Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 17                                                 p 590

Pursuant to standing order 201

Standing order 201 provides that if a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs, a Member may ask for it to be presented to the House. The document must be presented unless the Minister states that it is of a confidential nature. ¹ The rule has been said to be akin to the rule of evidence in the courts where evidence not placed before the court may not be cited by counsel. ²

Speaker Snedden laid down steps to be followed when a request for presentation is made under this standing order. The Chair will first ask the question ‘Has the Minister read from the document?’. If the answer is ‘no’, the Chair accepts the Minister’s word. If the answer is ‘yes’, then the Chair will ask the further question ‘Is it a confidential document?’. If the Minister replies that it is confidential, then it is not required to be presented. If it is not a confidential document, and the Minister has read from it, he or she is then required to present the document. The Speaker also said that if a Minister states that he is only referring to notes, then that is the end of the matter—the Chair would not require the tabling of the document. ³

It is not always easy for the Chair to determine the status of documents. The provisions of the standing order do not apply to personal letters quoted from by a Minister, ⁴ nor to private documents. ⁵ A Minister who summarises correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it on the Table. ⁶ The standing order also applied in the former committee of the whole ⁷ and legislation committees, and by extension of these precedents would apply in the Main Committee.

It has been held that when public interest immunity ( see p. 608) is claimed by the Government in court proceedings it is the duty of the court, and not the right of the Executive Government, to decide whether a document would be produced or withheld. ⁸ In 1978 a Member raised as a matter of privilege the possible application of these principles to the tabling of documents under the standing order. The Member suggested that the Speaker should stand in a similar position to the court and when a document relating to public affairs was quoted from by a Minister any claim by the Minister that the document was confidential should be judged by the Speaker and not the Minister. The Speaker stated that the cases were significantly different and that the clear course of the standing order must be followed. ⁹

VP 1993-95/1972; VP 1996-98/491.

Lord Campion, An introduction to the procedure of the House of Commons , 3rd edn, London, MacMillan, 1958, p. 197.

H.R. Deb. (1.4.76) 1239. In most cases Speakers have accepted the Minister’s word as to a document’s confidentiality. Speaker Sinclair insisted that documents should be marked confidential, H.R. Deb. (9.3.98) 736, but Speakers Andrew and Hawker did not continue this approach.

H.R. Deb. (28.8.13) 646-7.

H.R. Deb. (23.2.49) 612.

H.R. Deb. (23.2.72) 110; and see May , 23rd edn, pp. 441-2.

H.R. Deb. (20.9.73) 1385.

Sankey v. Whitlam and others (1978) 142 CLR 1.

VP 1978-80/529, 541; H.R. Deb. (14.11.78) 2715; H.R. Deb. (15.11.78) 2867 (references to former S.O. 321).