Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Monday, 5 September 2005
Page: 54


The SPEAKER (4:19 PM) —On 17 August this year, the member for Paterson raised a matter of privilege concerning an email and facsimile letter that he received from Mike Berwick, Mayor of Douglas Shire Council. The member claimed that, in his letter, Mr Berwick threatened legal action against the member for Paterson should he raise certain matters in the House relating to allegations the member has put to the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission.

Any attempt to threaten a member with a view to influencing a member’s performance of his or her duties as a member is a serious matter and potentially could be considered a contempt if the threat amounted to an improper interference with a member. In a previous case that has some similarities with the one raised by the member for Paterson, the Committee of Privileges recognised that there were competing interests in such cases. On the one hand, members should be able to pursue matters freely without threat or intimidation. On the other hand, citizens have a basic right to protect their reputation, including using legal means to do so.

In that particular case, the committee found the threat to commence legal action against the member did have a tendency to impair the member’s independence in the performance of his duty, but the committee did not make a finding that there was an intention to intimidate or influence the member in an improper way. In the case raised by the member, I think similar issues of balance arise. The member should feel free to raise—particularly in the House—any matters that he considers important to pursue. On the other hand, it is understandable that individuals will seek to defend their reputation against what they may see as inaccurate accusations.

Having examined the correspondence provided by the member, I agree that the warnings made in the letter from Mr Berwick are not desirable and I can understand that the member for Paterson might see them as threatening. However, on the information available to this point, it is not clear that a prima facie case of contempt has been established in respect of the letter sent by Mr Berwick. Of course, if the member has any other material relating to this matter or if other similar approaches are made to him, I would be prepared to reconsider the issue.