Standing Committee Upon Parliamentary Privilege

About this Item
Speakers - Whelan Mr Paul
Business - Committee

STANDING COMMITTEE UPON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [12.50]: I move:

(1) That a Standing Committee upon Parliamentary Privilege be appointed to consider and report upon any matters relating to privilege which may be referred to it by the House.

(2) That such committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of the House, and have power to take evidence and send for persons and papers.

(3) That such committee have power to confer with any committee appointed for similar purposes by the Legislative Council.

(4) That such committee consist of Ms Machin, Mr Packard, Mr Thompson, Mr Merton, Ms Nori and the mover.

Page 4807

It is not imperative that the committee comprise the members referred to in the motion. The thrust of the motion is that which appears in clause 1, namely, that a Standing Committee upon Parliamentary Privilege be appointed to consider and report upon any matters relating to privilege which may be referred to it by the House. This Parliament has been well served by the publication Parliamentary Privilege in New South Wales, which was prepared by a committee of members of this Parliament chaired by the Hon. R. M. Cavalier. The committee comprised the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, the Hon. M. F. Willis, the honourable member for Swansea, and the Minister for the Environment. To complete the class of 1976, the present Deputy Premier was also a member of the committee. That publication, which is used throughout Australia, will form the basis of any understanding with regard to the privileges of Parliament. We are fortunate that the majority of members of that committee are still members of Parliament. I shall not go into the detail of the academic matters referred to by the committee. It is argued that the Parliament of New South Wales, not having legislated generally in respect of privilege, has only such powers and privileges as are implied by reason of necessity - and they are referred to in the case Armstrong v. Budd; such privileges as were imported by the adoption of the Bill of Rights of 1688; such privileges as are conferred by the Defamation Act; and such privilege as is conferred by such other legislation as the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901 and the Public Works Act 1912. I commend page 6 of the report to honourable members. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 provides:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the Parliament.

Should this motion be accepted in its present or slightly varied form, a Standing Committee upon Parliamentary Privilege will be appointed to consider matters referred to it by the House. I remind honourable members of an occasion when an attempt was made to intimidate the honourable member for Coogee, who was then the honourable member for Waverley. His role as a member of Parliament was criticised. The House noted the criticism but no action was taken. Those who attempt to intimidate members of Parliament deserve to have action taken against them similar to that which was taken in the matter involving the honourable member for Coogee. In that case the House confirmed the privilege of the member. I recall also recently a resident of Penrith seeking to serve process on the Speaker. It was served on the Clerk in the corridors of the Parliament. On one occasion a member of this House sought to serve a statement of claim for defamation on another member as part of the political nuance of parliamentary process and democracy. The summons was attempted to be served within the Parliament.

Yesterday a solicitor sought to serve process on one of my colleagues, who will remain nameless. These matters must be tidied up. The Parliament is sacrosanct, and its members do not lead sheltered lives. We may have to decide whether process can be served in Parliament. I do not believe it is necessary for members to go outside the Parliament to accept process. Another concern arises with regard to defamation. No doubt honourable members will recall when a former member for Peats, Mr O'Connell, wrote a confirmatory letter to a Minister enclosing a letter of his constituent which contained defamatory material. Regrettably, Mr O'Connell had to pay damages merely because he forwarded on a communication he received from a constituent. Many honourable members receive letters and forward them on to Ministers. To some extent members of Parliament are conduits to Ministers. Therefore, why should they suffer the indignity of a trial and an award of damages against them. Members of Parliament should not be intimidated. This Standing Committee upon Parliamentary Privilege will address that matter also. It will examine the powers and obligations that the Leader of the Government in this House and I have with regard to broadcasting proceedings.

Page 4808

I understand that the Attorney General is seeking to move amendments with regard to the Defamation Act. This committee may be called upon to consider and report upon matters involving the provisions of the Defamation Act. At the same time that uniform defamation laws are being considered it would be timely for the committee to consider the privileges of members of Parliament. Honourable members must consider the question of law enforcement and the role of law enforcement agencies. Should police be able to come on to the precincts of Parliament? When I first entered Parliament and was still practising as a solicitor I thought an immunity applied to members of Parliament until a smart policeman came to serve a summons on me. I said to him, "You cannot do it". He said, "Have you not heard of this case?" I said, "No" and he produced a document out of his hip pocket. The courts had decided that even a criminal process could be served within the precincts of the Parliament itself.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:36:08 : Update this page