Motions

Parliamentary Privilege

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:08): I move:

That this house asserts its privileges, in particular the freedom of speech in debates and proceedings in parliament (and in relation to any records, documents or materials however so created, stored, transmitted or maintained) ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of this parliament, and reasserts that principle in relation to the subject matter I introduced and raised in the house last evening.

The SPEAKER: Does the member for Kavel wish to speak to the motion?

Mr CREGAN: Thank you, sir. This form of words and protection were also relevant in the Niarchos v Snelling matter, and I seek to continue to enjoy, for the protection of myself and my constituents and other members of the community, the ancient rights and privileges of this house. I do so emphasising, too, the connection to proceedings between the remarks I made in the house last evening and the importance of maintaining privilege over certain documents that inform my judgement in relation to those remarks.

I emphasise that the budget bill does, of course, contain funding for ECSA and other important related authorities and for this very parliament. Therefore, there is a close and direct connection between the matters I raised and electoral probity, transparency and other matters related to the duties and obligations of those bodies but also, importantly, to the duties and obligations that I have as a member and that every member ought to continue to enjoy in this house. I say that also in answer to matters that you raised from the chair last night. I am very thankful for the emphasis of the opposition last night in relation to the connection between the remarks I was making and the proceedings then on foot.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:10): I am very happy to rise to say that the opposition will be supporting the member's plight in protecting himself and his constituents against anyone who wishes to usurp those rights, especially in the ongoing difficulties or troubles that are occurring internally in the Liberal Party. This parliament's walls should not be breached, and the opposition is prepared to support the member for Kavel in whatever difficulties he is facing internally with these documents.

People should be able to contact their local member of parliament freely, without fear of any coercion from any outside body at all. It is a sacred principle that people can come to their member of parliament to raise grievances and have those grievances aired or concealed. That is the point. We should not have to be doing this today, but alas, in case of there being any ambiguity, we declare that we will absolutely support the member.

The only other point I make is that it is unusual to extend privilege on documents we have not seen, but I understand the member will be tabling those documents after the passage of this motion. The Niarchos v Snelling case was one that was before the courts, and the house had full transparency over those proceedings and what was being sought from the member, so I would assume that the same would apply today. I support the motion.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:12): I reassure members that I am not aware of any proceedings presently on foot or of any investigation by anybody in this state. I am simply ensuring that my constituents continue to enjoy the ancient rights and privileges that are extended to me in order that I can discharge my functions and protect them.

Motion carried.