| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| Notes for the Chair | RAISING MATTERS OF PRIVILEGE NOT SUDDENLY ARISING
In accordance with Standing Order 92 Members wishing to raise matters of privilege that are not suddenly arising must inform the Speaker of the details in writing. The Speaker will then decide, within 14 days, whether a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics should have precedence. While the Speaker is considering the matter the Member should not take any action or refer to the matter in the House. If the Speaker decides that a motion should take precedence, the Member may give a notice of motion to refer the matter to the Committee when there is no other business before the House. The notice will have precedence on the next sitting day or with the leave of the House it may be moved at a later hour at the sitting at which the notice is given. Matters not suddenly arising Speaker: “The matter raised by the Member for … is not one that has suddenly arisen during the proceedings in the House. In accordance with Standing Order 92 the Member may put their concerns in writing to the Speaker who will consider the matter raised.” |
| 2007 Precedent | 1. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Speaker about advice he had received in relation to a possible point of privilege that was raised at the previous sitting. The Speaker read out the following advice in response to the Leader of the Opposition and for the benefit of all members of the House: "High profile and eminent people often make comments on legislation before Parliament. That is the nature of a democratic society, which enables people of all persuasions to voice their views. However, members of Parliament, as the representatives of the people, should be able to express their views and vote in any way they deem appropriate. In this regard Members should not feel intimidated by others. The House has a long history of dealing with privilege issues and one of the facets of a prima facie breach of privilege relates to the indignities offered to the character of proceedings of Parliament; assaults or insults upon members; reflections upon Members' character or conduct in Parliament; or intimidation of Members. Public debate about legislation before the Parliament does not necessarily insult the House or its Members. Comments directed at Members could be construed as reflecting on the character or conduct of Members in Parliament. However, for such comments to be a breach of privilege they must have dire consequences for Members, such as impeding Members in their duties in the House. I consider in this case that the comments made about the legislation before the House have been made as part of the of the public debate on a controversial issue and have not affected the rights of Members to express their views and vote as they deem appropriate. However, the intimidation of Members is a serious issue and people who attempt to intimidate Members to vote in a particular way in the House or to express a particular view are in contempt of the House."
PD 19/6/2007, 1198; VP 19/6/2007, 135 |
| House Forms | Matter of Privilege – not suddenly arising
(SO 92) A matter of privilege not suddenly arising is considered by the Speaker upon receipt of the details in writing. If the Speaker decides that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics the Member may, at any time when there is no business before the House, give notice to refer the matter to the Committee. This motion takes precedence on the next sitting day. If the House is not expected to meet on the day following the giving of the notice, the motion may be moved at a later hour of the sitting at which the notice was given. Member: I move, That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for consideration and report: (Details of matter of privilege/ contempt) |
| 551 Sessional Order | PRIVILEGE NOT SUDDENLY ARISING
(Adopted 3 May 2011, Votes and Proceedings p. 41) That, during the current session, unless otherwise ordered, standing order 92 shall read as follows: 92. Except as provided in standing order 91 and in paragraph (5) of this standing order, a matter of privilege or contempt shall be brought before the House as follows: (1) A Member desiring to raise a matter of privilege or contempt must inform the Speaker of the details in writing. (2) The Speaker must consider the matter within 14 days and decide whether a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics (the Committee) is to take precedence under the standing orders. The Speaker must notify this decision in writing to the Member. (3) While a matter is being considered by the Speaker, a Member must not take any action or refer to the matter in the House. (4) If the Speaker decides that a motion for referral should take precedence, the Member may, at any time when there is no business before the House, give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Committee. The notice must take precedence under standing order 118 on the next sitting day. (5) If the Speaker decides that the matter should not be the subject of a notice of referral, a Member is not prevented from giving a notice of motion in relation to the matter. Such notice shall not have precedence. (6) If notice of a motion is given under paragraph (4), but the House is not expected to meet on the day following the giving of the notice, with the leave of the House, the motion may be moved at a later hour of the sitting at which the notice is given. |
