PRIVILEGE

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (11:57): Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. I raise it at the first opportunity, since I was served with a subpoena on 30 September 2026. The matter concerns the subpoena issued by the Federal Court of Australia in proceedings Whykes v Swan NSD 1117 of 2026, requiring that I produce documents.

It was issued at the request of the applicant, Mr Alan Whykes, and is returnable on 14 October 2026, a day on which the House is scheduled to sit. I table the subpoena. I will obviously not comment on the merits of the case, because it's before the court.

What I am concerned about, though, is the effect of this subpoena on the functions of the House and the performance of my duties as a member. The subpoena is very broad. It asks for every document, including notes, recordings and drafts, that mentions a media outlet and the names of three individuals.

It also asks for any information given to me by Mr Swan. This could well include correspondence, notes and preparation I've done as part of my work as a member of parliament, and some of it might relate to things I've raised here or may yet raise here as part of my parliamentary duties, therefore being within the scope of proceedings of parliament. I submit that in these circumstances there is a prima facie case that section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 precludes the applicant from obtaining communications between my office and Mr Swan.

In doing so, I draw your attention to the Queensland Court of Appeal's decision in O'Chee v Rowley and the committee of privileges and members' interests report of October 2021 on illegal actions in the Federal Court and the possible issue of parliamentary privilege. There's also a bigger point here. People come to members of parliament with information they wouldn't take anywhere else.

They do it because they trust it'll be used by the member for the purpose of transacting the business of the House. If a subpoena can pull that material out of a member's office, people will no longer have confidence in their MPs and members will find it harder to hold others to account and expose wrongdoing through parliamentary processes. The subpoena is also arguably a contravention of section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which refers to improper interference with the free performance of the member's duties as a member.

It is relevant here that I have a long history of protecting whistleblowers and giving them a voice in this place. I have acted promptly. I acknowledged receipt of the subpoena on 2 October.

My office has been in contact with the applicant's solicitors several times last week, and on 9 October I wrote to the applicant's solicitors identifying my concerns and asking them to withdraw the subpoena by 5 pm on 9 October. As far as I know, I have not yet received a formal response. I've written to the applicant's solicitors again this morning requesting consent orders to extend the return date until no earlier than Wednesday 11 November 2026.

I have not yet received a formal response to that letter. I have also raised the matter with the Deputy Clerk of the House and earlier today met, of course, with you, Speaker. Privilege, of course, belongs to the House, not to me as an individual.

So it is for the house through the Privileges Committee to decide how and when it applies. Accordingly, I ask you to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the committee to consider whether the subpoena issued to me raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt such that the House should intervene in the court proceedings to assert the protection of privilege.

As the subpoena is due this Wednesday morning at 9:30 am, I suggest that the House, should it decide to intervene, would need to act urgently. I thank you for your consideration of this matter, Speaker.