No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
Recent proceedings brought in the South Australian and Victorian Parliaments against persons alleged to be in contempt of Parliament and a report relating to the penal jurisdiction of Parliament that was presented to the House of Commons in 1967 have once again raised the issue whether Parliament is a proper body to exercise the power to punish certain conduct as contempt.
1 Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (1967).
2 Cocks, (ed.), Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usages of Parliament (17th ed. 1964)Google Scholar (hereinafter referred to as “May”), 109.
3 May, Op. cit. 112.
4 May, Op. cit. 124.
5 (1955) 92 C.L.R. 157.
6 Ibid. 162. Dixon C.J. also negatived the suggestion that the separation of powers contemplated by the Constitution precluded the Federal Parliament exercising judicial powers: ibid. 166.
7 May, Op. cit. 94-96. The warrants to commit Fitzpatrick and Browne were in general terms.
8 The historical origin of contempt is discussed in the Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (1967), paras 27-35.
9 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Eng.) s. 49; Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958 (Vic.) s. 12; and Constitution Act 1934-1965 (S.A.) s. 38.
10 Constitution Acts 1867-1968 (Qld) s. 45; Parliamentary Privilege Act 1858 (Tas.) s. 3; Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891 (W.A.) s. 8; and Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance 1963-1966 (N.T.) s. 9.
11 In relation to this procedure, see infra p. 262 and also Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege in Australia (1966), 114-117.
12 1968 P. Deb. (Vic.) 1744. The means by which contempts are brought before Parliament is on a “question of privilege”. In relation to this nomenclature, see infra p. 254.
13 Op. cit. 1745.
14 1968 P. Deb. (Vic.) 1891.
15 Ibid.
16 May, Op. cit. 140.
17 1968 P. Deb. (Vic.) 1892.
18 Ibid. 2026. Supra n. 12 for the implications of this procedure.
19 Ibid. 2028.
20 Ibid.
21 May, Op. cit. 143.
22 1968 P. Deb. (Vic.) 2029.
23 Ibid. 2031.
24 Ibid. 2087.
25 May, Op. cit. 118-119.
26 1968 P. Deb. (Vic.) 2096.
27 1968 P. Deb. (S.A.) 2160-2161.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid. 2249.
31 The proceedings of the Legislative Council from which the matters set out in the text are taken are set out in 1968 P. Deb. (S.A.) 2341-2346.
32 Ibid. 2341.
33 Ibid.
34 Such reflections have been held to constitute contempt in England: May, Op. cit. 125.
35 1968 P. Deb. (S.A.) 2346.
36 According to a newspaper report in the Adelaide Advertiser dated 20 November 1968, the President of the Legislative Council stated in answer to a question raised in a previous issue of the paper that, had Mr Klaebe been actually charged with contempt, he would have had the right to be heard or to be represented by counsel.
37 Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege 1967.
38 Report, para. 11.
39 Infra, p. 259.
40 Report, para. 10.
41 Report, paras 12-14.
42 E.g. May, op. cit. 89-90; Campbell, op. cit. 111.
43 Report, para. 17.
44 Supra, n. 34.
45 Only ten people have been punished for contempt by Australian Parliaments: Campbell, Op. cit. 121, n. 44. Usually an apology is all that is required of an offender.
46 Report, para. 21.
47 See the table set out at p. 24 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee. Of the twenty-eight complaints raised in the House of Commons between 1945 and 1965, twenty-one cases were disposed of as not constituting contempt, not warranting investigation or not requiring the imposition of any penalty.
48 Report, para. 22.
49 Infra, p. 267.
50 Infra, p. 263.
51 Report, para. 40.
52 Report, para. 15.
53 Report, para. 10.
54 E.g. the proposals relating to penalties. See Report, paras 193-197 and infra, p.269.
55 The most noteworthy omission is of imputations directed against the House or its members, but if the Committee's recommendations were adopted, that offence would probably not need to be included: see infra, p. 260.
56 Supra, p. 242.
57 Report, para. 48.
58 It can be seen that this is a restatement of the general principle on which it is suggested the House should act when considering matters alleged to be contempt of Parliament.
59 Report, paras 42, 43.
60 Report, para, 44.
61 An article was published in the Bankstown Observer alleging that the member for Reid in the federal Parliament was implicated in an immigration racket involving the obtaining of entry permits for aliens. The Parliamentary proceedings are set out in 1955 H. R. Deb. 1613-1617, 1625-1664. A detailed report of the case appears in Pettifer, J. A., “The Case of the Bankstown Observer” (1955) 24Google Scholar The Table 83 and Campbell, Op. cit. 158-161.
62 It is interesting to note that the clerk of the House of Representatives advised that there had been no contempt as the charges did not relate to the member's conduct at a time when he was a member of Parliament: Campbell, Op. cit. 159.
63 Report, paras 50-59.
64 Cf. Cahill's case.
65 Cf. the Bankstown Observer case.
66 Report, paras 138-146.
67 This amounts to a repetition of the earlier arguments against codification of contempt: supra p. 257.
68 May, Op. cit. 104.
69 Odgers, , Australian Senate Practice (3rd ed. 1967), 463Google Scholar.
70 Ibid.
71 Supra p. 258.
72 A Bill to transfer the penal jurisdiction of the federal Parliament to the High Court was drawn up in 1934 but later dropped: Odgers, Op. cit. 462-463. The Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Ordinance 1964 of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is in terms similar to the Northern Territory Ordinance.
73 The question of review by the courts of contempt proceedings conducted by the Parliament is returned to again infra p. 268.
74 Report, paras 162-191.
75 For the grounds on which ceriorari may issue: see Benjafield, and Whitmore, , Principles of Australian Administrative Law (3rd ed. 1966), 207-209Google Scholar.
76 Report, paras 193-197.
77 In the course of the debate relating to the contempt charges brought against Browne and Fitzpatrick, the Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, referred to the fact that it would not be sufficient punishment to reprimand the offenders and this left imprisonment as the only punishment that could be inflicted upon them (1955 H.R. Deb. 1629). Dr Evatt, the Leader of the Opposition, moved a resolution that the House of Representatives should immediately empower itself to fine a person found in contempt (op. cit. 1634). On a free vote his motion was defeated.
78 Supra, p. 258.
79 Melbourne Age, 2 May 1969.