Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order 407(b). I wrote to you on 18 March—without going into the matter—in respect of a complaint in respect of the acting chief executive officer of Solid Energy allegedly misleading the Commerce Committee. It was an issue of contempt. You replied to me on 28 March determining that “There was no matter of privilege involved.” However, you gave no reasons to justify your decision and you did not address the second complaint of contempt in respect of another member of that company.

My question is this, in respect of the Standing Orders: could you advise whether you will be providing reasons for your decision in respect of these matters, as you yourself have done in other privileges complaints in respect of other members of Parliament including, I am told, Mr Twyford, who raised with you recently a complaint of privilege on another member of the House. You replied and gave detailed reasons as to why that complaint was not upheld.

On some occasions I will be writing a very fulsome letter and explaining why I do not believe there has been a breach of privilege. On other occasions I will be less fulsome with my explanation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just hope there is one other option—that at some stage you might refer one of the letters to the Privileges Committee.

Well, I have no doubt that at some stage something will go to the Privileges Committee, but at this stage I have not seen something that I think is worthy of sending to the Privileges Committee.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

A further point of order?

Indeed. Based on your reply—I think you used the words that in some cases you provide detailed explanations, and in others you provide less fulsome ones—in the case that I have put before you, you provide no reasons at all, zero, fulsome, or otherwise, and I am just wondering whether you, yourself, believe it should be consistent to provide some reasons, or am I a special case?

No. [Interruption] Order! The member has raised a reasonable point of order. I have adopted the practice of the previous Speaker, Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith, who had an attitude that when something was taken to the media at the same time that it went to the Speaker, he was inclined to give a less fulsome explanation. I intend to adopt the same practice.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again—I have the letter and I am going to seek leave to table it—I just do not quite understand “less fulsome”. In this case there is not one reason at all that you have given to turn it down, and I am just inquiring as to why you are not being consistent with your explanations to other members of Parliament.

As I have just said to the member, I have adopted a practice adopted by the previous Speaker, Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith, and it is consistent with his practice as well, that where letters of complaint of privilege come to me at the same time as they involve the media, I will still make a decision on the value of it going to the Privileges Committee, but I will be less inclined to enter into a fulsome debate in my explanation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a concern that the question that is asked of you as Speaker is not whether there is a breach of privilege but whether there is a reasonable question of whether there has been a breach of privilege. I have the impression—and I would like to be assured that I am wrong in this because this case here seems surprising—that you are looking at whether you should be determining whether there is a breach of privilege, rather than ascertaining whether there is a question of a breach of privilege.

I appreciate the point the member is making. No, I am certainly not in a position where I determine whether there has been a breach of privilege. My duty as Speaker is to determine whether the matter is serious enough, whether an attempt has been made to deliberately mislead the House or a select committee, and whether any attempt has been made to correct an incorrect answer. Taking all those matters into account will be important to determine whether any case goes to the Privileges Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Whether this case has been determined on the basis that it was not serious rather than it being a contempt, it is very difficult for the Opposition to know. From the complaint that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove put in, it seemed pretty clear that there was a contempt. Are we to take it that you thought that it was a contempt but that it was not serious enough to go to the Privileges Committee?

No. As I have just mentioned to the member, there were two important aspects to the decision. One was whether the attempt was deliberate and whether any attempt was made relatively quickly to correct the answer.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In order to invite you to make a correction to a statement you made earlier, I note that the word “fulsome” means excessive, insincere, offensive, or distasteful. I would not describe your reply to Mr Twyford in that manner.

I thank the member for his assistance.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Is it a further point of order on this?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is.

I think the matter has been determined.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is a fresh point of order.

The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Would you be able to advise whether you will be writing to me dealing with the second issue of contempt, which was contained in the same letter?

I have already responded to the member to the extent of the complaint put before me.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but I do have in front of me what I wrote, and there were two issues. One was in relation to Mr Diack, as you have responded to directly. The second was in relation to information from other members of the executive of Solid Energy that was not provided to the Commerce Committee but, some days after the meeting, was provided to third parties and the media. You have addressed the issue specifically. You have addressed—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where’s the point?

Can I be heard in silence?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

You have addressed the first point specifically, and I am not going to further challenge that in relation to Mr Diack. You have not in any way in the letter dealt with the second issue I wrote to you about.

OK. I do not have the original letter in front of me at the moment. The member is welcome to come and discuss that matter with me, and I will have a further look at it.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

No. We are getting to the stage now where you are clearly relitigating rulings that I have made. I invite the member to come with his letter, and I will talk him through the issue and make sure I have adequately responded to his letter.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

If it is a fresh point of order, I will hear it.

I seek leave to table your letter to me of 28 March 2013.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.