Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (20:18): I rise on the matter of privilege that was raised this morning by the member for Badcoe regarding outsourcing of foster carer services. I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for Badcoe in the house earlier today. As I have done before, before addressing the matter I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it does relate to the house and its members.

I remind members that privilege is not a device by which members or any other person can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by the vote of the house on a substantive motion. As we have heard before, McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand makes the test for whether or not a matter is a matter of privilege by defining it as a matter that can 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the House in the discharge of its duties'.

Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes the house in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his or her duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result, may be treated as a contempt and therefore be considered a matter of privilege even though there is no precedent of the offence.

I refer to the matter raised by the member for Badcoe in relation to an answer given by the Minister for Child Protection to a question in the house on 16 May. More specifically, the member for Badcoe asked the following question of the Minister for Child Protection:

Is the minister outsourcing the assessment of foster or kinship carers to a Victorian company, Assessments Australia, or any other private or non-government organisations?

The Minister for Child Protection, in responding to the question, answered, 'No.' The member for Badcoe alleges that the Minister for Child Protection has misled the house as she acknowledges that for some time the assessment of foster carers has been done by external agencies, including not-for-profit groups that recruit foster carers.

Further, the member for Badcoe contends that the Victorian-based company Assessment Australia is and has been completing kinship care assessments for the department, referring to the Department for Child Protection. The member for Badcoe then advises the house by way of a rhetorical question, 'Why else would their website [Assessment Australia] have forms with the Department for Child Protection logos on them for department workers to refer kinship carers to Assessment Australia for assessment?'

Since this matter of privilege was raised, I advise the house that I have had the opportunity to read the Minister for Child Protection's personal explanations that were made in the house earlier today. In her personal explanation, the minister asserts her answer to a question on 16 May to be accurate because these care assessments were outsourced a number of years ago. The minister further states, 'Neither I nor the government have taken any steps to change this arrangement.'

If I was considering the matter prior to the minister's personal explanation, I would be of the view that prima facie the matters raised by the member for Badcoe may have touched on privilege and should therefore be accorded precedence for a motion which would enable the house to determine if there had been a breach of privilege. However, having had the benefit of examining the minister's personal explanation, I am of the opinion that any potential misleading of the house, as alluded to by the member for Badcoe, by the minister's answer has been corrected and therefore I do not propose to give precedence to the matter as a matter of privilege. However, this decision does not prevent the member for Badcoe or any other member from proceeding with a motion on the specific matter by giving notice in the usual way.