Thursday, 21 March 2024

Parliamentary privilege

Complaint: contempt of Parliament

The SPEAKER (09:35): Before we move to statements by members, I wish to advise the house that in keeping with the practice adopted in April 1978, the Manager of Opposition Business this morning provided me with written notification of a complaint of a contempt of Parliament. The complaint alleges that the attendance and actions of a person on the parliamentary precinct on the sitting day yesterday improperly interfered with the free performance of a member’s duties as a member. All members will be aware that serving civil or criminal processes within the precincts on a sitting day or on a day when a member has committee responsibilities can be a contempt of the house’s privilege.  Members must be able to attend sittings or committee activities freely and without obstruction. However, yesterday a person had access to the parliamentary precinct and delivered legal documents to the Leader of the Opposition directly.

My role in this matter is to determine whether the complaint raised falls within the category of a contempt. I am satisfied that this complaint meets that threshold. I note that the matter before the house is not about any legal action itself – the house will have no view about that and respects court processes. The issue for the house is whether its rights have been infringed.

Further, in considering whether the complaint should be granted precedence over business of the house, I must be satisfied that the matter has been raised as soon as reasonably practical. The member wrote to me this morning, and so that requirement has been met.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:37): I move:

That the complaint made by the member for Hawthorn on Thursday 21 March 2024 be referred to the Privileges Committee for examination and report.

The member for Hawthorn has requested that I put the following facts about what occurred yesterday in the parliamentary precinct on the record. At about 9:45 am the members for Kew and Malvern and Ms Crozier of the other place undertook a doorstop interview at the back door of Parliament House. The member for Kew later remarked she had seen Mrs Deeming of the other place watching the media conference with, it appeared to her, one or more other people.

At about 11:40 am the members for Hawthorn and Nepean exited the annex building via the lift on the mezzanine floor on their way to an arranged media conference. The member for Hawthorn was approached by two women, later identified as Anna Hughes, an electorate officer of Mrs Deeming of the other place, and Louise Carrigg. Ms Carrigg greeted the member for Hawthorn and asked if he was John Pesutto. The member for Hawthorn replied in the affirmative. Ms Carrigg then attempted to force a set of papers into the member for Hawthorn’s hands, claiming he had been served defamation proceedings by Ms Angie Jones. The papers in question about Ms Jones were not sealed; that is, they did not bear the seal of a court, which is required for legal service. The member for Hawthorn also said Ms Carrigg and Ms Jones’s lawyers had electronically sent defamation papers to his lawyers, MinterEllison, so no further action to achieve that purpose was required. The member for Hawthorn took possession of the documents so he could proceed to the media conference in the garden. It was apparent to Mr Pesutto that Ms Carrigg and Ms Hughes knew where he would be and were waiting for him. Last year Ms Carrigg, along with Ms Jones, protested outside the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate office in Hawthorn.

It is the member for Hawthorn’s belief that Ms Carrigg intended to attempt to confront him had he held a press conference at the back door of Parliament House and for it to be captured on camera by the assembled media. The later interaction at 11:40 am was a further attempt to have vision of the member for Hawthorn supposedly being served for defamation captured by the media. It was therefore a stunt as part of the ongoing and highly publicised legal actions of Ms Angie Jones, Ms Kellie-Jay Keen and Mrs Deeming of the other place.

The member for Hawthorn is concerned that the events of Wednesday constitute a contempt of Parliament and raise serious concerns about security for all members of Parliament, staff and visitors who work and attend the parliamentary precinct. The Victorian constitution incorporates the rights of members of Parliament as they existed in July 1855 in the United Kingdom House of Commons. A right inherited, as Erskine May asserts, is against any who would:

… obstruct Members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings.

Erskine May, the 25th edition, on page 296, says,

It is a contempt to molest a Member of either House while attending the House, or coming to or going from it, and in the eighteenth century, both Houses roundly condemned ‘assaulting, insulting or menacing Lords or Members’ going to or coming from the House or trying to force to influence them in their conduct in Parliament.

The member for Hawthorn therefore requests that the Privileges Committee consider the question of the following: whether visitors obstructing a member going about his or her parliamentary activities within the parliamentary precinct is a contempt of the Parliament or a staff member employed by the Parliament signing in a visitor for that purpose is a contempt, irrespective of the fact that Ms Carrigg did not, in law, serve defamation proceedings on the member for Hawthorn; and whether members are protected against being served legal documents while at work in the parliamentary precinct, or whether such protections extend to a member’s electorate office.

The member for Hawthorn thanks the house in anticipation of the success of the motion and looks forward to an expeditious inquiry and report by the Privileges Committee.

Motion agreed to.