HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-05-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege

The SPEAKER (21:44): I rise to address the matter of privilege that was raised today regarding the Minister for Police failing to table notes he intimated he would provide to the house. After seeking advice, I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for Enfield in this house earlier today. However, before addressing that matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to this house and its members.

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. McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand in my view 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'.

An essential aspect of privilege is to ensure that each member can speak without fear or favour but at the same time be able to rely on the accuracy of the statements made in the house by any member. It is not a protection from the consequences of misconduct, poor judgement or inaccurate information.

I refer to the matter raised by the member for Enfield in relation to an answer provided by the Minister for Police to the following question asked by the member for Enfield in the house on 9 May 2018:

Given the State Records Act provisions, did your staff member keep their notes from the southern suburbs forum?

In response to the question, the Minister for Police answered by saying, and I quote from Hansard at page 154:

My staff member will have taken notes, and we have discussed those notes. Have I seen a handwritten copy of those notes? No, but I am happy to give those to the house, provide them to the house, as is needed or wanted.

A little further on in his answer to the same question, the Minister for Police states, and once again I quote from Hansard at page 154:

Yes, I am happy to look at those notes and return them to the house as deemed fit.

The member for Enfield then refers to an answer provided by the Minister for Police to a question he asked in the house on 15 May. In particular, the member for Enfield asked the following question to the Minister for Police:

When will the minister table the notes taken by his staff member that he undertook to table last week when asked questions in the house?

The Minister for Police answered by saying, and I quote from Hansard at page 291:

I thank the member for his question and note that, having checked the State Records Act, those notes were compliant 100 per cent with the act, and he [the member for Enfield] has every manner to go about receiving them and he knows how to do that through FOI, I think.

The member for Enfield has requested me to consider this as a matter of privilege. He does so on the basis of alleging that the Minister for Police has breached his obligation and duty to the house to act in good faith by refusing to provide a copy of the notes to the house, which it is alleged he earlier offered to provide to the house.

The only obligation the minister would have to furnish documents to the house is if the house ordered the production of the documents. In this instance, there was no such order. In respect to the obligation and duty to the house for the minister to act in good faith, any breach of this obligation or duty does not amount to a contempt. On close examination of the answer provided by the Minister for Police to the member for Enfield's question on 9 May 2018, the minister clarifies his position in respect to providing notes to the house by saying:

…I am happy to give those [notes] to the house, provide them to the house, as is needed or wanted.

And further:

Yes, I am happy to look at those notes and return them to the house as deemed fit.

Clearly, the minister has placed a caveat on the provision of the notes to the house by reserving his position to provide them based on need or want or whether he deems them fit for presentation to the house. As the minister has stated:

Have I seen a handwritten copy of the notes? No...

I would assume that it would be imprudent of the minister to make an undertaking to release the notes without sighting them first, and for that reason he has clearly placed a caveat on their presentation to the house.

In this instance, the minister's behaviour cannot be regarded as a contempt resulting in a breach of privilege. In reaching this decision, I have no doubt that it does not fall to me to make a judgement either way because, in my view, the conduct complained of cannot, per the test in McGee, genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties, which as members would know is the test described by McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand.

In the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege for the reasons I stated earlier. In the Chair's view, the matter could not genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties; therefore, I also decline to give the matter the precedence that would allow the member for Enfield to immediately pursue the matter. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion.

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