Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 19                                                 p 735

Premature publication or disclosure of committee proceedings, evidence and reports

Standing order 242 provides (in part) that:

(b) A committee’s or subcommittee’s evidence, documents, proceedings and reports may not be disclosed or published to a person (other than a member of the committee or parliamentary employee assigned to the committee) unless they have been:

(i) reported to the House; or

(ii) authorised by the House, the committee or the subcommittee.

The standing order further provides that a committee may resolve to publish press releases, discussion or other papers or preliminary findings. It also provides that a committee may resolve to divulge evidence, documents, proceedings or reports on a confidential basis to persons for comment. ¹ In addition, the standing order allows a committee to resolve to authorise Members to give public briefings on matters related to an inquiry. The committee must determine the limits of the authorisation. ² A Member must not disclose proceedings, evidence or documents not specifically authorised.

Most evidence taken by parliamentary committees is taken in public and publication of the evidence is expressly authorised. However, the publication or disclosure of evidence taken in private, of private deliberations and of draft reports of a committee before their presentation to the House, have been pursued as matters of contempt ( and see Chapter on ‘Parliamentary committees’).

A Member wishing to raise a complaint in this area must raise it in the House at the first appropriate opportunity. The Member is not required to go into the detail of the matter, but must identify the committee and the nature of the concern. If it has not already done so, the committee in question must then consider the matter—in particular it must consider whether the matter has caused or is likely to cause substantial interference with its work, with the committee system or with the functioning of the House. The committee must also take whatever steps it can to ascertain the source(s) of the disclosure(s). The committee must inform the House of the results of its consideration and, if it finds that substantial interference has occurred, it must explain why it has reached that conclusion. ³ The issue is then considered by the Speaker, who determines whether or not to allow precedence to a motion on the matter. Should a committee conclude that substantial interference has not occurred the House should be informed accordingly. ⁴

On a number of occasions the House has referred issues of the unauthorised disclosure of committee evidence, reports or proceedings to the Committee of Privileges. Appendix 25 contains a list of such references and a precis of the committee’s findings in each case. The committee’s reports indicate the difficulty of reaching a satisfactory outcome in such inquiries. The committee has expressed the view that complaints in this area should not be given precedence unless the Speaker is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to enable the source(s) of disclosure to be identified or that there are such special circumstances (for example, the protection of sources or witnesses) as would warrant reference to the committee. ⁵

Specific statutory provisions have been included in the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Section 13 of the Act provides that:

A person shall not, without the authority of a House or a committee, publish or disclose—

(a) a document that has been prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted, to a House or a committee and has been directed by a House or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in camera; or

(b) any oral evidence taken by a House or a committee in camera, or a report of any such oral evidence,

unless a House or a committee has published, or authorised the publication of, that document or that oral evidence.

Penalties under the section are $5 000 in the case of a natural person and $25 000 in the case of a corporation. Technically, a breach could be pursued both as a contempt and a statutory offence, but this is unlikely in most circumstances.

See also Chapter on ‘Parliamentary committees’.

S.O. 242(c).

S.O. 242(d).

These requirements were first applied in 1990, but were set out more comprehensively in a statement by Speaker McLeay in 1992—H.R. Deb. (17.9.90) 1989-90; H.R. Deb. (7.5.92) 2661-2; VP 1990-92/ 187; 1489; for precedents see , for example, H.R. Deb. (18.9.90), 2087-8; H.R. Deb. (27.10.93) 2654; H.R. Deb. (8.11.97) 10630-1; H.R. Deb. (24.3.99) 4268-9; H.R. Deb. (9.11.2000) 22635-7.

H.R. Deb. (7.5.92) 2661-2. For precedents see e.g. H.R. Deb. (23.11.93) 3401-2; H.R. Deb. (5.5.94) 367; H.R. Deb. (2.10.97) 9104 (2). A detailed statement has been made on such an occasion—H.R. Deb. (29.6.94) 2292-3.

PP 26 (1995) 7.