| S.O. 101 of 1994 (Repealed) | 101. A Member may rise to declare that a contempt or breach of privilege has been committed. In order to move a substantive motion immediately or to request the Speaker to have a notice placed on the Business Paper with precedence, the Member must satisfy the Speaker (in a statement limited to 10 minutes) that: (1) The matter is one suddenly arising and should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity; (2) There is a prima facie case; and
(3) The Member has a prepared notice of motion and the matter should proceed forthwith or have precedence for the next sitting day. |
| 2006 Precedent | 1. A member rose on a matter of privilege in relation to private members' statements. He noted that sessional orders had been adopted to allow members from either side of the House to make statements on matters affecting their electorates but that the privilege had been taken away that afternoon due to the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The Leader of the House noted that private members' statements would be taken later that day. The Speaker ruled that there was no point of privilege. PD 07/03/2006, p 21118 2. A member rose on a matter of privilege under standing order 101 in relation to threats of violence that had been made against female members of the Liberal Party and The Nationals of the NSW Parliament by a Government member in the Legislative Council. The Speaker reserved his decision and later ruled that whilst comments made by members in the other House may have been inappropriate that such remarks do not form the basis for a claim of breach of privilege. He noted that previous Speakers have indicated that one element of a breach of privilege is a reflection upon the character or the actions of a member which prevents that member from carrying out his or her duties. The Speaker went on to argue that the member had not been obstructed in her duties as a member of Parliament in that she had not been prevented from exercising her freedom of speech in the House nor impeded in attending the service of the House. The Speaker concluded that a prima facie breach of privilege had not occurred and that to make a privilege issue out of every alleged insult or reflection made about a member in this House or the Legislative Council would, arguably, in turn threaten a member's right to freedom of speech. PD 03/05/2006, pp 22522 - 22524 & 22546 3. Following the conclusion of questions without notice a member rose on a matter of privilege claiming that comments made by the Leader of the Opposition were offensive and impugned her character. The Leader of the Opposition withdrew the comments and the Speaker |
| 2005 Precedent | 1. A member rose on a matter of privilege in relation to a notice of motion standing in his name on the business paper. He noted that there was a discrepancy with the numbering of his motion on the business paper as shown on the Parliament's website and on the program for the day. He also noted that a paragraph was missing from his motion. The member sought the advice of the Speaker as to why the discrepancy has occurred and why a paragraph had been removed from his notice of motion. The Speaker noted that he had referred the matter to the Clerk for investigation and that he did not regard it as a matter of privilege. The Speaker did however note that if there had been an error in the recording of the motion, that an explanation would be provided to the member and the error corrected. PD 30/11/2005, p 20367 2. A member rose on a matter of privilege in relation to a question on notice submitted by him that had been rewritten by the Clerks. The Speaker noted that questions on notice may be corrected by the Clerks to assist members and that it is often done in consultation with the member who has submitted the question. The Speaker advised the member that if he was unhappy with the way the question had been recorded he should discuss it with the Clerks and arrive at a version with which he is happy and complies with the standing orders. PD 30/11/2005, p 20367 |
| 2004 Precedent | 1. A member rose on a matter of privilege that the standing orders had been applied to members of the Opposition and members of the Government unequally and accordingly that his privileges had been subjugated. The member went on to ask the Speaker to ensure that equality is applied to all members, including the Premier, who, is no more or less, elected than any other member. The Speaker ruled that it was not a matter of privilege and warned the member that he should know better than to reflect on the Chair in the way that he had. The Speaker also gave his assurance to the member that as Chair he had given all members a considerable degree of latitude in question time. The Speaker went on to note that although the Chamber is a robust one that it will be conducted in accordance with the standing orders, noting that he was always willing to listen to advice, particularly from members with substantial experience in the Chamber. PD 26/02/2004, p 6721 2. A member rose on a matter of privilege that there was a discrepancy between the video and the Hansard record of an answer given by the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation and Minister for Women to a question without notice yesterday. The Speaker reserved his ruling until later in the sitting when he stated that he had examined the video and the Hansard report, and directed that, on this occasion, the Hansard report should reflect the video record. VP 17/03/2004, pp 683 & 686 - 687
