Detainee documents: a precedent from Oz?

From my colleague Neil Morrison, Network Current Affairs Producer for CBC Radio here in Ottawa:

On Thursday, Parliament passed a motion calling for all the relevant Afghan detainee documents to be disclosed, uncensored. (On Friday, two different ministers suggested that's unlikely.)

So now what happens? 

According to Stockwell Day, if the opposition wants the documents so badly, they should take the issue to the courts.  But one thing is clear.  The Conservative government has no intention of complying with the motion Parliament passed last Thursday.

Going to the courts is one possibility.  But there is another option that might make a number of ministers want to tightly wrap their fingers around the edges of their parliamentary seats.

In 1996, a similar situation arose in the Australian state parliament of New South Wales.  In that case, the legislative council - the upper chamber which is elected, imagine! -- repeatedly asked the government to release documents related to allegedly nefarious government activities. 

The Treasurer and Government House Leader, Michael Egan, refused.  Eventually, the legislative council passed a motion compelling the minister to release the documents.  The minister continued to refuse.  The council went on to find the minister in contempt of parliament.  And here's where it gets very interesting.

Members debated what form of punishment they should mete out for this contempt.  Some jokers yelled out "hard labour!"  But in the end, the decision was milder but no less humiliating.

The minister was suspended from the House.  The hansard makes for some fun reading as it seems clear the minister either can't believe, or refuses to accept, what is happening around him.

Eventually the Speaker of the House - called the President in New South Wales - ordered the usher of the black rod to escort the minister out of the legislature. 

And so, on May 2, 1996, the Hon. Michael Egan found himself cooling his heels on Macquarie Street.  (Canadian ministers might want to picture Ottawa's Wellington Street in January.  It's likely to be even cooler.)

The suspension was for just one day.  But the minister contested his suspension in the courts.  It didn't go so well for the government here either.  The NSW Court of Appeal and the High Court unanimously ruled against the government.

The High Court found that the ability to scrutinize government is "an essential safeguard against the abuse of executive power."  And that the ability to order the production of papers was "reasonably necessary to fulfill this role."

Strike one against government secrecy in New South Wales.

(There was a second strike, which I will describe in a future post.)