Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his contribution on what is an important matter. I want to deal with Practice first, just to make very clear the circumstances that we are dealing with in relation to this particular issue. Mr Speaker, the first point is that the honourable member for Watson has asked you to grant precedence, which of course he can do if he gives proper notice and he has done that—we acknowledge that. You have given it due deliberation since he raised that earlier point on Monday—and we appreciate that as well. His request of you, Mr Speaker, on my reading of the Practice, is for you to give this issue precedence for the House to consider and to vote on, and that's what we're doing now. That's the extent of the request that's available to the member for Watson under the standing orders of the Speaker. So I want to make that very clear, just to respond to some of the points made in the member for Watson's contribution.

The member for Watson hasn't asked the Speaker to provide a verdict on the allegations that he has put forward to the Speaker as part of his submission. That is abundantly clear and that is very important, Mr Speaker, to note as part of this. Our position in relation to this matter is on that basis. I think it is important to note that, at page 769 of Practice it says, and I quote in part:

… the Speaker may reserve the matter for further consideration, or may give the matter precedence and invite the Member to move one of the above motions …

Referred to in an earlier paragraph on page 679. It goes on to say:

If the matter is given precedence, consideration and decision of every other question is suspended until the matter of privilege has been disposed of, or until debate on any motion related to the matter of privilege has been adjourned.

At page 771, the second paragraph says:

In determining that a prima facie case exists, the Speaker typically refers to the matter briefly, but does not express concluded views on the issues themselves, as it is for the House to decide, in practice after examination by the Committee of Privileges, whether a contempt or breach of privilege has been committed.

I wanted to make that abundantly clear as part of my contribution in explaining the government's position.

This issue has alerted us as a house to much a much broader issue, because there is not only this matter in relation to the former Attorney that has been raised by the member opposite but also a number of other cases which are of a similar ilk. I know that the member for Watson has made a claim in relation to the trust and to the lack of transparency in his contribution during the course of his earlier remarks. But the same principle applies to a number of other members in this place over a period of time in relation to defamation trials, in particular, which are expensive—and we note that—particularly when a member of parliament is taking an action against a corporate entity, a media organisation or a government body, for example. These are difficult matters for members.

I can give examples. For example, Mr Speaker, the same transparency issues raised by the member for Watson arise in circumstances of GoFundMe pages, where there is no transparency about the donors—no transparency whatsoever. You could make the same argument in relation to other members where they have received a donation, for example, from the Labor Party or, indeed, the Liberal Party if it's a reimbursement of costs or an indemnity of costs, because effectively that provides a flow-through vehicle. There's no transparency as to where that money has been donated from. For the Labor Party then to donate that money on to the member of parliament, there's no transparency in that process.

The GoFundMe pages for Senator Hanson-Young, for example, or Senator Bob Brown or others who have raised money provide a very interesting study. In the case of Senator Hanson-Young—which goes to exactly the points being made by the member for Watson about transparency in this issue—the donors to Senator Hanson-Young on a GoFundMe page included Mr Anon, otherwise known as anon. There was a John 51884010. There was a Mary W. There was an Anna B. There was a Buzz Rainbow Wolf. There was a Jeff CB. There was an Anne 559 and series of other numbers ending in a 5. There was Zanda B. There was MG. There was Steph Steph. There was Dave C. There was Bin H. There was Nicky. There was ET—ET donated. There was Leanne W.

I suggest to you that there is no transparency in that process. In fact, it makes a mockery of a suggestion that the GoFundMe page is a transparent process and donors are properly identified in their contribution to a member of parliament to provide support to them in a defamation proceeding. That's the reality. So the principle espoused by the member for Watson is not as virtuous as he might make out.

I can go to the member for Hunter, who has an issue in relation to this, but, Leader of the Opposition, because I appreciate the spirit in which the opposition member has approached this matter, I don't intend to conduct character assessments of those opposite. The point I'm making here is that I think this gives rise to a much bigger issue in relation to members of parliament. That is why on Monday of this week I wrote to the chair of the Privileges Committee. I understand that the shadow Attorney-General has also written to that committee. I believe that there are further issues beyond this which need to be considered by the Privileges Committee. I'm happy to, in a moment, table the letter that I wrote to the Privileges Committee, to Mr Broadbent, and I will make sure that members are able to view that, because I think—and I've detailed this in my letter—that there are bigger considerations and further considerations than those raised in the motion before the House at the moment, and they should be considered by the Privileges Committee. That should come back to the government, if the committee sees it appropriate, to deal with what is a much more significant issue.

I think there are other steps that, frankly, should be contemplated between the government and the opposition in relation to what is a significant issue, because, as the member for Watson pointed out, there are many people who come into this parliament, on both sides, with significant wealth—and good luck to them, as the member for Watson pointed out. There are many members, as I look around, who don't have those deep pockets to defend a defamation trial, in some cases costing over a million dollars. That's the reality.

See this speech in context