[1] HC 34 (1967–68) vii.
[2] Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd edn, vol. 28, p. 465; see also G. Marshall, ‘The House of Commons and its privileges’, in The House of Commons in the twentieth century, S. A. Walkland (ed), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1979, pp. 205–9.
[3] HC 34 (1967–68) 171.
[4] May, 24th edn, p. 251.
[5] The more significant historical references are May, 24th edn, together with Anson, The law and custom of the Constitution; House of Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report, HC 34 (1967–68); Hatsell, Precedents of proceedings in the House of Commons. The first five editions of House of Representatives Practice contain additional detail on earlier practice and precedents in the House. Odgers contains information on matters that have arisen in the Senate. For a scholarly survey of parliamentary privilege in Australia generally see Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003.
[6] For a list of House of Representatives privilege cases see Appendix 25.
[7] E.g. Parliamentary Papers Act 1908; Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946; Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951; Public Works Committee Act 1969 and legislation making provisions in relation to certain committees.
[8] R v. Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 168. And see Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, p. 235.
[9] (1955) 92 CLR 157.
[10] 11 Ad & E 273 [113 ER 419].
[11] (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 162.
[12] (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 165–6.
[13] (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 167.
[14] (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 168.
[15] (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 170.
[16] R v. Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 171 (PC).
[17] And see HC 34 (1967–68) 97–9.
[18] See Quick and Garran, pp. 501–2 for an enumeration of the principal powers, privileges and immunities of each House and of the Members of each House, drawn from the law and custom of the House of Commons as at 1901.
[19] 1 Will. & Mary, sess. 2, c.2 (for note on the dating of this Act see footnote in Chapter 1 at page 24).
[20] Article 9 did not create the immunity, rather it expressed the position that had come to be accepted by that time, see for example May, 24th edn, pp. 206–9, and D. McGee, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, 3rd edn, Dunmore, Wellington, 2005, p. 618. For a recent commentary on Article 9 and its application in Australia, see G. M. Kelly, ‘Questioning’ a privilege: article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, Australasian Parliamentary Review, v. 16, no. 1, Autumn 2001, pp. 61–99.
[21] J. Hatsell, Precedents of proceedings in the House of Commons with observations, 4th edn, 1818, vol. I, p. 85.
[22] HC 34 (1967–68) 91.
[23] PP 407 (1994) 5.
[24] PP 498 (1989) (the report was accompanied by two dissenting reports).
[25] VP 1987–90/1695–8 (21.12.1989), and see case of Senator Heffernan (2002).
[26] And see ‘The limits of free speech’, Parliamentarian, LXIII, no. 1, Jan. 1982, pp. 24–7; and Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 50–68. see also ‘Punishment of Members’ at p. 767.
[27] PP 219 (1984) 53–5. See also ‘Limitations and safeguards in the use of privilege’ at p. 779.
[28] R v. Abingdon, 170 ER 337; R v. Creevey 105 ER 102, but see Canadian case Roman Corp. Ltd v. Hudson’s Bay and Oil and Gas Co. Ltd (1973) 36 DLR (3rd) 413—press release held to be protected. See also Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 13–14.
[29] See also May, 24th edn, p. 241.
[30] H.R. Deb. (13.10.1983) 1801, H.R. Deb. (8.10.1984) 1875.
[31] H.R. Deb. (25.11.2009) 12863.
[32] May, 24th edn, p. 270. see also Rowley v. Armstrong [2000] QSC 088—an informant in making a communication to a parliamentary representative was not regarded as participating in ‘proceedings in Parliament’, and related comments in Odgers, 14th edn, p. 61.
[33] O’Chee v. Rowley [1997] QCA 401.
[34] Australian Communications Authority v. Bedford (2006), see Odgers, 14th edn, p. 62.
[35] PP 118 (1992), PP 78 (1994). This was also the conclusion of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (1984).
[36] PP 407 (1994).
[37] PP 417 (2000).