PD 17/03/2004, pp 7454 - 7455 & pp 7472 - 7473 3. At the conclusion of questions without notice, a member sought to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 101. The Speaker ruled that because the time for the giving of notices of motions had passed that the member must seek the leave of the House to give a notice of motion in relation to privilege. Leave was not granted. PD 01/06/2004, p 9192
VP 01/06/2004, p 831 4. At the conclusion of questions without notice, the Leader of the Opposition sought to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 101 that the Premier had |
| 2003 Precedent | 1. A member rose on a point of order that his privilege as a member of the House had been affected due to the Liberal/National Coalition members not being given the call during the debate of a matter of public importance. The Acting Speaker ruled that a matter of privilege could not be raised as a point of order as a matter of privilege could only be raised when there is no other business before the House. PD 25/06/2003, page 2149 2. A member raised a matter of privilege regarding the removal of a member from the Chamber by the Deputy Serjeant at Arms arguing that standing order 288 requires the ejection to be carried out by the Serjeant at Arms, who was not in the Chamber at the time. The member claimed that he was seeking advice for the House, following changes to the position and responsibilities of the Deputy Serjeant at Arms and on the legality of the Deputy, rather than the Serjeant at Arms escorting members from the House. The Acting Speaker reminded members that the Serjeant-at-Arms is also the Clerk-Assistant (Procedure) who has duties at the Table. The Acting Speaker also informed the House that the Deputy Serjeant at Arms acts under the delegation of the Serjeant at Arms and that accordingly he had requested the Deputy to escort the member from the House. PD 03/07/2003, 2848 3. A member rose on a matter of privilege that the Premier had failed to provide an answer to a question without notice which he said he would seek and report back to the House. The Speaker ruled that to establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege that the member must show how her character, reputation or name had been impugned or how her privileges as a member of Parliament had been infringed. The Speaker also advised the member that whether a Minister chose to respond to a question without notice does not give rise to a breach of privilege. The Speaker also went on to note that the fact a Minister has given an undertaking to provide a response and failed to do so does not infringe in any way on the privileges or rights o |
| 2002 Precedent | 1. A Member rose on a matter of privilege relating to interruptions during debate due to the Leader of the House raising points of order. The Speaker advised that the Member had not established that his privileges had been breached. PD 11/4/02, 1449 2. A member rose on a matter of privilege relating to security in Parliament House following an incident in the public gallery which disrupted proceedings. The Speaker did not accept the matter of privilege and outlined recent security initiatives taken at Parliament House. VP 20/11/02, 637 3. A member rose on a matter of privilege relating to security in Parliament following an incident where a member of the public gained entry to the bar and was then escorted from the Chamber. The Speaker did not rule on the matter but said he had received a verbal report of the incident. VP 21/11/02, 647 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. Member took a point of order as a matter of privilege that the Speaker had failed to uphold the Standing Orders particularly SOs 105 (Consideration of point of order) and 138 (Answer relevant). The Member foreshadowed a censure motion against the Speaker. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had not been established. PD 8/3/01, 12493
VP 8/3/01, 1094 2. Matter of privilege raised that a Member who had spoken to an urgent motion about banking services, had shares in a bank. The Acting Speaker reserved his comments pending advice. PD 28/3/01, 12791 3. Member raised, as a matter of privilege, the failure of the Minister for Health to answer her question on notice satisfactorily. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had not been established. PD 5/4/01, 13339
VP 5/4/01, 1166 4. Member raised, as a matter of privilege, that he had been placed on three calls to order by the Speaker which had hampered his ability to take a point of order during Question Time. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had not been established. PD 10/4/01, 13459
VP 10/4/01, 1173 5. Member advised to wait until there was no question before the Chair before raising a matter of privilege. After debate was adjourned, the Member then raised as a matter of privilege the recording of the attendance of Members during the sitting in the Votes and Proceedings. The Speaker reserved his ruling. Speaker did not make a ruling, however, it was agreed that attendance would not be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. On the days where there are no divisions or Question Time, information relating to the attendance of Members for the purpose of payment of allowances would be supplied to the Clerk, if required, by the Party Whips [see correspondence on file in Procedural Library M10-010.]
PD 1/6/01, 14243, 14247
VP 1/6/01, 1245 6. Member drew the attention of the Speaker to the presence of a stranger in the House. The stranger had been sitting on the Government benches. The Member later raised the presence of a stranger in the House as a matte |
| 2000 Precedent | 1. Member rose on a matter of privilege relating to certain comments made by the Premier during Question Time concerning the Coalition Chat line. The Speaker ruled prima facie case had not been established. VP 06/04/00, 373 2. Member rose on a matter of privilege drawing to the attention of the House that Question on Notice no. 664 had not been answered in the time allowed. The Speaker undertook to draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister. PD 09/06/00, 6990 3. Member rose on a matter of privilege relating to the inability of the Opposition to respond to significant matters when the Government makes statements during Question Time rather than make ministerial statements. Speaker ruled the matter out of order and asked her to resume her seat. PD 29/06/00, 7879 4. Member raised as a point of privilege that a media release issued by the Premier on Wednesday 9 August 2000 distorted the circumstances leading to his removal from the Chamber and thereby represented that his removal had been orchestrated. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had not been established. VP 10/08/2000, 709 5. Member raised as a matter of privilege that the Minister for Police had trivialised Question Time by denying Members the right to ask questions under Standing Order 135. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had not been established. VP 30/11/2000, 985 |
| 1999 Precedent | 1. Member rose on a matter of privilege. Another member moved, That the Member for Ku-ring-gai be not further heard which was agreed to on division. VP 29/06/99, 196 |
| 1998 Precedent | 1. Member raised a matter of privilege regarding photographers taking photographs in the Chamber with long telephoto lenses. The Speaker said he would discuss the matter with the member after question time. PD 8/4/98, 3874 2. Member raised as a matter of privilege the possibility that the security of members, staff of the Parliament and the public as well as member’s ability to carry out their duties could be compromised by possible union demonstrations at Parliament House. The Speaker ruled that as a member’s claim of privilege had to relate to an actual, not remote event and as no member had currently been obstructed he could not uphold the claim. VP 08/04/98, 489 3. The Chair must be satisfied that the member’s privilege has been breached by disobedience of general orders or rules of the House, disobedience of particular orders, indignities offered to the character or proceedings of the Parliament, assaults or insults upon members or reflection upon their character, or interference with officers of the House in the discharge of their duties. PD 29/4/98, 4123 4. Member raised as a matter of privilege the use by Ministers of correspondence sent to them by members. The Speaker drew the attention of members to page 111 of the report of the Joint Select Committee Upon Parliamentary Privilege which alluded to members’ correspondence where the report indicated that the issues involved were those of ethics rather than privilege and that the question of quotation from or adverting to members’ representations should be left to the individual judgement of Ministers who have knowledge of their contents. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had not been established. VP 29/04/98, 513
PD 29/4/98, 4123-5 5. Alleged error in Hansard proofs raised as a matter of privilege. PD 28/05/98, 5426 6. On a matter of privilege being raised in that an urgent motion condemning four members would infringe their privileges in that they would not have the opportunity to speak to the motion (the number of speakers being limited), t |
| 1997 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER MURRAY: I wish to review the matter raised by the honourable member for Pittwater as a matter of privilege on Thursday, 20 November 1997. At that time I did not rule on the matter, as required in accordance with Standing Order 101, in regard to the establishment of a prima facie case and precedence. I have carefully examined the matters raised in the statement of the honourable member for Pittwater and have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him. I have determined that the matter is not one of privilege as the alleged threat of Mr Mitchell does not preclude the honourable member for Pittwater from freedom of speech in raising matters in the House. As I understand it, Mr Mitchell’s threat to the member was, in essence, not to repeat the accusation of political bias in public as he would sue him for defamation. This type of challenge is not uncommon, as members are often asked to repeat statements outside the House. Accordingly, I rule that the notice does not have precedence and that it be placed under general business, unless the honourable member wishes to withdraw it. I remind all honourable members of the requirement to use parliamentary privilege responsibly and of the sessional order that provides for a citizen’s right of reply. VP 20/11/97, 293
