Shaking the foundations of parliamentary privilege

Without a full Hansard record of its debates, the parliament is little more than an exclusive legislative club, available only to those who have the location and the leisure to attend. However Hansard itself occupies a special place in our form of government because it is trustworthy. Debates are occasionally edited for sense, to turn the spoken English of debate into comprehensible written English but beyond that, readers can be confident that the contents of Hansard are a true reflection of the course of debate. They cannot have this confidence about any other form of parliamentary reporting, whether it be from the media or from the parliamentarians themselves.

The internet, of course, has multiplied the reach and importance of Hansard many times over. Hansards are now available online, often within 24 hours of the debates, in their full searchable glory. Any citizen with access to the web can find out whether a particular issue has been discussed in the parliament, and if so on what terms.

Except, of course, if they happen to be a South Australian interested in debate on euthanasia.

The Legislative Council Hansard of August 30, 2006 is not a full reflection of debate held in the chamber that day; and to make matters worse, there are two different versions available - the more comprehensive hard copy and the excised version available online.

The counter argument, of course, is that parliamentarians should use their privileges cautiously. In particular, there is the argument that Kanck's speech could facilitate or even encourage suicide by those who are mentally ill. To an extent, the validity of these arguments goes without saying.

Most parliamentary chambers, including the South Australian Legislative Council, allow for members to object to a range of language and subjects. For instance, members cannot be repetitive or prolix (Leg. Council SO 186), and cannot reflect on the Queen (Leg. Council SO 191), or on votes which have already been held (Leg. Council SO 192). But a fundamental principle of the operation of standing orders in such proceedings is that objection must be taken immediately and ruled on by the presiding officer immediately (Leg. Council SO 207).

No member moved any form of objection to Kanck's speech while she was speaking - but you will have to take my word for that because you are not permitted to read it in Hansard online. And had they made such an objection, it does not appear that Kanck's speech actually transgressed any of the standing orders - so the presiding officer would have been bound to hold that she could continue. Finally, her speech contains long tracts which could not conceivably encourage or facilitate euthanasia or suicide. Why were these words excised too?

To make matters worse, the abrogation of parliamentary privilege which arose from censoring Kanck's speech actually did nothing to prevent the speech's publication. Within a short period of time it had been republished anyway, by organisations including Exit International. All the government members' actions did was give the Kanck speech a level of publicity it would otherwise never have merited.

This precedent having been set, the implications for South Australian parliamentary democracy are frightening. What subject will be blacklisted for debate next? What is to stop a dominant government from excising speeches which are contrary to its political interests?

The good news is that it is not too late to fix the situation. By another ancient principle, anything the parliament can do, it can undo. For the sake of parliamentary privilege and free speech everywhere, the Legislative Council should undo its resolution of August 31, 2006, and print Kanck's speech in full, restoring Hansard to its place as a true record of the proceedings of the council.