Wednesday, 27 November 2024

Legislative Assembly Privileges Committee

Report on the Complaint by the Member for Brighton

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:28): I rise to speak on the Report on the Complaint by the Member for Brighton in the other place. This most recent Privileges Committee report, which inquired into a complaint made by the member for Brighton, serves to teach us all a lesson about the conduct of members in this place. The Privileges Committee serves a vital purpose in protecting the functioning and dignity of Parliament. It investigates breaches of parliamentary privilege, ensuring that this sacred space remains free from undue influence, interference or misconduct. Members who are endowed with these extraordinary powers in excess of every other citizen of this state need to wield them carefully. When the significant powers of this committee are deployed for trivial reasons, it risks becoming an instrument of oppression rather than justice. The misuse can destroy reputations, deter civic engagement and erode public confidence in our democratic processes.

Let us just look at the powers that this committee actually has for civilians: (1) admonishment or reprimand; (2) admonishment with a request for apology; (3) appearance before the bar of the house; and – I kid you not – (4) imprisonment. That is the most extreme measure and one that is rightfully deemed highly unlikely, but its very existence is extraordinarily threatening, and it should remind us of the gravity of the powers that we hold. For a civilian – a private individual – this public branding, the threat of imprisonment, can have a lasting personal, professional and social repercussion, even if no further action is taken. These powers were entrusted to us in order to uphold the principles of justice and fairness, not to undermine and abuse them.

The report can be summarised roughly in the following terms. After months of investigations the committee made just two findings: firstly, that a little old lady had unknowingly breached an archaic rule, thereby inconveniencing a man who, as it turns out, has ‘put more on the line in defence of human dignity’ than any sitting political figure, which caused him to pause mid-stride and let a woman speak to him and give him a few pieces of paper. After this outrage he bravely continued on with his day, and another member thankfully came to the rescue.

The PRESIDENT: Mrs Deeming, sorry to interrupt you. In this chamber we can only make a statement on a report or paper that has actually been tabled in this chamber, and that document was –

Moira DEEMING: I asked about this, and I was told that I could.

The PRESIDENT: It was tabled in the other chamber.

Moira DEEMING: That is fine. So no-one in this chamber can ever report on it here?

The PRESIDENT: Unless it is a paper or a report that is tabled in this chamber during this term, that is the only –

Moira DEEMING: So that is never?

The PRESIDENT: Probably the answer is never, if that never gets tabled. I am sorry, I have to –

Moira DEEMING: No, that is fine. I will put it in a members statement.

The PRESIDENT: I was just trying to pick up on that, and I apologise that we did not pick it up earlier or before you went ahead.