Robson Matt: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
Robson Matt: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
[Volume:625;Page:20492] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege relating to an application for orders and a declaration sought by Mr Darryl Bruce Queen 
. 
This matter of privilege was referred to the Privileges Committee on 19 May 2004. The recommendation of the Privileges Committee by all members of the committee is that the House take no further action. That is because in this case which has gone to three courts to look at an important question concerning the House—the question of the House’s powers and the constitutional divide between Parliament and the courts—the courts have upheld the longstanding position of the traditional privileges immunities and powers of the House of Representatives. 
In November 2003 Mr Queen wanted to make submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Care of Children Bill an important bill. But he also wanted to bring to that select committee as part of his submission the details of a Family Court proceeding. The law makes it clear that proceedings of the Family Court cannot be made public unless there is leave of either the Family Court or a higher court. The Justice and Electoral Committee was prepared to accept Mr Queen’s submission but returned it to him saying that it would accept it only on the basis that he struck out the private details of the particular case. Mr Queen as was his right wanted to proceed and to have the select committee hear on a private and confidential basis the submission with the details of the Family Court case. The select committee in correspondence with Mr Queen—in innumerable letters backwards and forwards—advised him over and over again that it would not accept his submission in a public process which the select committee is unless he took out the details of the Family Court case. 
In the end Mr Queen took the first step in his court proceedings. He took proceedings against the Attorney-General. Firstly he asked for an order requiring the Justice and Electoral Committee to readvertise and hear public submissions on the Care of Children Bill after the High Court pursuant to the proceedings had determined the limitations that any submitter must abide by having regard to section 27A(1) of the Guardianship Act; and secondly an order that the court restrain the Justice and Electoral Committee from reporting back to Parliament on the grounds that such a report might breach the said section 27A(1) and result in the Justice and Electoral Committee committing a criminal offence pursuant to section 27A(2) of the Guardianship Act. 
The High Court heard an application from the Attorney-General against whom the action was taken to strike out proceedings. The High Court did strike out those proceedings and basically upheld the right of the traditional privileges immunities and powers of this House of Representatives. Mr Queen took further litigation to the High Court this time against the Speaker of the House. The importance of this is that the Privileges Committee at that time could not deliberate further and report back speedily to this House because the court proceedings were on foot. The High Court confirmed that the action against the Speaker of the House should be struck out. The proceedings were struck out on grounds similar to those of the previous striking-out except that it was made clear: “The enduring public interest in the proceedings of the House of Representatives being free from interference from the Courts overwhelmed Mr Queen’s private interest in getting his unedited submission heard by the Justice and Electoral Committee.” 
But as we have a Court of Appeal Mr Queen made a further appeal as was his right to appeal out of time against that particular judgment of the High Court. The Court of Appeal in part of its judgment stated that Mr Queen had persisted in this litigation well beyond the realm of reasonableness. At this stage the Court of Appeal has been the final court to which Mr Queen has taken his proceedings. 
Having given due regard to that the Privileges Committee came down with the recommendation that is before this House. To quote from our report: “We are satisfied that the traditional privileges immunities and powers of the House of Representatives as protected by section 242 of the Legislature Act 1908 have not been impugned. The Court has recognised these privileges and struck out Mr Queen’s applications in relation to the proceedings of the House.” Therefore the Privileges Committee recommended no further action in this matter.