Matter of Privilege

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

The SPEAKER (21:30): I refer to the matter raised by the member for Bragg earlier this evening in which she asserts that the Treasurer has misled the house in his answers to a question from the member during the consideration of the Auditor-General's Report. The subject of the member's allegation is that the Treasurer, in declining to answer a question from the member because the matters raised by the member's question were matters before the Supreme Court, has deliberately misled the house.

The member for Bragg alleges that the Treasurer had, in the recent past, made comment both in the house and to the media in relation to the matter after the institution of the court proceedings. Any inconsistency between the statements made by the Treasurer in the recent past and his reluctance to provide an answer now is not in itself a matter of privilege. The chair cannot compel a minister to provide an answer to a question, even if there is a record of the minister previously addressing the same matters in the house. In matters of sub judice, which from the Hansard record appears to be a factor in the reluctance of the Treasurer to answer, the house has traditionally relied on the knowledge of the minister in relation to the status of the legal proceedings.

Therefore, I can find no basis for giving precedence which would enable the member for Bragg or any other member to pursue this matter immediately as a matter of privilege. It cannot 'generally be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'. However, my ruling does not prevent the member for Bragg or any other member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion.