Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration

I move, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege relating to an application for orders and a declaration sought by Mr Darryl Bruce Queen.

This matter of privilege was referred to the Privileges Committee on 19 May 2004. The recommendation of the Privileges Committee by all members of the committee is that the House take no further action. That is because in this case, which has gone to three courts to look at an important question concerning the House—the question of the House’s powers and the constitutional divide between Parliament and the courts—the courts have upheld the longstanding position of the traditional privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Representatives.

In November 2003 Mr Queen wanted to make submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Care of Children Bill, an important bill. But he also wanted to bring to that select committee, as part of his submission, the details of a Family Court proceeding. The law makes it clear that proceedings of the Family Court cannot be made public unless there is leave of either the Family Court or a higher court. The Justice and Electoral Committee was prepared to accept Mr Queen’s submission, but returned it to him saying that it would accept it only on the basis that he struck out the private details of the particular case. Mr Queen, as was his right, wanted to proceed and to have the select committee hear, on a private and confidential basis, the submission with the details of the Family Court case. The select committee, in correspondence with Mr Queen—in innumerable letters backwards and forwards—advised him over and over again that it would not accept his submission in a public process, which the select committee is, unless he took out the details of the Family Court case.

In the end, Mr Queen took the first step in his court proceedings. He took proceedings against the Attorney-General. Firstly, he asked for an order requiring the Justice and Electoral Committee to readvertise and hear public submissions on the Care of Children Bill after the High Court, pursuant to the proceedings, had determined the limitations that any submitter must abide by, having regard to section 27A(1) of the Guardianship Act; and secondly, an order that the court restrain the Justice and Electoral Committee from reporting back to Parliament, on the grounds that such a report might breach the said section 27A(1) and result in the Justice and Electoral Committee committing a criminal offence pursuant to section 27A(2) of the Guardianship Act.

The High Court heard an application from the Attorney-General, against whom the action was taken, to strike out proceedings. The High Court did strike out those proceedings, and basically upheld the right of the traditional privileges, immunities, and powers of this House of Representatives. Mr Queen took further litigation to the High Court, this time against the Speaker of the House. The importance of this is that the Privileges Committee at that time could not deliberate further and report back speedily to this House, because the court proceedings were on foot. The High Court confirmed that the action against the Speaker of the House should be struck out. The proceedings were struck out on grounds similar to those of the previous striking-out, except that it was made clear: “The enduring public interest in the proceedings of the House of Representatives being free from interference from the Courts overwhelmed Mr Queen’s private interest in getting his unedited submission heard by the Justice and Electoral Committee.”

But, as we have a Court of Appeal, Mr Queen made a further appeal, as was his right, to appeal out of time against that particular judgment of the High Court. The Court of Appeal, in part of its judgment, stated that Mr Queen had persisted in this litigation well beyond the realm of reasonableness. At this stage the Court of Appeal has been the final court to which Mr Queen has taken his proceedings.

Having given due regard to that, the Privileges Committee came down with the recommendation that is before this House. To quote from our report: “We are satisfied that the traditional privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Representatives, as protected by section 242 of the Legislature Act 1908, have not been impugned. The Court has recognised these privileges and struck out Mr Queen’s applications in relation to the proceedings of the House.” Therefore, the Privileges Committee recommended no further action in this matter.

The important issue in this matter is the paramountcy of our Parliament. Mr Queen endeavoured to try to force a committee of the Parliament to take an action it did not want to take. One of the important things for us to uphold in our democratic system is the right of the Parliament to make its own decisions. We must always be able to make decisions in our own right, without outside interference. The good thing that has happened in this matter, particularly through the court cases, is that that is exactly what the courts found. The judgment states: “There is a comity between the Courts leaving the House of Representatives alone to conduct its proceedings and the House of Representatives respecting the exclusive authority of the Judges of the High Court to declare what the law made by Parliament is.”

It is absolutely important that that remain so, because there is a clear line between our right to make law and the courts’ right to interpret and administer it. Mr Queen, as a citizen of our country, decided that he wanted to interfere with that decision and with that principle. The Privileges Committee found that it was appropriate for us to make no further recommendation, because the courts had found correctly that this Parliament has the right to make decisions on behalf of the people, without interference. This report, in recommending that no further action be taken, upholds that. A very important matter that members of Parliament who have not been involved in this might want to remind themselves of is the principle of our right as a Parliament to make decisions, without interference.

I must say that, having read the report and its conclusions, I entirely agree. I want to say how delighted I am, after all this time, to find that I am surrounded by colleagues who would rush to defend their rights that go all the way back to the Bill of Rights 1688. [Interruption] It says 1688 in this document.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It’s always been wrong.

No, it has not always been wrong. Lawyers would more likely go for the accurate date than historians, who could somehow get confused as to when it came into force. [Interruption] There the member goes, but he is not right. It is recited by the legal fraternity as being 1688. Do members know what is said about historians?

Here is my point: it is wonderful that I am surrounded by colleagues who would rush to shelter behind those great rights that were conferred hundreds of years ago on ourselves and on our profession. I know very well a case in which a member of Parliament was involved. He made a speech in Parliament about a member of the public, then went outside, and all he said was that people had seen that person on TV, and that they had seen him, and that they could make up their own mind. The lawyers had to link the parliamentary speech to get any case up at court, except that the person who claimed to be offended sued for only $50,000 so that he could get a District Court hearing. Why would he want that? I do not know.

The other party to the case decided to take the matter all the way to the Court of Appeal on the basis that it was a very serious case, and that it required a much higher court to decide. The Court of Appeal said to that very worthy MP that it thought a District Court could decide that issue on a case or action such as a strike out. The Court of Appeal told a member of Parliament to go back to the District Court, where he was bound to have his case struck out. But down at the District Court something went wrong, and the other man won. So the poor member of Parliament had to go to the High Court on appeal. He won half the case. Round about then, the money ran out. About seven other legal cases were going on at the same time, so members can see what I mean.

💬 Darren Hughes: How many did the member win?

I won every one of them. With this one here I got only halfway, because I could not afford to go back to the Court of Appeal, where I am certain I would have got justice. In fact, one might say that, like Cassius Clay, I am about 21 and nought. That is a serious contender!

But here is my point: when I went to the Privileges Committee back then—and this is why I am very curious about this conclusion—I was told by members of that committee, including people like Lange and Caygill, to suck it and see. That is right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, they told me to suck it and see. Meanwhile, of course, I remind members that we as a Parliament rushed all the way to the Privy Council in London to defend the rights of a person who was not even a member of Parliament—namely, Richard Prebble. That is the history of this Parliament.

So I am delighted today to know that I am surrounded, all of a sudden, in 2005 by members who understand the majesty and romance of their profession, and the great historic privilege that has befallen us all of a sudden.

Motion agreed to.