What does the Speaker's ruling really mean?

"Speaker: Accordingly, on analysing the evidence before it and the precedents, the chair cannot but conclude that the government's failure to comply with the order of December the 10th, 2009, constitutes prima facie a question of privilege. I will allow House leaders, ministers, and party critics time to suggest some way of resolving the impasse for it seems to me we would fail the institution if no resolution can be found. However, if in two weeks' time the matter is still not resolved, the chair will return to make a statement on the motion that will be allowed in the circumstances. In the meantime, of course, the chair is disposed to assist the house in any way it can, and I'm open to suggestions on any particular role that I as your speaker can play..." .

Is this, as one media report says, an "epic loss" for the Federal Government? I'm not so sure.

The Speaker of the Commons ruled today that the government's refusal to hand over uncensored documents relating to treatment of Afghan detainees violated the privilege of the House. He did not find contempt and he was careful not to make any ruling beyond adjourning the matter for a couple of weeks.

He recognised protecting sensitive information is a legitimate governmental objective. The Speaker urged a compromise solution within the two weeks grace period.

The government can call this a win -- their concerns were recognised and the Speaker deferred to the House to work out an arrangement. There is no order of contempt or order to produce.

My sense is that a political compromise will be achieved and the matter shelved -- it's not the result the government wanted but as losses go it's not so bad (that's assuming there aren't smoking guns in the papers -- if there are it's a whole new ballgame).