Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 51, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In question time on Thursday 15 August, the Prime Minister said:

I'll refer to what the ASIO director-general himself has said:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

He went on to say:

It's a direct quote.

…   …   …

It's a direct quote from Insiders on 11 August.

These statements infer that Mr Mike Burgess AM, the director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, said that all people who had been issued a visa had been referred to ASIO. However, the direct quote from Mike Burgess from Insiders on 11 August was:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process. Part of that visa process is, where criteria are hit, they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

As is clear from this full reporting of the quote from Mr Burgess, the Prime Minister omitted key words when he purported to use a direct quote from Mr Burgess in question time on Thursday 15 August. He omitted the following words: 'part of that visa process is where criteria are hit'. I submit that, in omitting these words, the Prime Minister has changed the meaning of Mr Burgess's statement. It's reasonable to conclude that a person following proceedings—for example, via the House's official broadcast—may come to the conclusion, because of the Prime Minister's purported direct quote, that Mr Burgess said only what the Prime Minister told this House Mr Burgess said, but in fact Mr Burgess said something quite different.

I submit, on the basis of the matters I've raised, that the Prime Minister has deliberately misled the House such as would constitute a contempt of the House. I further make the point that I'm raising this matter with you at the earliest opportunity. There was no opportunity to do so after question time because, under the standing orders, the House was to proceed automatically to consider the matter of public importance, and there was no government business between the matter of public importance and the adjournment.

Of course, another important factor here is that, when the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion seeking to suspend standing orders during the course of question time, he was relying on the Department of Parliamentary Services live captions of Hansard. It's appropriate, in bringing this matter to your attention, that we are able to rely on the proof copy of Hansard. Of course, the complete House of Representatives Hansard proof was published at 7.57 pm on Thursday evening. I note that, when the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter in question time last Thursday, you said:

Just for clarity, it places the Speaker in a difficult position when I don't have an exact copy of Hansard in front of me at the time.

That was a perfectly reasonable proposition from you, Mr Speaker. I am therefore raising this matter at the first opportunity subsequent to the proof copy being available.

On the basis of these facts, Mr Speaker, I submit that I have raised this matter of privilege with you at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the standing orders, and I ask that you give your consideration to this matter.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Bradfield. I'm satisfied that the member has raised this matter at the earliest opportunity. As allowed under standing order 51(b)(ii), I will give further consideration of the matter and report to the House.