Adjournment Debate

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (17:13): I am pleased that you are in the chair, Mr Speaker, because I want to talk about the rights and privileges of individual members of parliament and the importance of those rights and privileges in a democracy. As you are a supporter of democracy, and the upholder of those rights and privileges, you clearly understand that the ability of members of the public to get justice requires that members of parliament be free from threats, intimidation, having their documents searched or their offices ransacked by the bureaucracy. This place, above all, is here to ensure that members of parliament can feel free from threats or intimidation.

Recently, a terrible miscarriage of justice in the United Kingdom occurred. The Conservative member, Damian Green—who was previously a well-known journalist with the BBC in London—was arrested and held for nine hours. His office at Westminster was searched by the police without a warrant. Both his home and his parliamentary office were searched. The police did not have a warrant and they did not have the permission of the Speaker. Unwisely and foolishly, the then Sergeant-at-Arms, who was actually appointed by the Speaker, granted permission.

Since that occasion, all hell has broken loose in the United Kingdom. I would draw members' attention to this matter and they ought to do a little research, because the privileges we have in this place and the protection we get is not for our own benefit, it is for the benefit of the people of this state; and the privileges we exercise are there to ensure that we can act on their behalf, we can protect their rights and we can ask any reasonable question of a minister without fear of retribution.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You can ask unreasonable ones, if you like.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, but there are rules in relation to them. I will give an example of why I am so concerned about this. Some few years ago, the now Treasurer was in receipt of leaked documents which annoyed the premier of the day—not an unusual thing—and the premier of the day made a comment that he was going to send the police to Parliament House. I was contacted and I said, 'There will be no police enter Parliament House under any circumstance.' This is the process in a democracy and the more governments try to hide things, the more opportunities they give to the opposition.

Damian Green has been arrested for doing his job because the bureaucrats in the Home Office were embarrassed because he was provided with certain information which was embarrassing to the minister and the government. If people were going to be locked up, I am told that the current Prime Minister used to receive more leaked documents than anyone else when he was in opposition. It is interesting to follow what the United Kingdom newspapers had to say. I think the editorial in The Daily Telegraph of Wednesday 10 December is very applicable. Members ought to be very careful and ministers should not under any circumstances set out to undermine the rights and privileges of members. The editorial states:

The Speaker of the House of Commons performs an important role in the defence and preservation of British democracy. He defends the integrity of the House of Commons, and protects the freedoms that all its members require, both to debate issues in the House, and to represent the needs and concerns of their constituents. He embodies the dignity of the House, which is why he is treated with great respect by its members, most of whom recognise that to demean the Speaker is to demean parliament.

To discharge his role, the Speaker must exhibit several qualities. He must be impartial; he must be independent; and he must be strong enough to stand up to the executive and to provide clear and unambiguous leadership. We have to come to the conclusion that Michael Martin, the present Speaker, is unfit for the office he holds. We reach that conclusion with regret: change is always disruptive, particularly so where its subject is the office of the Speaker. But Mr Martin has demonstrated that he lacks almost all the qualities required to discharge his duties of office in effective and dependable fashion.

He faced a critical test when the police came to search Damian Green's office in the Commons over a week ago. He failed it. Mr Martin did not stand up for an MP's prima facie right to keep correspondence with his constituents private. Claims have been made to the effect that the situation he faced was comparable to the one that confronted William Lenthal, the Speaker when Charles I attempted to arrest five MPs for high treason in 1642. It was not. It did not require heroic courage from Mr Martin. But it did require him to stand up for MPs' privileges, and to say 'No' to the officers from the Met who, on the spurious grounds that Mr Green posed a threat to national security, claimed the right to search his Commons office.

Instead, Mr Martin meekly capitulated. He only made matters worse last week when, in his statement to the Commons, he attempted to blame the Serjeant-at-Arms—although Jill Pay, the present holder of that office, kept him informed throughout. The Serjeant-at-Arms is under the authority of the Speaker, and has no independent power. Mr Martin's statement therefore showed a deplorable lack of leadership, and a lamentable failure to accept or even to understand the responsibilities of his office. He insisted that the 'next time' the police come to search an MP's private office, he would require that they have a warrant. But 'next time' is too late: the damage to the integrity of Members has been done. There is not much point in saying, after the horse has bolted, that you will now shut the door.

Bob Marshall-Andrews, the long-serving Labour MP, has called for Michael Martin to stand down as Speaker.

I raise this issue because I have been following it very carefully. I know that certain elements within the bureaucracy do not like members of parliament. They regard backbenchers as a jolly nuisance: they ask difficult questions and they get in the way of ministers. You have parliamentary committees at which members ask questions and challenge ministers and senior bureaucrats. However, if our democratic process is to continue to be effective, those members who sit in this and the other place must do so knowing they can challenge the government and the bureaucracy without fear of retribution.

That is the system that has developed over generations. It is a system that has stood this state, this country and the parliaments throughout the Westminster system in good stead. If anyone does not believe me, read Erskine May, read the practice of the House of Commons, and understand—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You did that after you retired as speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No. It was a pity you did not read it while I was speaker, you would have had a better understanding of standing orders. There were times when you had—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, only once. It is important that members have confidence raising issues knowing that, when they step outside this place, they will not be hindered or harassed. I know that, from time to time from my experience in this place, I have greatly annoyed sections of the bureaucracy, and I know that other members have. But I have always felt confident that the system is there, and it is so secure that we can go about our business free from threats or intimidation either directly or indirectly. That is why we have parliamentary privilege, that is why we have the ability to have limited parliamentary privilege in our offices and that is why we should never surrender our rights.

The courts should not have power to start seizing members' documents. That is a breach because, if an honourable member collects information, once you break down that ability to keep that confidential, there is no end to the abuse of the ability of an honourable member to collect information properly which they can use in the future. Many constituents come to us who are faced with the most difficult circumstances. They have nowhere to go. They have no resources.

I know that a senior police officer was terribly cross with me a few months ago because I made him apologise to one of my constituents who had her home raided at 7.30 in the morning by six police officers. She was getting out of the shower. She had committed no offence, the poor woman. False allegations had been made against her. She was terrified. I got very cross with a senior police officer and he got very cross with me but I demanded that he apologise to her, and he did.

Time expired.