[38] VP 2002–04/146 (21.3.2002) (government response); VP 2004–07/222 (9.3.2005) (memorandum of understanding presented; also Australian Federal Police, National guideline for execution of search warrants where parliamentary privilege may be involved—see page 740).
[39] Crane v. Gething [2000] 169 ALR 727. S. Deb. (3.10.2000) 17683–4; S. Deb. (5.12.2000) 20668.
[40] House of Commons Committee of Privileges, Report, HC 305 (1956–57) viii.
[41] H.C. Deb. 591 (8.7.1958) 245.
[42] HL 43 (1998–99), HL 214 (1998–99), para. 112. The committee recommended a definition of proceedings almost identical to that in s. 16 of the 1987 Act.
[43] House of Commons Committee of Privileges, Report, HC 101 (1938–39), para. 3.
[44] This is consistent with item 1.4.2 of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures, 2006, www.cpahq.org/.
[45] At the time the warrant was issued and executed the House was dissolved. The Speaker of the previous Parliament, the Hon. Tony Smith, was the deemed Speaker in accordance with the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965. The new Parliament commenced on 30 August and Mr Smith was re-elected Speaker. Speaker’s statement to the House, H.R. Deb. (13.9.2016) 675; Speaker’s subsequent statement to the House, presentation of paper prepared by the Clerk’s Office on the process to determine claims of privilege in matters such as these, and reference to committee, VP 2016–18/187–8 (11.10.2016).
[46] VP 2016–18/388 (28.11.2016); House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, Claim of parliamentary privilege by a Member in relation to material seized under a search warrant. November 2016.
[47] VP 2016–18/428 (1.12.2016).
[48] The subject of parliamentary privilege relating to documents—including Hansard, House documents and documents presented to the House—is covered in the Ch. on ‘Documents’.
[49] And see May, 24th edn, p. 224.
[50] Advice from Attorney-General’s Department, dated 25 August 1978.
[51] Many court decisions have confirmed this, e.g. Church of Scientology of California v. Johnson-Smith [1972] (UK) I QB 522.
[52] E.g. VP 1980–83/908–9 (6.5.1982); VP 1983–84/956 (9.10.1984).
[53] E.g. R v. Lionel Keith Murphy, R v. John Murray Foord (1985) (see p. 748).
[54] E.g. Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry (1982), VP 1980–83/949 (17.8.1982); Royal Commission on Australia’s Security and Intelligence Agencies (1983), VP 1983–84/149 (23.8.1983); Royal Commission into Activities of the Nugan Hand Group (1984), VP 1983–84/881 (2.10.1984); Commission of Inquiry concerning HMAS Sydney, VP 2008–10/ 423–4 (24.6.2008).
[55] VP 1998–2001/827 (1.9.1999).
[56] VP 1980–83/908–9 (6.5.1982).
[57] VP 1980–83/908–9 (6.5.1982); VP 1983–84/881 (2.10.1984).
[58] VP 1985–87/1355 (26.11.1986).
[59] R v. Lionel Keith Murphy; R v. John Murray Foord. See also Commonwealth and Chief of Air Force v. Vance (2005) ACTCA 35 (23.8.2005).
[60] VP 1985–87/1355 (26.11.1986); VP 1987–90/965–6 (30.11.1988).
[61] VP 2008–10/423–4 (24.6.2008).
[62] O’Chee v. Rowley [1997] QCA 401.
[63] See, for example, Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 29, 67, 89, 97, 106, 124.
[64] Amman Aviation Pty Limited v. Commonwealth of Australia (No. G667 of 1987, p. 15).
[65] Hamsher and ors v. Swift and ors (1992) 33 FCR 545–67 at 547, 562–5.
[66] Prebble v. Television New Zealand Limited (1994) 3 All ER 407–420 at 414.
[67] Stretton v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 559.
[68] O’Chee v. Rowley [1997] QCA 401.
[69] Laurance v. Katter [1996] QCA 471.
[70] Laurance v. Katter B69/1996 (26 June 1997).
[71] Rann v. Olsen [2000] SASC 83.
