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

On 5 December last year the honourable member for Watson, the Manager of Opposition Business, raised as a matter of privilege whether in statements made to the House the honourable member for Hume had misled the House such as to constitute contempt of the House. The member for Watson tabled a number of related documents. I have examined these as well as his statement to the House, and I am satisfied the member has raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. I note that the member for Watson referenced the honourable member for Hindmarsh as having referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests a separate matter about the member for Hume's obligations in relation to the registration of members' interest.

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 as of right to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. To establish that the contempt has been committed, it would need to be shown that: (1) a statement had in fact meed misleading; (2) the member knew at the time the statement was incorrect; and (3) the misleading had been deliberate. In relation to the question of a matter being a contempt, I note also that it 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 the House of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties. There needs to be prima facie evidence of these aspects to establish a case for the precedence to be given to a motion.

I have considered the information provided by the honourable member for Watson. I understand that this matter is surrounded by differing 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. As 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, it then follows that 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.