Parliamentary privilege is under threat

When it comes to parliamentary privilege legislation this can be quite important, as my personal experience demonstrates.

As some will be aware, I was sued for defamation by Sarah Hanson-Young. I lost in the original case, lost in a 2 to 1 decision in the Federal Appeal Court, and an application for leave to appeal to the High Court was rejected. I profoundly disagree with the decisions of the courts, but my legal options are exhausted. However, the impact on parliamentary privilege is only beginning.

My case revolved around whether certain words were spoken in parliament. If they were spoken, I had no case to answer for what was said about them outside parliament. If they were not spoken, I could be held liable.

This was acknowledged by Hanson-Young's lawyers, who stated in their submission:

no issue of parliamentary privilege presently arises as the relevant issue is a factual one, namely, whether particular words were said in Parliament.

And:

If the respondent cannot prove paragraph 23 of his Defence (ie that Hanson-Young said words to the effect that all men are rapists), none of the evidence he would rely upon in these proceedings could give rise to a claim for parliamentary privilege, and he therefore could not be unfairly prejudiced in any relevant sense in defending these proceedings.

The problem for the court was that the exchange occurred as an interjection in the Senate chamber and was not recorded in Hansard. My lawyers argued the court was prevented from considering it, as it involved drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from proceedings in Parliament contrary to the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

The court nonetheless proceeded to hear evidence as to what had been said in parliament. A number of senators who were present gave evidence.

Two Greens senators (Siewart and Whish-Wilson) claimed the interjection by Hanson-Young was about guns on the streets, despite the motion which prompted the exchange containing no mention of guns and Hanson-Young herself saying her interjection did not refer to guns. Two other Greens senators (Rice and Steele-John) said there was no mention of guns but were vague as to what was said.

Two non-Greens senators (Griff and Hinch) agreed that her interjection made no mention of guns. One said the interjection was words to the effect that "men should stop raping women, or men shouldn't rape women", while the other said it was something along the lines of "that protection for women wouldn't be necessary if men stopped raping women or attacking women".

Having heard this evidence, Justice Richard White decided "positively" that Hanson-Young did not say words to the effect that all men are rapists.