VP 25/11/97, 308-9
PD 25/11/97, 2446 |
| 1997 Precedent | 1. Before calling upon Business with Precedence - Notice of Motion No.1 Speaker stated that he had reviewed the matter raised by the Member for Pittwater as a matter of privilege on Thursday 20 November 1997. Speaker stated that he had carefully examined the matters raised in the statement of the Member for Pittwater and had determined that the matter was not one of privilege as the threat of Mr Mitchell was one that did not preclude the Member from freedom of speech in raising matters in the House. Mr Mitchell’s threat to the Member was in essence not to repeat the accusation of political bias in public as he would sue him for defamation. This type of challenge is not uncommon as many Members have been asked to repeat statements outside the House. Accordingly, the Speaker ruled that the notice did not have precedence and that it be placed under General Business. The Speaker also reminded all Members to use Parliamentary Privilege responsibly and to be aware that there is a Sessional Order providing for a Citizen’s Right of Reply. VP 20/11/97, 293
VP 25/11/97, 308-9
PD 25/11/97, 2446 |
| 1996 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER MURRAY brought to the attention of Members that during the last session the House had agreed to a resolution on 26 October, 1995, whereby the Royal Commission was granted access to certain in camera evidence taken before the Select Committee upon Prostitution. The resolution provided in part for the Royal Commission to seek the leave of the Legislative Assembly before admitting into evidence before the Royal Commission any evidence taken by the Select Committee and that Officers of the Royal Commission had subsequently viewed the evidence in question and various portions were photocopied for use by the Commission. The Speaker further informed the House that by letter dated 14 October, 1996, the Royal Commission had sought leave to make public the fact that certain evidence had been given to the Committee and to tender the Committee transcript except for certain words. As a consequence the Speaker had sought advice from the Crown Solicitor regarding the potential breach of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights whereby evidence taken before the Select Committee could be brought into question. The Speaker had also sought further clarification from the Royal Commission on two occasions regarding the intended use of the material in question and that the Crown Solicitor also had advised on those responses. The Speaker noted that this matter was of deep concern to him from the perspective of the operation of committees appointed by the Parliament. For committees to operate effectively, witnesses who give evidence in camera must be assured of continuing confidentiality of that evidence unless the House itself resolves to make it public for its own purposes in special circumstances. The Speaker advised the House that the Crown Solicitor was of the opinion that from the material available to him and from the responses from the Royal Commission the action proposed by the Commission would breach Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The Speaker also stated that parliamentary convention and law prevent the House from granting a |
| 1996 Precedent | 1. Point of privilege taken. Speaker ruled not a matter of privilege. PD 17/4/96, 154 2. Point of privilege not upheld that Speaker has no right to require Member to be returned to the House to be present if suspension motion against him is passed. PD 22/5/96, 1372. Speaker later made statement that it was not the practice of the House to compel the return of a member to the Chamber in these circumstances. PD 27/6/96, 3821 3. Point of privilege taken - status of the coalition parties in NSW - Speaker reserved ruling. VP 17/9/96, 359, PD 17/9/96, 4155-4156; considered ruling given that not a matter of privilege VP 18/9/96, 393/394, PD 18/9/96, 4292; subsequently moved as a motion for urgent consideration VP 18/9/96, 393-398 4. Same matters of privilege raised by two members - statement that certain members were "protectors of paedophiles". Acting Speaker stated that a prima facie case had been established and that the notices would have precedence next sitting day. VP 17/10/96, 486, PD 17/10/96, 5045-5046; Speaker gave considered ruling that a case had not been made out, that a personal explanation was the more appropriate procedure and that he had ordered the notices be struck from the Business Paper. VP 22/10/96, 492-493, PD 22/10/96, 5147-5148. 5. Member rose on a point of order and stated that another member who had been suspended had been intimidatory against her, did not proceed to establishing prima facie case. PD 14/11/96, 6057 6. Statement by Speaker in response to request by Royal Commission into Police Service for House to grant leave to the Commission to make public certain in camera evidence from the Select Committee upon Prostitution. Speaker stated that in his opinion granting leave had the potential to breach Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and the House had no authority to waive its privilege. It was a matter for the House. Leader of the House moved motion declining leave. VP 27/11/96, 686-687 |
