4 min read
This article is more than 6 years old
Explainer
Can he really say that? The power of parliamentary privilege explained
Roman Quaedvlieg says Peter Dutton abused parliamentary privilege to accuse him of “grooming” a woman 30 years his junior – but what exactly is this special power afforded by politicians, and are there limits?
Published
Updated
By James Elton-Pym
Image: Peter Dutton in Question Time on September 11. (AAP)
Home Affairs minister Peter Dutton has made some extraordinary claims about the man he once trusted to run Australia’s border enforcement agency, Roman Quaedvlieg.
“He was a man who had groomed a girl 30 years younger than himself,” Mr Dutton told parliament on Tuesday.
The comments prompted outrage from Mr Quaedvlieg. The 53-year-old was sacked after allegedly helping his girlfriend, aged in her 20s, get a job with Border Force. 
“Grooming, are you serious?” Mr Quaedvlieg wrote on Twitter.
Peter Dutton and Roman Quaedvlieg in 2015. Source: AAP
“That has a legislative meaning. Is that what he meant? Parliamentary privilege huh?”
Later, he added that he had written to the Speaker of the House to question Mr Dutton’s actions.
“This is not what privilege is for,” he said.
Untouchable
Parliamentary privilege gives politicians the absolute right to say whatever they want in the parliament, without any fear of repercussions.
This means parliamentarians can’t be sued over what they say in a defamation case, for instance – unlike radio broadcaster Alan Jones, who was ordered to pay a record $3.7 million this week to compensate a family he claimed was responsible for 12 deaths in the Lockyer Valley floods of 2011.
If Mr Jones made his comments in the House of Representatives or the Senate, he would have been safe.
But the protection goes further, shielding parliamentarians from secrecy laws and potential criminal prosecutions.
Earlier in the year, crossbench MP Andrew Wilkie used privilege to reveal the government was pursuing a criminal prosecution against a former Australian spy who blew the whistle on an operation to bug Timor Leste’s parliament.
Mr Wilkie has also used the power to accuse Crown casino of tampering with poker machines to increase its profits.
Maverick crossbench senator Derryn Hinch sparked controversy when he named a number of child sex offenders in his very first speech to parliament, in defiance of court orders. Senator Hinch has in fact been convicted and jailed for doing the same thing before he was elected, outside the privilege umbrella.
The protection doesn’t just cover politicians. It also applies to witnesses giving evidence to parliamentary committees.
Independent Senator Derry Hinch Source: AAP
No limits?
The protection of privilege is absolute for pollies and witnesses, but not for journalists reporting on what they say.
Journalists get something called “qualified privilege”, which allows us to report on proceedings, but there are some limits. The reporting can’t be done out of “malice”, for instance.
Politicians can say whatever they want for whatever reason.
But the protection is attached to the parliament itself. Politicians can speak freely inside the chamber, but not out on the street.
Similarly, witnesses speaking to Senate committees are routinely warned the parliament cannot protect them if they are speaking over the phone or on Skype from a foreign country.
A right of reply
Roman Quaedvlieg has written to the Speaker to complain, kicking off a process described on page 774 of the House of Representatives Practice known as the “citizen’s right of reply”.
It allows those who feel they have had their reputation damaged to complain, and ask that a formal reply be placed on the record.
These matters are overseen by the powerful standing committee on privileges made up of MPs from both major parties and a minor party.
The Speaker must refer the issue to the standing committee on privileges, unless they deem the complaint trivial or vexatious.
The committee can then have private conversations with the complainant and the politician.
It is not allowed to “consider or judge the truth of any statements” – all it can do is recommend that a formal response from the complainant be published by the parliament or recorded in the Hansard.
