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

On Thursday 13 May, the Member for Hughes raised as a matter of privilege whether his banning by Facebook from its social media platforms constitutes an improper interference with the free performance of his duties as a member such as to amount to a contempt of the House. The member for Hughes refers to Facebook's action as impeding his ability to communicate with his constituents and his constituents' ability to communicate with him, thereby impeding his ability to represent their interests. The member for Hughes presented several documents as supporting information, including media articles and webpage printouts. Since the last sitting, I have reviewed the matter raised by the member for Hughes and the supporting information he provided. I accept that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

Acts which attempt to interfere with the free performance by a member of his or her duties as a member can be regarded as a contempt. Under section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, such acts must amount to or be intended or likely to amount to improper interference in the free performance of the member's duties as a member. While the action described by the member for Hughes does appear to have been directed specifically at him, and I acknowledge that the member for Hughes considers that the action taken has seriously impacted his ability to perform aspects of his role, on the information available to me I am not in a position to determine that this represents a prima facie case of an improper interference, as required by the act.

In the media reports presented to the House by the member, Facebook has stated that it removed the member's Facebook page because the member for Hughes repeatedly violated the site's policy of not allowing users to share misinformation about COVID-19 that had been refuted by public health officials. There is no evidence in the material to suggest that the particular action by Facebook was directed at the member in his capacity as a member.

I acknowledge that the member for Hughes considers that the action taken has impeded communications between himself and his constituents. I am aware also that the member would have other means of communicating with constituents available to him.

In the absence of more specific evidence, and given the consistently held view that the House's privileges and contempt powers should be exercised sparingly, I do not find that a prima facie case has been established such as would cause me to give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.