| 1996 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER MURRAY said that Members would recall that on Thursday 17 October 1996 the honourable member for Monaro and the honourable member for Ermington had raised as a matter of privilege that the Leader of the House stated they both were "protectors of paedophiles". The Acting Speaker had consequently recommended that their notices of motions have precedence for the next sitting day. The Speaker said that he had carefully considered that recommendation, examined Hansard, reviewed the matters raised, had briefings from House authorities and was now in a position to give a fully considered ruling. In doing so he referred honourable members to his ruling given on Wednesday 18 September 1996, when he ruled that one element of a breach of privilege is the reflection upon the character or the actions in the House of a member, which prevents a member from carrying out their duties. To make a matter of privilege out of every heated exchange in this robust House would make the proceedings unworkable. Indeed in the Commonwealth jurisdiction the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1987 specifically abolished contempts of defamation. He did not necessarily condone certain methods of debate in the Chamber, however, it did have the reputation for lively debate. The Speaker also noted that when the Leader of the House made his statements, the member for Ermington and the member for Monaro failed to take points of order. This was left to a third member. Nor did they speak to the point of order. This undermined the subsequent argument put forward. Indeed, the member for Ermington countered the claims in the opening remarks when contributing to the debate. The Speaker therefore ruled that no prima facie case had been established as the members had failed to demonstrate how what was said would impede them in the performance of their duties as members. He also directed that the notices be struck from the Business Paper. The Speaker noted that a personal explanation, as suggested by the Acting Speaker last Thursday, would have been a mor |
| 1995 Precedent | 1. Member for Camden, Dr Kernohan, raised as a matter of privilege that a member is precluded from the proper carriage of electoral duties through the breakdown of working relationship with electorate office staff and the threats of the staffs’ union lodging a complaint against herself with the Anti-Discrimination Board. The Speaker reserved his ruling. VP 24/5/95, 50. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case had not been established. VP 25/5/95, 67; PD 25/5/95, 268 2. General business notice of motion standing in name of member for Camden {privilege matter referred to in (1) above} granted precedence on certain day. PD 31/5/95, 477
Member for Camden moved same motion as in (1). Negatived on division. VP 1/6/95, 105-106; PD 1/6/95, 559-567 3. Member raised as a point of privilege, remarks made by members in respect of other members. Speaker said did not hear the remarks and therefore no matter of privilege involved. PD 18/10/95, 1974-1975 |
| 1994 Precedent | 1. Member rose on a matter of privilege and quoted from a letter from a firm of lawyers acting on behalf of another member concerning a subpoena for production of documents. The lawyers required that his staff member contact the lawyers within the next 24 hours to make arrangements for the service of the subpoena. The member believed that the letter was intimidatory, threatening and attempted to silence him in the continuation of his role as a member of Parliament. He moved a motion that this House upholds the privilege of members of Parliament to pursue matters of public interest. The House had recently upheld that a similar implied threat from a firm of lawyers had been an attack on the privilege of the House. At this stage, however, he was uncertain whether a prima facie case had been made by the member in this instance for a breach of privilege and undertook to make a ruling after considering the matter in greater detail. Later the Speaker advised the House that the words used in the letter from the lawyers were in common use by solicitors in the State and were not especially directed to the member and ruled that there was no prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. The Speaker advised that the member had raised with him a further matter relating to the subpoena itself. As the subpoena had subsequently been withdrawn, there was no need for the Speaker to adjudicate. He undertook, however, to continue researching the matter as a source of guidance should the circumstances arise again. PD 20/4/94, 1448 VP 20/4/94, 183
