Hansard 21 May 1992 5435

Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5435 THURSDAY, 21 MAY 1992 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Community Legal Centres From Ms Power (7 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will continue to fund community legal centres. A similar petition was received from Mr Beattie (23 signatories). Rupertswood, Underground Water Supply From Mr McElligott (442 signatories) praying for arrangements to be made for the supply of water to the Queensland Nickel plant, to allow all residents of Rupertswood access to underground water. Petitions received. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Regulations under— Public Service Management and Employment Act 1988 Valuers Registration Act 1992 Surveyors Act 1977 Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1991 Land Act 1962 and the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1991 Order in Council under the Racing and Betting Act 1980 Report of the Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board for the year ended 30 June 1991 Report on the operations of the Valuers Registration Board Queensland for the year ended 31 December 1991. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Absence of Ministers during Question Time Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (10.02 a.m.): I have to inform the House that the Honourable the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Resource Industries will be absent from question time today on ministerial business. PRIVILEGE 5436 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly Queensland Economic Review Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.03 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday, in the precincts of this Parliament, the Treasurer released to the media copies of the Queensland Economic Review for the March quarter 1992. Despite a pledge from the Treasurer that these quarterly economic reviews—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! In what way is it a matter of privilege? The Leader of the Liberal Party cannot conduct an economic debate by way of a matter of privilege. Before I allow her to make the statement, I ask: what privilege was breached? Mrs SHELDON: It is not an economic debate. It is just a statement about the release of the document. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not a matter of privilege. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I refer to the matter of privilege that the member for Landsborough just raised. I draw to your attention, Mr Speaker, that the document—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BORBIDGE: —was denied to members on this side of the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 124. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, when I am on my feet, I will not allow any member of this Chamber to talk over me. That is laid down in Standing Orders and I intend to uphold Standing Orders. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS BILL Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (10.04 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That the House will at its present sitting grant leave to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the publication of parliamentary papers.” Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time. Second Reading Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (10.05 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” Free speech in Parliament is fundamental to our Westminster system. Since the Bill of Rights 1688 it has been settled that “Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. This privilege was hard won. It was born out of the blood and carnage of the English civil war when the supremacy of Parliament was finally established through the Bill of Rights of King William and Queen Mary. Since that time the three great pillars of parliamentary democracy in a free society have been the Parliament’s privilege of free speech, the Parliament’s power of the purse and the Parliament’s sovereign power to make laws binding on the Crown and citizen alike. The battles of the Westminster Parliament to achieve its privilege of free speech in the seventeenth century have a direct bearing on the Queensland Parliament today. The Constitution Act of Queensland provides that the powers, privileges and immunities of Legislative Assembly 21 May 1992 5437 this Legislative Assembly are those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom unless otherwise defined by an Act of this Parliament. The scope of protection provided to documents by the privilege of the Westminster Parliament was limited by an 1839 court decision in the famous case of Stockdale v. Hansard—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Order! The member for Currumbin! I just said that there is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I warn the honourable member under Standing Order 123A. Mr FOLEY: The scope of protection provided to documents by the privilege of the Westminster Parliament was limited by an 1839 court decision in the famous case of Stockdale v. Hansard to reports published for the use of members, Lord Denman in his judgment making a distinction between material which the House may order to be printed for the use of its members and material published “indiscriminately”. In response to this decision the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (UK) was passed to ensure that the scope of this protection was broadened to cover the publication of papers printed by order of the House and available to the public. This has been incorporated into the law of Queensland by operation of the Constitution Act. These provisions may have been adequate for the conditions of the nineteenth century but they have not kept pace with the vast changes in printing technology in modern times. The cumbersome printing press has been replaced by the high technology of computers and word processing. At present the Hansard reporters of the Queensland Parliament make available a printed version of debates known as the Hansard Greens within an hour or two of the debates taking place. Members have the opportunity to correct spelling and grammatical errors but not to change the sense of their speeches. A daily proof of Hansard is published with a further opportunity for members to correct errors. Then the blue-covered weekly editions of Hansard are printed by the Government Printer, Goprint. These changes have given rise to considerable uncertainty in recent years over the extent to which parliamentary privilege attaches to certain parliamentary papers, in particular, the unrevised proofs of Hansard. This has caused anxiety amongst Hansard reporters, Government printing staff and parliamentary table officers over their potential liability for publishing defamatory material. The extent of the privilege, and the admissibility in evidence of parliamentary proceedings, have also been considered in the courts in a number of recent Australian decisions. The Bill removes uncertainty by clarifying the extent of parliamentary privilege and the persons to whom the privilege extends. The Bill gives effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee of Privileges which I have the honour to chair. I should like to record my thanks to all my colleagues on the committee whose work contributed to these reform measures, namely, the Deputy Chairman, Mr Don Neal, the Honourable Bob Katter, Dr David Watson, Mr Darryl Briskey, Mr Jim Pearce and Ms Laurel Power. On 6 December 1990, the Speaker referred to the Select Committee of Privileges the question of the extent to which parliamentary privilege attaches to certain parliamentary papers, in particular, the unrevised proofs of Hansard. Mr Speaker requested that the committee report to the House on what measures, if any, were desirable to reform the law and practice in relation to the privilege attaching to parliamentary papers. The all-party committee engaged in an extensive process of consultation. The committee presented its report to the Legislative Assembly on 5 December 1991. The committee placed public advertisements calling for submissions and received 5438 21 May 1992 Legislative Assembly submissions from a wide range of persons, including the members for Callide, Townsville, Landsborough and Auburn. The Parliamentary Press Gallery also made a learned submission through its President, Mr Tony Koch. The Bill now before the House is based on the draft Parliamentary Papers Bill appearing as Appendix C to the committee’s report with some drafting amendments kindly undertaken by Parliamentary Counsel, Mr John Leahy. This is in accord with the policy of Parliamentary Counsel to be available to private members on a confidential basis to assist in drafting matters. It is a policy recommended by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and set forth in the Legislative Standards Bill currently before the House. For the Hansard reporters, GoPrint staff and Table Office staff this Bill will remove the spectre of liability for going about their official duties of preparing, handling and publishing parliamentary papers. For members of Parliament the Bill will confer privilege on the Hansard Greens and daily proofs, thereby enabling members to fax this material to their local media outlets with the benefit of parliamentary privilege. It will thus make legitimate the common but somewhat irregular practice to date of members distributing this material to the media. For journalists and ordinary members of the public the Bill will mean faster legitimate access to a privileged record of proceedings in Parliament. Any subsequent publication in the mass media is still required under the normal defamation laws to be a fair report of proceedings in Parliament, but this should be considerably assisted by access to the Hansard Greens and proofs which may be provided to journalists by members.

Load more