Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the committee's report entitled Report concerning legal action in the Federal Court of Australia and possible issues of parliamentary privilege.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Members will recall that, on 15 June this year, the honourable member for Clark raised a matter of privilege, an interlocutory judgement of the Federal Court of Australia made on 1 June. This was in an action brought by the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales against Mr Troy Stolz. The judgement granted leave to Clubs New South Wales to obtain correspondence between Mr Stolz and the member for Clark's office, including emails, text messages and documents. The member for Clark stated that he had relied on these materials to speak in the House on 13 February 2020, therefore establishing a direct link between the materials covered by the court decision and the member for Clark's contributions in parliamentary proceedings. On 22 June this year the House resolved to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. The committee was asked to consider whether the legal action taken by Clubs New South Wales raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt and, if so, whether the House should intervene in court proceedings to ensure that parliamentary proceedings are appropriately protected by the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.

In carrying out its inquiry, the committee considered the written submissions from the member for Clark, correspondence from Clubs New South Wales, legal advice and relevant court documents. The committee also carefully examined relevant case law and the law relating to parliamentary privilege. At the heart of this matter is whether parliamentary privilege is likely to attach to some of the material covered by the interlocutory judgement. A threshold issue is whether the documents fall within the definition of 'proceedings in parliament', thereby attracting the protections afforded by the Parliamentary Privileges Act. The committee therefore considered, firstly, whether the documents were provided to the member for Clark in the knowledge that they would be used by the member in parliamentary proceedings and, secondly, whether an action was taken by or on behalf of the member for Clark for the purposes of parliamentary proceedings. After careful consideration of the evidence available to it, the committee is satisfied that both conditions have been met in the current case and that the documents in question therefore fall within the definition of 'proceedings in parliament'.

In reaching its conclusions the committee acknowledges that, first, the question of law is ultimately for the courts to decide; secondly, the committee does not have knowledge of the full range of documents referred to in the interlocutory judgement and accepts that parliamentary privilege may attach to only a subset of documents; and, finally, if a member's documents are covered by parliamentary privilege, this does not prohibit those documents being disclosed or produced in a court or tribunal—rather, it places limits on the use of those documents in legal proceedings. These limits are set out in section 16(3) of the act and, as with all aspects of the act, are subject to interpretation by the courts. Nevertheless, the committee is satisfied that parliamentary privilege is likely to attach to some of the documents in question and that the legal action raises issues such that the House should intervene in the court proceedings.

As our report states, the committee considers that the most appropriate course of action is for the Speaker, as the representative of the House, to take steps to ensure that the House's interests are represented before the courts. The committee's report makes one recommendation, endorsing a motion for the House's consideration. Accordingly, I am foreshadowing that, to allow an opportunity for honourable members to consider the committee's report, as deputy chair of the committee I will seek leave to move a motion in this House tomorrow. I will do that on behalf of our chair, who is not permitted to move such a motion remotely.

Finally, I would like to thank the chair and all members of the committee for their work on this matter. Particularly, we thank the member for Menzies, whose thorough analysis helped the committee navigate these very complex issues that were in front of us.

The matter referred to the committee raises issues that are relevant and of potential interest to all members of this House. Therefore, I commend this report to the House.