PD 3/5/94, 1735 VP 3/5/94, 206 2. Member rose on a matter of privilege, stating that during the last 36 hours, another member had been escorted to and from divisions by Parliamentary security staff. Point of order taken that member was seeking to explore the issue in the context of a debate. The Speaker ruled there was no substance to the point of order but asked the member to establish the point of privilege. The member replied that his and other members' privilege had been abus |
| 1993 Precedent | 1. Member rose on a matter of privilege that his role as a member of Parliament had been seriously infringed by a pamphlet being circulated in a federal electorate. Point of order taken that rather than demonstrating within the time provided how his rights and privileges had been infringed, the member was arguing on another matter. The member who rose on the matter of privilege cited Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, page 121 and 127, concerning reflections upon members, the particular individuals not being named or otherwise indicated, being equivalent to reflections on the House. The Speaker stated that it was very difficult to rule on a matter like this because one really did not know the basis on which Erskine May's comments were made and the type of matters considered. However, he did not think that in the cut and thrust of an election for seats in another place those matters came within the type of things generally referrred to in Erskine May. He ruled that the member should have made a personal explanation and thought that he had done so, however it would be drawing an extremely long bow to think that he had made a prima facie case for privilege. He upheld the point of order but indicated that he would be happy to discuss the matter with the member. PD 4/3/93, 376 2. Member rose on a matter of privilege, drawing the attention of the House to the incomplete and incorrect answer given by a Minister to a question in the Questions and Answers paper. The Speaker ruled that the member appeared to be endeavouring to debate the substance of whether a question was answered correctly. There were other procedures by which he could do this. It was scarcely a matter of privilege. The member then gave a notice of motion concerning to the failure of the Minister to answer the question. PD 31/3/93, 1038 3. Member rose on a matter of privilege concerning legal proceedings taken against her in relation to the administration of FANMAC. The Speaker ruled that initially he did not believe it to be a matter |
| 1992 Precedent | 1. In response to the petition of Dr Stuart Boland, President of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association, the House declined to waive such parliamentary privilege as would preclude the Solicitors and Counsel for the Australian Medical Association from examining and commenting upon the Public Accounts Committee Report on Payments to Visiting Medical Officers, No. 45 June 1989, in proceedings currently before the Honourable Justice Hungerford, Q.C. VP 10/3/92, 105 & 122. 2. Member argued that his privilege as a member of Parliament had been prejudiced by the Speaker's decision not to permit television and audio recording of the day's session. Speaker replied that standing orders did not permit the use of cameras, microphones, tape recorders or other mechanical recording device within the Chamber or precincts of the House. Member then moved a motion that standing orders be suspended to permit a resolution allowing for one fixed television camera. Leave not granted. PD 28/4/92, 2792 VP 28/4/92, 243 3. The Member for Wakehurst made a personal explanation concerning accusations reflecting on his parliamentary and professional probity made in the House under parliamentary privilege by the members of the Opposition.. The matter was later the subject of rulings on points of order under Standing Order 82 in relation to a no confidence motion in the Government. PD 1/7/92, 5146 4. Member raised a matter of privilege, concerning the extraordinary number of reports that had just been tabled. He felt his privilege had been infringed because these reports had not been made available during recent estimates committees hearings. He asked that, where such reports were available, they be tabled immediately they become available to Ministers. The Speaker replied that the Chair had no authority to direct Ministers when they should table papers. Under the law, the papers tabled were required to be made available to the Minister by 30 October, therefore this was the first opportunity that Ministers had had to |
