Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Tuesday this week, the member for Brisbane raised as a matter of privilege whether statements made by the member for Cook, in 2020 when he was Prime Minister and also last week, constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the House. In requesting that I grant precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, the member for Brisbane provided documents in support of his request: the responses by the then Prime Minister and member for Cook to the questions during question time in 2020, as follows—a question from the member for Grayndler on 10 June, a question from the member for Maribyrnong on 11 June and a question from the member for Maribyrnong on 8 December; the statement, made on indulgence, by the member for Cook on 31 July 2023; and pages 105 to 106 and 488 of the Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.

I reviewed the matter raised by the member and the supporting information he provided. Given that the matter relies in part on the statement made by the member for Cook last week, I accept that it was raised at the earliest opportunity. The member for Brisbane stated that aspects of the statements made by the member for Cook in the House have been shown to be false by the Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Some of the statements made by the member for Cook, to which the member for Brisbane refers, do appear to be at odds with findings of the royal commission and, on that basis, may be considered to be incorrect. However, I do not have material in front of me that demonstrates that the member for Cook knew that any statements were false at the time he made them and that he intended to mislead the House through his comments.

In his statement by indulgence to the House last week, the member for Cook canvassed findings of the royal commission and rejected some of the adverse findings which relate to his role and actions. The fact that the member for Cook disagreed with these findings and made comments to this effect in the House does not in itself represent a misleading of the House. The member for Brisbane has stated that the member for Cook misled the House and did so knowingly and deliberately. The matter of deliberately misleading the House is a serious one, and rightly there should be prima facie evidence that the House has been misled and the misleading has been deliberate in order for a Speaker to act under standing order 51 and allow such a matter to be referred, as of right, to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. On the basis of the material that was provided by the member for Brisbane, I am not able to grant precedence for a referral on this occasion.