Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Parliamentary Privilege

Sir, I wish to raise a point of order. Respectfully, I just want to traverse briefly what we covered off yesterday, because I note, on the list of questions, we’re going to see yet another question—No. 12—and I just want to seek clarification. Yesterday, you said it was not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of a privileges complaint before the Speaker. You said that it would chill and undermine one of the key purposes of us as parliamentarians. You also recited the 38-year old ruling, Speakers’ ruling 230/4. You also said, sir, it is inappropriate for it to be raised in the House in any way whatsoever.

My problem, sir, is that we have another question today. Inevitably, it’ll traverse areas that you yourself are in possession of, and it’s extraordinarily difficult, given that’s a 38-year old ruling, to learn at 2 o’clock that we’re going to have yet more questions. Arguably, I would put to you, sir, it is going to undermine the opportunity for the person suffering your investigatory powers—and it undermines natural justice if we’re going to have ongoing questions that have the effect of denying my colleague an opportunity to put her side of the story without this place being turned into an echo chamber, which has the potential to influence your decision. That is not consistent with that Speakers’ ruling, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, God forbid that this should ever become an echo chamber.

Speaking to the point of order, a member lodging a breach of privilege complaint against another member cannot then deny any member of this House the ability to question a Minister on a particular subject area that may have been related to a privilege complaint. I do want to be very clear here that at no point have any members of the Opposition referred to a breach of privilege complaint, the existence of a breach of privilege complaint, or the subject matter within it. The only people that have done so, so far, are Shane Jones.

SPEAKER: Yeah, no—that’s not necessarily helpful.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Before you speak, I’d like to make it clear that I made a ruling yesterday which clarified Speakers’ ruling 230/4. There would be only one member of the House who would remember the initial incident that led to that 230/4 being brought in by Speaker Wall, reiterated by Speaker Smith. It was entirely to do with the way in which a privilege matter can be dealt with. So a privilege matter should be dealt with by letter to the Speaker, and then consideration for referral. But it is also possible for members to lodge a members’ notice of motion around a privilege matter. What this ruling was intended to do was to make it clear that if one track had been followed, the other could not be followed at the same time. The concept of saying that if a privilege motion is placed before the Speaker, it, effectively, gags the House from discussing something that may well be easily or frequently discussed in the public arena, is inappropriate. That’s the ruling that came down yesterday. The reality is that all of the matters that have been discussed are part of the consideration that may or may not lead to a decision about it being a privilege matter.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: I’ll take Carlos—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Ricardo.

SPEAKER: Ricardo Menéndez March—you wouldn’t like to change your name, would you?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I would like to seek your guidance around the comments made by Minister Jones in relationship to this idea that we would come at 2 p.m. and find out, because my understanding is oral questions are published well before that.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that. I think—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So what would you recommend that members do when these issues arise at around, say, 11 a.m. rather than 2 p.m.?

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, you’re making a point that’s not particularly helpful in the discussion.

I’m focused on the expression “in any way whatsoever”. A question posed by an Opposition member that has the effect of undermining natural justice is not consistent with the words in Speakers’ ruling 230/4: “in any way whatsoever”.

Look, I have taken extensive advice on this and I disagree with you. “Any way whatsoever” means the means by which a privilege matter is put before the House. The other point I’d make is on the issue of natural justice. Perhaps that is also being served by the ability for an answer to be considerably more lengthy than a question.