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

Last Wednesday, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and member for Ballarat raised, as a matter of privilege, whether an action by the member for Barker constitutes a breach of privilege. The specific action the minister referred to is the filming by a staff member of the member for Barker, without permission, of an interaction that day between the member for Barker and the member in her ministerial office, and associated filming in a Ministerial Wing corridor. The minister presented, as supporting information, an email from her to all members and senators advertising a drop-in session in her office on Wednesday, which I understand is a regular occurrence and I believe she should be commended for.

I have had the opportunity to review the matter raised by the minister and, as I noted at that time, I accept the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity. The task for me under the standing orders is to determine whether there is a prima facie case that the action by the member for Barker amounts to, or was intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the member for Ballarat of her duties as a member.

I note that the incident complained of occurred during a drop-in session held by the member in her capacity as Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, on subjects within her ministerial responsibilities.

I appreciate the minister's concerns about the discourtesy shown by the member for Barker through this action and acknowledge that she may consider it to be a significant interference in her ministerial work and an affront to her. However, I do not see evidence that the action by the member for Barker amounts to, or was intended or was likely to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the member for Ballarat of her duties as a member, such as would allow me to find a prime facie case of a breach of parliamentary privilege. Therefore I do not propose to give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.

Even though there is not a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, other considerations are relevant in these circumstances. The evidence of the minister raises serious concerns about breaches of the media rules applying to everyone in Parliament House. I take this opportunity to remind all members that filming interactions in the private areas of Parliament House without appropriate approvals and the express permission of those captured in the images are a breach of the media rules of Parliament House. These rules apply to everyone—visitors and building occupants alike—including members and their staff. I consider it to be the responsibility of members to ensure that their staff follow these rules.

Further, I take this opportunity to remind members of the parliamentary behaviour standards and code, which were approved by the House and the Senate in October. Every one of us is required to understand and comply with the standards and code. As the Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians states, all parliamentarians have a shared responsibility as employers and leaders in the community to ensure that our workplace meets the highest standards of integrity, dignity, safety and mutual respect. I would hope that any member who has caused offence to another member would exercise that respect and apologise for their actions.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this indulgence and for the manner in which you've dealt with this matter. Over the course of Wednesday 20 November, a new staff member from my office recorded footage of me in various locations in and around Parliament House, including in the ministerial corridor. These recordings, while taken in error, were in no way covert. I acknowledge the error. I note that I've apologised to you and, through you, to all occupants of this building for those actions. I have now refamiliarised myself with the rules for media related activities in Parliament House and its precincts and have, as requested, brought those media rules to the attention of all of my staff.

I note, however, that, in raising this matter pursuant to standing order 51, Minister King has alleged amongst other things that I filmed in her ministerial suite and that I downloaded the footage onto a laptop. I reject those allegations. Unbeknownst to me, after capturing footage in the ministerial corridor, my staff member continued recording as I entered the reception and meeting room of the minister's suite. On returning to my office and having been made aware of that footage, the member of my staff was directed to delete it. That fact was contemporaneously confirmed when the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms spoke with my staff member who apologised, accepted responsibility and confirmed that the footage had been deleted.

I have apologised to Minister King. The filming in her suite should not have occurred, and I accept responsibility for my staff member's error.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—Thanks very much, Mr Speaker, for the manner in which you have handled the matter. As you know, the matter does relate to an incident that occurred in my ministerial office last week during a drop-in session, which I do hold on a regular basis for all members of parliament, regardless of political persuasion, to come and talk to me about projects that they have in their electorates. It's something that I feel is in the legacy of Simon Crean. He used to do that when we were last in government, and I've continued that tradition.

As I've already outlined to the House, I do consider it was a significant breach of the rules, during the drop-in session, when it did become evident that there was filming taking place without any prior request or any consent from me. I accept that the member for Barker subsequently rang me to apologise. I accept the apology, which I note has been made on behalf of his staff member. If that's how he'd like to explain it, then that is a matter for him.

I do want to make the point that, in the last week of the parliamentary calendar, Australians do expect and deserve to see parliamentarians conduct themselves in a manner befitting this place. That goes to respect for each other and for the rules we've established as we go about our jobs. We've now codified that behaviour, and I do hope that the member reflects on that, as he goes forward, in doing his job.