SpeechConsideration of Privileges Committee Report—Conduct of Member towards Chairperson of Transport and Infrastructure CommitteeHon DAVID PARKER (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning a member's conduct toward the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.This is the fourth of four references to the Privileges Committee that we've had in the last couple of months after having none in the prior 2½ years. This is an unusual event and I will address both how the Privileges Committee chose to consider the matter and the allegations that were made. Mr Speaker the reference to the select committee from you arose from a complaint from a member who was present at a select committee hearing the Transport and Infrastructure Committee at the end of a meeting of which there was a disagreement between Mr van de Molen and the chair of the committee. The reference to us was to consider whether the actions of Mr van de Molen crossed a line and were inappropriate.The way in which the committee chose to deal with the issue was to employ the services of an experienced King's Counsel (KC) to investigate the facts of the matter. The—Chris Bishop: She's not a KC.Hon DAVID PARKER: She's not a KC? Sorry; Wendy Aldred a senior barrister. Sorry; thank you for that correction Mr Bishop. We already knew at the time that she was engaged as a Privileges Committee that there were a number of witnesses to this altercation that had taken place being two members of Parliament in addition to the chair and Mr van de Molen. In addition to that there were three select committee staff that were also present. We weren't aware at the time when the reference was made to Wendy Aldred that there was also a backup tape recording of events. When select committees meet and a transcript is taken there is a primary recording methodology which had been turned off but there's also a backup methodology which was still running. That became apparent a day or two later and that was also provided to Wendy Aldred. Wendy Aldred then interviewed Mr van de Molen Mr Halbert the MPs present and the staff and the report from Wendy Aldred—it runs to about 17 or 18 pages I think from memory—is appended to the report.Before I come to the conclusion I will emphasise something that that was emphasised by members during our consideration of the matter and that is that we have to be very careful in this place that we don't make findings of misconduct too easily. It is a place of robust debate. Sometimes a number of us you know lose our rag a bit. You know we get a bit angry about how things roll in a select committee and there are robust exchanges at select committee quite often when the media are present and there are complaints made about how the presiding officer chairs meetings of select committees. As the select committee recorded Parliament is a place of debate. We recognise that this can at times involve conduct that would be unpalatable in other contexts.We considered carefully whether Mr van de Molen's conduct could be considered to fit within the bounds of acceptable parliamentary behaviour. For example it's not entirely unusual for a member to challenge a select committee chairperson's management of a hearing or for members to exchange views in a hostile tone. There is appropriately a high bar for poor behaviour to attract a contempt finding. None the less as the reviewer Wendy Aldred reported to us as the Privileges Committee there was quite a bit of evidence that this particular conduct went too far. That included Mr van de Molen walking close to the chair of the committee who was seated and saying in a way that the reviewer found objectively to be threatening behaviour Stand up." which concerned not just the other members of Parliament that were in the room but also the select committee staff all three of whom told the reviewer that they were sufficiently concerned to contemplate calling the security staff on precinct to intervene.The finding of the committee was that Mr van de Molen's conduct towards Mr Halbert amounted to both threatening him and impeding him in the discharge of his duties as a member. He felt he couldn't stand up without provoking perhaps a physical confrontation and therefore was prevented from leaving the select committee and going about his business which included coming into this House to conduct his duties as a whip. So the committee having considered the matter concluded that in terms of Standing Orders the definition of a contempt includes an act that impedes a member in the House in the discharge of the member's duties or "has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce such a result." The fact that Mr Halbert was threatened on account of his conduct as a presiding officer has contributed to our finding of contempt. While threatening behaviour is always a serious matter it is particularly offensive for a member to be subject to such behaviour because of how they discharge their official parliamentary duties. Select committee chairpersons are not immune from criticism or in the appropriate manner challenge but Mr van de Molen's conduct in this case was not appropriate.Accordingly the committee concluded that Mr van de Molen's conduct in this case could not be condoned as normal or acceptable and we found—and it's quite rare for the committee to do this—that the conduct of Mr van de Molen amounted to a contempt."