|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Parliamentary Privilege
Privilege resolutions
Responses to
questions raised in debate on 25 February 1988
(1) Senator Puplick asked (Hansard
p. 634) whether there would be any difference between publication of a
response by a person named in the Senate and incorporation of the response in
Hansard. The only difference between the 2 methods is that when a document is
ordered to be published by resolution of the Senate copies are distributed by
the Table Office to the normal list of recipients or other inquirers, but the
text does not appear in Hansard. It is envisaged that in particular
circumstances, e.g., if a response were of considerable length or, possibly, a
considerable time had elapsed since the debate in the Senate, the Senate may
think it appropriate that the response be published rather than incorporated in
Hansard.
(2) Senator Puplick asked (Hansard
p. 634) whether a response published or incorporated in Hansard would
attract absolute privilege. A response published or incorporated would attract
absolute privilege; that is why the rules provided that a response be succinct
and strictly relevant and not contain anything offensive in character.
(3) Senator Cooney asked (Hansard
p. 636) about the appropriateness of considering whether a person had a
reasonable excuse for committing an act which might be a contempt in relation
to such offences as obstructing the Senate in the performance of its functions.
Resolution 3 merely indicates that the Senate will consider whether any defence
of reasonable excuse is available. Of course, there may be contempts which, by
their nature, exclude any defence of reasonable excuse (e.g., threatening a
witness), but that does not prevent the Senate from considering whether such a
defence is available.
(4) Senator Cooney asked (Hansard
p. 637) whether questions as to a witness’s credit would be regarded as
relevant to a matter under inquiry by a committee. As Senator Durack pointed
out, the question of whether a question is relevant would be determined in the
first instance by the committee. A committee may well regard questions as to
the credit of a witness as relevant, depending on the circumstances, but it
would be for the committee to decide, subject to any direction by the Senate.
The same answer applies to a question asked by Senator Harradine (Hansard p.
638) concerning relevance of questions.
(5) Senator Harradine questioned
(Hansard pp. 638 and 639) the inclusion of the expression “improperly
influence” in the list of matters which may be treated as contempts. Resolution
6, as its terms indicate, is intended to give some guidance as to matters which
may be treated as contempts. It is in the nature of the offence concerned that
it is not possible to specify in advance all methods of influencing senators
which may be regarded as improper. It is analogous to such statutory offences
as attempting to pervert the course of justice.
(6) Senator Harradine asked (Hansard
p. 638) whether the existence of another remedy for an act which may be
held to be a contempt, in the criteria to be taken into account when
determining matters relating to contempts, refers to the ability to sue a
person for an act which may be held to be a contempt. The criterion does refer
to the availability of any civil or criminal remedy, but it does not follow
that, as Senator Harradine suggested, no account will be taken of a matter
because a civil or criminal remedy is available; it is merely a matter to be
considered.
(6) Senator Haines referred (Hansard pp. 639 and 640) to the inclusion
in the list of matters which may be treated as contempts of the references to
influencing senators and senators seeking benefits in return for the discharge
of their parliamentary duties. That these statements may be too broadly worded
was suggested in the explanatory notes accompanying the draft resolutions.
Again it must be stressed, however, that resolution 6 is simply an indication,
for the guidance of the public, of matters which may be treated as contempts.
The resolution does not commit the Senate committee to treat any particular
matters as contempts, nor does it affect the ability of the Senate to judge
particular cases on their merits and according to circumstances. The resolution
therefore does not create any difficulties or give rise to any questions which
did not exist before the resolution was passed.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
|
