The Secretary, Postmaster-General's Department, has referred for advice the following matter:

Mr Templeton, the Deputy Postmaster-General, Brisbane, in giving evidence before the Committee of Commonwealth Public Works in an inquiry into the Sydney Post Office made the following statement:

There seems to be some very serious misapprehension with regard to the expansion of the business of a General Post Office. My views on the subject are not palatable to the Central Office, but the stand I take is that a General Post Office is a distributing agency only so long as business does not justify direct exchanges between post offices.

The Secretary, Postmaster-General's Department, has requested Mr Templeton to indicate the occasion on which his views with regard to the business of a General Post Office were submitted to the Central Office or made public and on what grounds he based his statement to the Public Works Committee that his views on the subject were not palatable to that office.

Mr Templeton has declined to be questioned regarding any evidence given before the Public Works Committee and relies on section 24 of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1921.

The section referred to provides that every witness summoned to appear or appearing before the Committee or a Sectional Committee shall have the same protection and privilege as a witness in a case tried in the High Court.

The protection and privilege afforded to a witness who gives evidence in a case in the High Court, as in other courts of law, is that no proceedings can be maintained against the witness in respect of evidence given in the case (see Halsbury, Laws of England, Vol.13, p. 588).

The statement by Mr Templeton that his views on the subject were not palatable to the Central Office was made by him to the Commission on giving evidence before the Commission and I am of opinion that it would fall within the rule of privilege of a witness.

I am further of the opinion that the protection and privilege referred to by section 24 means the protection and privilege in relation to legal proceedings against the witness. Section 26 of the Act provides, inter alia, that whoever procures any disadvantage to any person for or on account of any evidence lawfully given by him before the Committee or a Sectional Committee shall be guilty of an offence.

I am of opinion, however, that the Permanent Head of a Department is entitled to question an officer who has given evidence before the Committee as to matters relating to the administration and working of the Department whether or not such matters have been referred to in evidence before the Committee. The questions so addressed should not be made for the purpose of disciplining the officer in relation to any statement he has made before the Committee.

[Vol. 18, p. 360]