Appointment of Deputy Clerk Alleged Breach of Privilege
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CLERK Tuesday, 1 October 1991 ASSEMBLY 813 Tuesday, 1 October 1991 ... he has deliberately misled the House. That action was a clear contravention of the procedures adopted by the House. The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at I am further concerned that the details of the 2.5 p.m. and read the prayer. complaint were the subject of an evening news report on Channel 7 on Monday, 23 September. I APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CLERK was subsequently contacted for comment that evening by newspaper reporters and it was evident The SPEAKER - Order! In accordance with the that they were aware of the details of the first letter powers vested in me I nominated Mr Philip John from the Leader of the National Party. It was Mithen, the Assistant Clerk and Clerk of necessary for me to write to the Leader of the Committees, to be Deputy Clerk. The Governor in National Party seeking an explanation of the media Council has been pleased to make the appointment reports and the release of details of the in accordance with the said nomination. correspondence. The response in the honourable member's reply dated 24 September did not provide ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE a satisfactory explanation. The SPEAKER - Order! I desire to make a It is grossly improper that the existence and details statement about an alleged breach of privilege. On of a letter from a member to the Speaker alleging a Thursday, 19 September 1991, prior to the sitting of breach of privilege should have become public. The the House, and in a further letter dated 24 confidentiality of such correspondence is essential to September, the Leader of the National Party wrote protect the rights of a member who has made a raiSing a number of matters concerning answers by complaint, to protect the rights of any person - be the Minister for Transport to certain questions they a member of Parliament or not - against without notice. The Leader of the National Party whom a complaint has been made, and to protect sought to have all of the matters referred to the the right of the Chair to determine the matter free Privileges Committee. from inquiries and speculation by the media or others. I have examined these matters in accordance with custom and practice as set out in the ruling by It appears that only one of the matters raised in the Speaker Wheeler on 19 April 1978 recorded in letter may be the subject of a prima facie case of Hansard volume No. 337 at pages 1756 and 1757. breach of privilege which should take precedence: namely, the claim that the Minister deliberately The Chair is required to determine whether the letter misled the House. None of the other matters appears setting out the complaint was written as soon as to be supported by evidence that suggests they fall practicable and whether there is a prima facie case within the categories of action which have been held which should have precedence. to constitute breach of privilege or contempt of the Parliament. I am satisfied that the first letter was written and delivered to me as soon as practicable and that, On Wednesday, 18 September 1991, in the course of while the second letter could perhaps have been an answer to a question without notice referring to written sooner, that was of no material consequence the contract of employment between Mr Jeffrey in this particular instance. Gordon and the Public Transport Corporation, the Minister for Transport said: Once the complaint has been lodged the complaining member is not permitted to say As I have explained, the contract was signed by Mc anything in the House concerning the matter Gordon and the PTc. pending the Speaker's consideration, except for the member's right to give notice of a substantive Immediately after question time the Minister motion. The Leader of the National Party did refer approached me and advised that he wished to make specifically to the matter on 19 September in debate a personal explanation about that part of his answer on the question ''That grievances be noted" when he and discussed the nature of the proposed personal said, in part, in reference to the Minister on the same explanation. matter: ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE 814 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 1 October 1991 It is not appropriate to disclose the content of that At the heart of the Westminster system of discussion or any other discussion between an government is one central and inviolable rule: a honourable member and the Chair. Minister of the Crown must never lie to the House or must never mislead the House. It is a system and a At the first opportunity, that being the first change rule that has stood the test of time in all great of business, the Minister made his personal Parliaments. It is a system and a rule that confers on explanation in which he said: a Minister onerous obligations beyond those applied in other disciplines. I wish to make a personal explanation. I have been asked by the Leader of the National Party to clarify It puts the Minister in a position of privilege and of whether the contract between Mr Jeff Gordon and the being duty bound to uphold the traditions of the Public Transport Corporation had been signed. Westminster-style rule. In this Parliament, and on this day, the Minister faces a charge of misleading In my statement ... I said the contract was signed. In Parliament. The history of this sordid affair brings fact, what I wished to say was, as I have always no credit to the Minister or the government. The indicated, that the contract was agreed between Mr Minister has engaged in a disingenuous campaign to Gordon and the corporation, and is a legal and binding avoid responsibility for his actions. contract. I knew at the time of today's statement to the House that the contract was not signed. The SPEAKER - Order! Precedence was given in respect of one matter only. The Leader of the I apologise to the House for inadvertently misleading it. National Party appears to be digressing from that I had never previously indicated to the House that the matter. I remind him that he may only present contract was signed. In fact, I discovered only recently matters in respect of the matter which has been that it was not signed. To clarify the issue I have given precedence. He may not introduce any other requested the corporation to make the relevant matters whatsoever. documents available. Mr McNAMARA - I am raising matters in line It is not the role of the Chair to determine whether with your ruling, Mr Speaker, and I note in the the Minister inadvertently misled the House or statement you have just made reference to a prima alternatively whether, as suggested by the Leader of facie case that the Minister misled the House, as he the National Party, the Minister deliberately I'nisled explained, when he said the contract was signed but the House and there has been a breach of privilege. later he said the contract was not signed. Part of the Nor is it the practice of this House for the Speaker to Minister's explanation for that procedure was that refer matters directly to the Privileges Committee. he was not fully aware of the details of the particular Both are for the House to determine. contract. The role of the Chair is to determine whether a The investigation of the matter by the Privileges prima facie case of breach of privilege exists for the Committee will show very clearly that the Minister purpose of giving precedence to a motion in relation was aware of many more of the details about the to the matter. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that contract than he has alluded to, and that is the precedence should be given to consideration of the fundamental point. We have a Minister who has complaint alleging that the Minister for Transport engaged in a campaign to distance himself from any deliberately misled the House in respect of his knowledge or understanding of what the contract knowledge as to whether the contract in question involved. He has sought to avoid scrutiny of the had been Signed. matter of the $95 000 payout. I call upon the Leader of the National Party now to The SPEAKER - Order! The Leader of the proceed in accordance with the practices of the National Party may proceed only in respect to the House. Minister deliberately misleading the House as to whether or not the contract was signed. The Leader Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) of the National Party may not refer to any other -I move: aspect of the matter whatsoever. If he continues to defy the Chair I will not hear him. That the complaint made by the Leader of the National Party on Thursday, 19 September 1991, be referred to Mr McNAMARA - I certainly seek to do no the Privileges Committee for examination and report. more than what you have directed, Mr Speaker. It is ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE Tuesday, 1 October 1991 ASSEMBLY 815 very clear that the Minister for Transport knew more ask you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the Leader of the about the detail of the contract than he alluded to in National Party confines his remarks to that point his statements to the House. and that point only. The SPEAKER - Order! The honourable Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton) - On the point of member shall confine himself to the one matter and order, Mr Speaker, the issue in this case is not no other.