Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. The matter concerns an interlocutory judgement made on 1 June 2021 by Justice Yates of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of ClubsNSW versus Stolz. In essence, the judgement granted leave to ClubsNSW to obtain all items of correspondence between Mr Stolz and my office, including emails, text messages and documents. The background is that Mr Stolz contacted my office as a whistleblower informing me of widespread noncompliance by member clubs of ClubsNSW with anti-money laundering laws. I subsequently ventilated the matter in the House on 13 February 2020, including reference to a ClubsNSW board memorandum explicitly detailing this noncompliance. ClubsNSW is now suing Mr Stolz for breaching confidentiality obligations including in relation to his communication and provision of documents to me. In other words, the interlocutory judgement by Justice Yates means that ClubsNSW can use the correspondence between my office and Mr Stolz in their suit against Mr Stolz, correspondence that contains other sensitive and confidential information including the names of other actual and potential whistleblowers.

Mr Stolz did initially seek to raise privilege in these proceedings, but it is my understanding that, during a directions hearing, Justice Yates indicated it was improper for someone other than parliament to assert privilege. Whether that is the correct interpretation of the law is another matter but it means, for present purposes, that if we don't act no-one will, and parliamentary privilege will be eroded.

It is also my understanding that entirely irrelevant to the House is whether or not Mr Stolz shared information with other people and whether or not ClubsNSW pursues that matter, because the substantive issue before us here is the unbroken chain between Mr Stolz's approach to me as an MP and me doing my job and standing up in the House revealing his concerns. I submit that in the circumstances there's a prima facie case that section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act precludes ClubsNSW from using the correspondence between my office and Mr Stolz. Indeed, that much is evidenced by section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, which provides 'it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received … concerning proceedings in Parliament'. Moreover, proceedings in parliament are defined broadly in section 16(2), to include 'all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee'.

It is obviously important that the House protects itself against all acts or omissions which obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions, which is why I ask you to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests whether the parliament should intervene in this case to protect privilege. I thank you for your consideration of this matter, Mr Speaker.

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

I thank the member for Clark and I will consider the matter in the normal way.