament (known commonly as May), refers to two relevant matters that could be considered as contempts.

The first is corruption in the execution of a member's office as a member. To quote from May:

The acceptance by a Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as a Member, or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to either House, or to a committee is a contempt.

The second is lobbying for reward or consideration. Again to quote from May, citing a resolution of the House of Commons in 1995:

No Members of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, …advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual; or urge any Member of either House of Parliament, including Ministers, to do so, by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a bill, or amendment to a Motion or Bill.

Clearly these matters are not unrelated and there could be a fine distinction between them. As I understand it, the Manager of Opposition Business has cited both as grounds for possible contempt in this case. He also refers to the actions of the Franchise Council of Australia in making the appointment of the former member for Dunkley and has raised whether this action also may give rise to contempt issues. In his statement, the Manager of Opposition Business refers to a number of statements and actions of Mr Billson after his appointment to the Franchise Council of Australia that he states 'appeared to show support for a position on the council or indicated an association with the council'.

I am not in a position to determine the nature of any connection between the appointment of Mr Billson to the Franchise Council and his subsequent statements and actions, but I appreciate that issues are raised. In relation to the question of matters being contempt, I also note they must meet the test of section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 and be conduct that is:

… intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions …

I am not in a position to determine whether there's a prima facie case that this test has been met in the matters raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, but, again, I note the nature of the issues that have been raised.

I note that, in the United Kingdom, matters to do with lobbying for reward or consideration would now generally be dealt with as matters of conduct under the House of Commons' Code of Conduct. The House of Representatives does not have a similar code for members, even though a case such as this raises matters that may, potentially, be more to do with appropriate conduct than contempt. In this regard, I note that the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests has responsibility under the standing orders for questions about a code of conduct for members. I am willing to give precedence to a motion for matters to do with contempt or conduct in relation to the circumstances raised by the Manager of Opposition Business to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In doing so, I reiterate that I have not made a determination that there is a prima facie case, but I'm sufficiently concerned by the matters raised to consider that they should be examined by the committee.

I note that the Manager of Opposition Business referred to the member for Isaacs having written to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in relation to the former member for Dunkley's obligations in relation to the registration of members' interests. I also note the remarks of the Prime Minister in response to a question from the Manager of Opposition Business on Thursday, 10 August that he had asked the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to examine the former member for Dunkley's compliance with the Statement of Ministerial Standards.

Finally, I wish to address the issue of the jurisdiction of the House in relation to a former member. I note that the matters raised by the Manager of Opposition Business relate to the period when Mr Billson was a member of the House. The requirements of a member's accountability to the House relate to the period in which they were a member and can be dealt with by the House after a member ceases to be a member. The most recent relevant case is that concerning the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson.