Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3615 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The majority report displays a degree of preciousness when attempting to distinguish between unsolicited information received because of computer error and unsolicited information received because someone wanted a politician to receive it-information that has fallen off the back of a truck, or a leak. The fact is that in each case a politician or their office receives unsolicited information without authority of the person to whom the communication is directed.

Assume the information received by means of computer error revealed, for instance, that a member was involved in the commission of a criminal offence or was engaged in behaviour designed to advance the cause of a political party or a supporter, or revealed that government actions, or indeed inactions, were so egregious that it was in the public interest to draw them to the attention of the Assembly.

What would any non-government party do? Ignore the information? Pretend it had never seen it because it was received by email error? Put another way, is there a material difference between receiving information over a period of time by computer error and receiving information over a period of time from a political staffer, a journalist, a public servant or a member of the general community? In some circumstances oppositions are able to perform their functions only because of the receipt of confidential information.

Before deciding that this matter is a contempt of the Assembly, the committee should have been sure that it would not be seen as being hypocritical for not equally regarding as a contempt receiving any communication directed personally to a member which is not covered by parliamentary privilege and thus placing the standing of the Assembly as an institution at risk.

How do other places, most appropriately the House of Representatives, handle contempt cases? It is from the House of Representatives that we draw our practice? The House of Representatives has dealt with two similar cases. One concerned a black-ban on mail delivered to MPs by the Communication Workers Union, called in my report the mail services case. (Extension of time granted.) The second concerned placing an MP's electorate office phone numbers in classified advertisements with the intent to block the MP's phones, called in my report the telephone case. Those cases are examples of how a parliamentary body with experience in dealing with privilege matters deals with such matters in a political environment. Summaries of each case form an appendix to my report, and I would urge members to read them.

In each case the House of Representatives Privileges Committee noted the need to display restraint in the exercise of the House of Representatives penal jurisdiction and took no further action. This was even so in the mail services case, in which a trade union took a positive act to black-ban the delivery of parliamentary mail. There great weight was given to the fact that there was no intention to offend against the law protecting the house. In the telephone case the Privileges Committee decided it would be inconsistent with the dignity of the house to take the matter any further.

The Assembly shares with the House of Representatives rulings relating to privilege. So that each institution can continue to draw on decisions of the other, it is highly desirable to ensure, as far as possible, consistency of approach.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .