HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Matter of Privilege

Minister for Emergency Services

The SPEAKER (16:23): I now adjudicate whether to give precedence to the matter of privilege raised by the member for Morphett in the house earlier today. Privilege is not a device by which members or any other person can seek to pursue matters that can be suitably addressed by ordinary scheduled debate or settled by a vote of the house on a substantive motion. McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand makes the test for whether or not a matter is a matter of privilege: can the matter 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'?

The essentials of this aspect of privilege is that each member can speak without fear or favour and be able to rely on the accuracy of the statements made in the house by any member. Privilege is not principally aimed at poor judgement or ambiguous expression. The member for Morphett cites answers provided by the Minister for Emergency Services to questions asked in the house on 25 February and 17 June this year. The member for Morphett alleges that the member has misled the house, as his answers to questions in the house contradicted the information contained in correspondence that has come to the member's attention by way of a freedom of information request.

More specifically, the member for Morphett asked this question to the Minister for Emergency Services on 25 February 2014:

Did the minister issue a ministerial direction to the SAFECOM board to supply Mount Barker CFS brigade with two type 1 pumpers, 25 sets of structural PPE and extra structural firefighting equipment and, if so, when will he table that ministerial direction?

In response to this question the minister replied, and I refer to Hansard, page 343, of the same day:

…I have asked the SAFECOM board to consider their request. My understanding is that SAFECOM considered that request at its recent meeting. If you are asking, 'Did I give a direction?', that is incorrect.

Further, on 17 June this year, the member for Morphett asked the Minister for Emergency Services:

Did the minister issue a ministerial directive to the SAFECOM board to investigate the provision of additional equipment to Mount Barker CFS and will he table that ministerial directive?

I refer to Hansard,page 1690, of the same day, where the minister provided this response:

Well, the answer is no different. The answer is no I did not give a direction.

The member for Morphett has provided me with a copy of a letter he obtained under freedom of information from the Minister for Emergency Services to the brigade captain of the Mount Barker CFS, dated 6 October 2014. As the member for Morphett advised the house earlier today, the minister stated in that letter:

I have directed SAFECOM and the Country Fire Service to investigate the provision of additional equipment for your Brigade.

It is upon this basis that the member for Morphett alleges that the Minister for Emergency Services has misled the house, as his denial in answers to questions in the house that he has issued a ministerial direction to SAFECOM is not consistent with what the minister's letter to the brigade captain says.

There are three elements in establishing the contempt of misleading of parliament. They are that the statement or statements complained of must have been misleading, it must be established that the member knew at the time it was misleading and that it was the member's deliberate intention to mislead the house.

I have considered the matters raised by the member for Morphett. I also remind all members of the ruling given by Speaker Oswald in which he made it clear that it is not the Speaker’s role to determine whether a minister has a prima facie case to answer but, rather, whether the Speaker finds that, prima facie, the matter raised by the member touches on privilege and whether a motion on the matter should be granted precedence over all other business of the house.

I have considered the information put to me today and I listened to the minister's ministerial statement after question time today. I can make a ruling only on the information I find before me. I think that semantics may be the basis for any alleged misleading of the house. Although the member's questions specifically sought a response about a formal ministerial directive to the SAFECOM board, the minister's letter appears to be about a less formal direction.

This view is supported by the minister's answer to the member for Morphett’s question on 25 February 2015—and I am sorry, I think I may have referred to 2014 before, but I was wrong: it is 25 February 2015—where the minister indicated, and I quote from Hansard,page 343:

As a good minister, I have listened to what they said and I have asked the SAFECOM board to consider their request. My understanding is that SAFECOM considered that request at its recent meeting.

Although the letter to the brigade captain appears to contradict the minister's answers in question time, the minister offers a plausible explanation for the apparent inconsistency. It is my opinion that if the minister's apparent contradiction touches on privilege, it does so so lightly that it does not impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties and that the matter is not so grave and not so lacking in an explanation consistent with the minister's innocence that it should take precedence over all other business of the house.

If the member for Morphett is not convinced by the minister's explanation, he can give notice of a motion referring the matter to a privileges committee and it can be debated in the normal way. Indeed, it is I think a test of the seriousness with which the matter has been agitated whether such a motion follows my adjudication. I am sure the house will give the member for Morphett leave to do so forthwith.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:30): I have heard the minister's explanation and his ministerial statement. While we can argue the semantics of the issue, I will not be proceeding with a formal motion. I am satisfied by your ruling.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT