PRIVILEGE Tuesday, 29 October 1991 ASSEMBLY 1411 Tuesday, 29 October 1991 point of stating that the letter was then being typed as he spoke. It was also stated that there had been earlier communication concerning another letter in which I The SPEAKER (Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at had advised that that case was not a breach of 2.5 p.m. and read the prayer. privilege. If there were such a letter, it was not the role of the Chair to determine whether there was or PRIVILEGE was not a breach of privilege. The SPEAKER - Order! I wish to draw to the Furthermore, as a result of the press conference, Mr attention of the House my grave concern at a serious Gude's reputed complaint was the subject of news breach of the procedures adopted by this House for broadcasts and print media reports later that day. raising matters of privilege. In the Herald-Sun of 28 October a further article On 19 April 1978, Speaker Wheeler made a appeared, which states: statement to the House regarding the manner in which matters of privilege should be raised It is expected the Legislative Assembly Speaker, following important procedural changes resulting Or Coghill, will announce tomorrow whether Mr from a House of Commons Select Committee report. Kennett has succeeded in his latest attempt to have Mr The purpose of the new procedures was to require a Spyker brought before the Parliamentary Privileges member raising a complaint to write to the Speaker Committee again. giving details of the matter and for the Speaker to then consider whether there was a prima facie case On a previous occasion, when ruling on the which should have precedence. complaint made by the Leader of the National Party, I expressed similar concern at the disclosure of the This procedure was adopted to remove the issue content of that complaint. from immediate debate in the Chamber in order to protect the rights of the members or persons On 1 October 1991 I advised the House as follows: involved which could be adversely affected by instant reaction, publicity and speculation. It also It is grossly improper that the existence and details of a provided the Chair with sufficient opportunity to letter from a member to the Speaker alleging a breach give the matter due consideration. of privilege should have become public. The confidentiality of such correspondence is essential to As part of that statement, Speaker Wheeler indicated: protect the rights of a member who has made a complaint, to protect the rights of any person - be they Except for the member's right to give notice of a a member of Parliament or not - against whom a substantive motion, the member may not otherwise complaint has been made, and to protect the right of raise the matter in the House. the Chair to determine the matter free from inquiries and speculation by the media or others. With that restriction being placed on the member raising the complaint, it is implicit that greater I also refer to the statement of Speaker Plowman on restrictions would apply to any other member Wednesday, 6 June 1979, in which he raised similar regarding disclosure or discussion of the substance concerns. I will quote the two relevant sections of of the letter. that statement: On Thursday, 24 October 1991, just prior to 12 noon, 1. I return to the subject of the letter between the the Deputy Leader of the Opposition lodged a honourable member and the Speaker. This is a complaint, in writing and in accordance with the confidential and private document between the adopted procedures, for my consideration. It is not honourable member concerned and the Speaker my intention to discuss the nature of the complaint. and it should be regarded as such by all parties so that the rights of members are upheld, the right of Subsequently I was informed that prior to the time the honourable member raising the question with of Mr Gude's lodging the complaint, the Leader of the Speaker is upheld and also the rights of the the Opposition held a press conference at which the honourable member or members or persons ma tter was discussed in some detail, even to the against whom a breach of privilege is raised. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 1412 ASSEMBLY Tuesday. 29 October 1991 At no time would the Speaker convey to the It is grossly improper that the existence and details of a honourable member or person concerned the fact letter from a member to the Speaker alleging a breach that a breach of privilege was being considered of privilege should have become public. against him until such time as the Speaker had replied to the letter from the honourable member This latest instance, so soon after the issue had been concerned advising him that there was a prima directed to the attention of the House, can be facie case. In that manner, the rights of the regarded only as deliberate and as quite honourable member concerned are upheld so that contemptuous of the House. he does not suffer a stigma following any potential move against him on a privilege case ... As Speaker Plowman indicated, such an action is not in itself a breach of privilege. 2. However, it was brought to my attention by an honourable member telephoning me that this However, I have not exercised my authority to make morning on at least one news station a story was a determination as to whether there is a prima facie carried that an honourable member had written to case of a contempt of the Parliament. me as Speaker regarding a breach of privilege against the Premier. The continued breach of the procedures for raising This in itself is not a breach of privilege, but I matters of privilege will ultimately destroy the suggest to honourable members that it is a serious credibility of the practices which the House itself has breach of propriety and ethics of this place. I stress adopted. Whenever any practice of the House is that those principles need. not necessarily have undermined, it undermines and weakens the been breached by an honourable member. I wish to credibility and effectiveness of Victoria's entire emphasise to honourable members, so the rights of Parliamentary system of government. all honourable members on all sides of the House can be upheld, that in this situation honourable I advise honourable members that in the event of members should ensure confidentiality between disclosure of information of complaints of privileges the member and the Speaker to ensure that no raised with the Chair, I will rule that such person - and that applies to staff of this place, complaints are out of order. staff of members or members themselves - divulges that confidentiality, in order to uphold at This action is, regrettably, necessary to protect the all times the rights of all members of this place. very integrity of the institution of Parliament. As Speaker Plowman indicated, the obligation to maintain confidentiality is on the author of a letter of complaint and on every other person with QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE knowledge of the complaint. The procedures currently adopted by the House are PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORPORATION designed to protect the rights of the member raising CONTRACfS the complaint and the member against whom the complaint is lodged by requiring confidentiality Mr BROWN (Gippsland West) - Will the until the matter has been ruled upon. Furthermore I Minister for Transport assure the House that no believe the procedures are fundamental to protect other Public Transport Corporation employees have the rights of all honourable members and the Gordon-style contracts, including the lucrative integrity of the House itself. It is not normal practice out-clause, namely, clause 5.5? for the House to be advised if the Chair rules that there is no prima facie case. However, I believe it is Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - I thank necessary to do so on this occasion as it the honourable member for his question; he would demonstrates the damage that is done to members be well aware that I was most concerned about the and the institution of Parliament when these matters recent events. The Director-General of Transport has are the subject of public disclosure, discussion and asked for all contracts to be reported to him. He has speculation prior to the ruling by the Chair. issued instructions that no new contracts will be entered into without Ministerial approval. I repeat what I said to the House on 1 October 1991: The director-general is also undertaking a full investigation of all contracts in the Public Transport Corporation in response to the question from the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tuesday, 29 October 1991 ASSEMBLY 1413 Estimates Subcommittee of the Economic and entitled to answer questions in any way they deem Budget Review Committee, and that is the proper fit. process by which information should be provided. Honourable members interjecting. Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party) - I ask the Minister for Transport whether it Mr CRABB - Ministers in this place have always is a fact that Mr Peter Parkinson, a former Victorian answered as they see fit. Trades Hall Council official and now a senior officer with the Public Transport Corporation, has a Mr Gude interjected. contract that duplicates the Gordon contract, including the lucrative 5.5 out-clause? Mr CRABB - I can recall, when I was sitting over there and you sat up the back somewhere - Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport) - Firstly, briefly, as I recall it - and never got a chance, some Mr Parkinson, who works in industrial relations, pretty corny answers from that lot, only a couple of does an excellent job -- movements to the left, I notice! Mr Elder - You don't know anything about this The fact is that Ministers have a right to answer one, either, do you? You don't know about anything! questions in any way they deem fit.