| 1991 Precedent | 1. Alleged breach of privilege that member hearing of impact of financial statement on electorate on television and radio news before statement fully delivered in House. The Speaker ruled that not a breach of privilege and House only following procedure laid down in Sessional Order (delivery of statement interrupted by private members' statements)
PD 2/7/91, 58-59 2. Member threatened and assaulted as a result of actions taken by him in regard to information received as a Member of Parliament. Speaker ruled prima facie case established, Motion moved, question put and passed. Suspension of standing orders agreed to to allow the re-moving of the motion; member who raised the matter (not having spoken previously) moved motion again and spoke to it, question put and passed. VP 12/9/91, 145-7 3. Member raised as a matter of privilege concerns about alleged fraudulent press releases and a letter circulating in his name which contained material not necessarily representing his views. Speaker stated that as the member did not move a motion at the end of his statement, he presumed it to be a personal explanation. Mr Smiles then indicated that he intended to move a motion which he then did. Another member also addressed the House, by leave. The Speaker directed Mr Smiles to indicate the text of his proposed motion and ruled that a prima facie case of breach of privilege had been established, that Mr Smiles' motion be placed on the Business Paper with precedence. During censure motion against the member, another member stated that the Speaker had saved the Government by not having the privilege motion proposed by Mr Smiles dealt with immediately. Addressing a point on the matter, the Speaker said that there was no partiality on the part of the Chair and that he was following the traditions of the House and unless a motion involves matters affecting the conduct of the Chamber at a particular time, all privilege matters would be debated on the day following the giving of the notice. PD 24/10/91, 3356-3359
PD 29/10/91, 3636
V |
| 1973 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER ELLIS: The Honourable Member has asked what steps will be taken to preserve the rights of Honourable Members and citizens outside the Parliament. I have said before that it is the right of every Honourable Member, under Privilege and subject only to observance of the forms and practices of the House itself, to exercise free speech. If a Member abuses that right he does so at his own risk and at the risk of incurring not only the displeasure of the public but also the censure of the House itself. If under cover of privilege any Honourable Member, without proper justification is guilty of attacking Honourable Members within the House, or citizens outside the Parliament who have no right of audience on the floor of the House, that is a matter for the House to deal with and not one for the Speaker. In a bad case, of course, the Speaker will, as I have done from time to time and as I have already done once this session, invite the attention of the Honourable Member making the attack to the seriousness of his actions and ask him whether he feels a compelling necessity to pursue that line. I can only appeal to all Honourable Members to exercise moderation in the way in which they use the right of free speech in this Chamber. It does not lie within my power to take any action against any Honourable Member who abuses that right: that is something for the House itself to deal with and also for the public; which in one way or another can express its displeasure at an offending Member. PD 1972 - 73, p 292 |
| 1971 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER ELLIS: It is the right of every member to say what he likes under privilege in Parliament, subject only to observance of the forms and practice of the House itself. He does so at his own risk of incurring the displeasure of the public and possible the censure of the House itself. The right of free speech is something that the Speaker is bound to safeguard and protect, and just as it is the right of all members to use, equally it is a right that members should not abuse. Any abuse of the right of free speech in Parliament is a reflection upon the honourable member concerned. The right should always be exercised with restraint, particularly when referring to persons who have no right of audience in this Parliament and are, therefore, defenceless in the face of any irresponsibility. In my opinion an honourable member should not reflect on private citizens unless he is satisfied that there are compelling considerations of public interest requiring him to do so. If he wishes to make a serious charge against a member of the public, in my view he should normally do so by moving a substantive motion framed in precise terms and capable of being answered by any honourable member choosing to defend the person under attack. PD 1969 - 70 - 71, pp 7717 - 18 |
| S.O. 103 of 1994 (Repealed) | 103. A notice of motion of a privilege matter may be given but shall not take precedence of all other business. |