Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T21:31:35.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Privileges Committees of the Australian Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

D. C. Pearce
D. C. Pearce*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comment
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 269 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am indebted to Mr L. Barlin, Senior Parliamentary Officer, House of Representatives, for his assistance in making copies of reports of the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges available to me.

References

1 See primarily Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege in Australia (1966); see also Pearce, “Contempt of Parliament: Instrument of Politics or Law?” (1969) 3 F.L.Rev. 241Google Scholar.

2 Cocks (ed.), Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (18th ed. 1971) 132.

3 E.g., Campbell, op. cit., Ch. 7; Pearce op. cit. 257.

4 Report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Parliamentary Papers 1907-1908 Vol. I, 795.

5 Queensland: Constitution Acts 1867-1972, s. 45; Tasmania: Parliamentary Privileges Act 1858-1964, s. 3; Western Australia: Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891, s. 8; Northern Territory: Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance 1963-1966, s. 9.

6 R. v Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 C.L.R. 157.

7 Comm. Parl. Deb. 1944, Vol. 177, 636.

8 Id.1027.

9 S.Deb. 1965, Vol. 29, 128.

10 S.Deb. 1965, Vol. 30, 2034.

11 Senate S.O. 118; House of Representatives S.O.'s 95-96.

12 For a detailed description of committee procedure see Pearce, “Inquiries by Senate Committees” (1971) 45 A.L.J. 652.

13 Comm. Parl. Deb. 1944, Vol. 177, 2504-2506.

14 Comm. Parl. Deb. 1947, Vol. 195, 3076-3087.

15 Comm. Parl. Deb. 1948, Vol. 196, 766.

16 Erskine May, op. cit 124.

17 E.g., Comm. Parl. Deb. 1948, Vol. 196, 944, 969, 979; Vol. 197, 1329-1349.

18 Comm. Parl. Deb. 1951, Vol. 214, 241.

19 Comm. Parl. Deb. 1951, Vol. 215, 1870-1877.

20 Comm. Par!. Deb. 1951, Vol. 214, 864.

21 H.R.Deb. 1954, Vol. 4, 652.

22 H.R.Deb. 1954, Vol. 5, 1869-1875.

23 For a full description of the case see J. A. Pettifer, “The Case of the Banlcs-town Observer” (1955) 24 The Table 83Google Scholar.

24 H.R.Deb. 1955, Vol. 6, 352.

25 Id.1613-1617.

26 The proceedings are set out id. 1625-1664

27 Fifty-five for, twelve against.

28 R. v.Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 C.L.R. 157.

29 H.R. Deb. 1955, Vol. 6, 1635.

30 Green: Servant of the House (1969) 155 ff.

31 H.R. Deb. 1959, Vol. 22, 643-644, 724-725.

32 H.R.Deb. 1965, Vol. 47, 149.

33 Id.1210-1213.

34 H.R.Deb. 1971, Vol. 73, 1151.

35 Id.3023-3030.

36 H.R.Deb. 1971, Vol. 72, 1659-1661.

37 H.R.Deb. 1971, Vol. 73, 526-533.

38 Id.801.

39 H.R.Deb. 1971, Vol. 75, 4342-4378.

40 Erskine May, op.cit., 646Google Scholar.

41 Infra p. 283.

42 H.R Deb. 1973, Vol. 85, 1347-1350.

43 Parliamentary Paper No. 217, 1973.

44 H.R.Deb. 1973, Vol. 86, 3204-3209.

45 H.R.Deb. 1973, Vol. 86, 2049.

46 Parliamentary Paper No. 236, 1973. The Privileges Committee did not consider that it fell within its terms of reference to investigate how the journalist who had written the relevant article came into possession of the letter nor whether the form of publication of the letter was the result of a deliberate action of the journalist. While this may have been technically correct, it is worth noting that the making of false imputations against witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees is a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. The Victorian Legislative Council has found persons guilty of contempt for such action: see (1969) 3 F.L.Rev. 241, 270.

47 H.R.Deb. 1973, Vol. 87, 3689.

48 H.R.Deb. 1973, Vol. 87, 4365.

49 H.R.Deb. 1974, Vol. 88, 187.

50 H.R.Deb. 1974, Vol. 88, 1247-1248.

51 S.Deb. 1971, Vol. 48, 1253.

52 Id 1864.

53 Id.1935.

54 S. Deb. 1971, Vol. 48, 1864-1865, 2129-2130; Vol. 49, 13. (The notice of motion given on that day was not called on.)

55 Pearce, “Inquiries by Senate Committees” (1971) 45 A.L.J. 652, 656-667Google Scholar.

56 The Committee investigating the report relating to the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives also accepted a refusal on the part of a journalist to disclose his sources of information: see p. 195 of the transcript of evidence annexed to the report of the Committee.

57 See the report relating to the premature disclosure of the Prices Committee report; Parliamentary Paper No. 217, 1973, 19.