It has long been my belief that one of the duties of the Opposition is to defend the supremacy of the Parliament in our system of Government.
That is why the statement yesterday by Lawrence Springborg that the former Health Minister, Gordon Nuttall, should be charged before the law courts with an offence arising from his evidence to the Estimates Committee is so profoundly wrong and disappointing.
I know of no precedent in the Westminster system for the course of action he has embraced, but I know of any number of precedents for Parliament itself dealing with Members who breach its privilege, by deliberately misleading the House, or by conduct unbecoming of a Member – even when that conduct is unrelated to his Parliamentary office.
The most obvious is that of the Right Honourable John Profumo, CBE, who was forced to resign as Minister for War in the Harold Macmillan Government because he lied to the House over his infamous relationship with Christine Keeler.
(It is interesting that John Profumo, 88, has totally rehabilitated himself through 40 years of outstanding community service, and was awarded the CBE for his community work – and was one of the comparatively select guests at Lady Thatcher’s 80th birthday party. The Blair’s made it, Michael Heseltine didn’t).
But back to the issue at hand. In 1969, the NSW Legislative Council dismissed from Parliament a Country Party MLC, Alexander Ewan Armstrong, after it was claimed he had engaged in the procuring of false evidence in relation to divorce proceedings he was involved in.
Even though the matter was unrelated to the performance of his Parliamentary duties, the House resolved that he had disgraced his Office, and he was unceremoniously expelled as a result. At the time NSW had a Liberal-Country Party Government but that made no difference as there was bi-partisan support for his expulsion.
Interestingly, Armstrong challenged his expulsion before the Courts, and the right of the House to expel him was upheld by the NSW Court of Appeal.
But there are any number of other instances where Parliaments following the Westminster model have exercised the right to sit in judgement on a Member who has deliberately misled the House, or engaged in illegal or improper behaviour.
The role of the Opposition under the Westminster system is to guard against intrusion by the Executive, and even by entities such as Crime and Misconduct Commissions, into the sovereign role of the Parliament.
Some oppositions discharge this responsibility better than others.
One would think that, in a unicameral legislature, let alone one where the Government’s majority is overwhelming, the Opposition would be more vigilant and vigorous than ever in protecting the sovereignty of Parliament.
That sovereignty is being eroded, in many jurisdictions, by bodies such as the CMC, and New South Wales’s ICAC, either intentionally or not.
The proper place for the CMC Report in relation to Gordon Nuttall to be debated, and determined, is in the Parliament of Queensland. The Parliament has adequate powers to impose a range of penalties if it elects to do so – ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.
The State Liberal Leader has rightly taken a more cautious approach than his Coalition “partner”.
He is wise to do so. The Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition would be wise to follow him.
The supremacy of Parliament needs to be guarded carefully. Over the years it has been eroded by Governments of all persuasions.
This is an occasion to re-assert that supremacy, and for the House alone to judge the conduct of the Honourable Member for Sandgate.