[72] And see Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 96–98.
[73] E.g. AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v. Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSW SC 863. And see 1963 precedent referred to at p. 746.
[74] ibid., pp. 99–104.
[75] Jennings v. Buchanan [2004] UKPC 36.
[76] HC 102 (1978–79) 9.
[77] E.g. VP 1985–87/1207 (14.10.1986).
[78] E.g. VP 1980–83/791 (18.3.1982); H.R. Deb. (18.3.1982) 1134–5; VP 1983–84/881 (2.10.1984); H.R. Deb. (2.10.1984) 1321–2; VP 1990–93/1334 (27.2.1992); H.R. Deb. (27.2.1992) 390–2; H.R. Deb. (24.6.2008) 5792–3.
[79] VP 1998–2001/823 (31.8.1999).
[80] H.R. Deb. (1.9.1999) 9565.
[81] VP 1983–84/887 (2.10.1984), 956 (9.10.1984) (see also VP 1987–90/965–6 (30.11.1988)).
[82] E.g. VP 1976–77/563 (9.12.1976); VP 1977/39 (24.3.1977).
[83] E.g. Comalco Limited v. Australian Broadcasting Commission, (1982) 50 ACTR.
[84] J 1987–90/525 (24.2.1988), 536 (25.2.1988).
[85] Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s.16(4). The Act uses the term ‘in camera’.
[86] And see Opinion of Hon. T. E. F. Hughes, QC, appended to Committee of Privileges Report, PP 154 (1980) 96–7 (the opinion noted that a House may choose not to enforce its privileges in particular circumstances).
[87] House of Representatives Committee of Privileges, Report relating to the use of or reference to the records of proceedings of the House in courts, PP 154 (1980) 6. See also Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 27, 62 and chapter 8.
[88] Prebble v. Television New Zealand Limited (1994) 3 All ER 407–20 at 407.
[89] J 1985–87/153–4 (16.4.1985).
[90] Lyn Lovelock and John Evans, New South Wales Legislative Council Practice, Federation Press, Sydney, 2008, pp. 108–113. Russell Grove (ed.), New South Wales Legislative Assembly Practice, Procedure and Privilege, NSW Parliament, 2007, pp. 385–6.
[91] E.g. VP 1980–83/949 (17.8.1982); VP 1983–84/149 (23.8.1983); VP 2002–04/83 (11.3.2002); and see J 1983–84/203 (23.8.1983).
[92] VP 1962–63/464 (7.5.1963); and see Ch. on ‘Documents’.
[93] H.R. Deb. (22.6.1943) 58.
[94] ALJ Vol. 18, 1944, pp. 70–76. see also Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege in Australia, Melbourne University Press, 1966, pp. 39–40.
[95] VP 1974–75/1002 (21.10.1975); H.R. Deb. (21.10.1975) 2292–3.
[96] VP 1976–77/33 (25.2.1976).
[97] VP 1976–77/247 (4.6.1976).
[98] VP 1976–77/563 (9.12.1976); VP 1977/39 (24.3.1977).
[99] VP 1978–80/975 (11.9.1979).
[100] PP 154 (1980) 6.
[101] VP 1983–84/149 (23.8.1983); H.R. Deb. (23.8.1983) 1–3.
[102] Judgment of Cantor J, R v. Lionel Keith Murphy, N.S.W. Supreme Court, (1986) 64 ALR 498.
[103] Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1987, explanatory memorandum, p. 10.
[104] Judgment of Hunt J, R v. Lionel Keith Murphy, N.S.W. Supreme Court, (1986) 64 ALR 498.
[105] S. Deb. (4.6.1986) 3307–8; S. Deb. (7.10.1986) 893–5; H.R. Deb. (4.6.1986) 4552–3; H.R. Deb. (19.3.1987) 1154–6.
[106] VP 1998–2001/823 (31.8.1999).
[107] VP 1998–2001/827 (1.9.1999).
[108] Parliamentary Service Act 1999, s. 68A. This section was inserted in 2013 with retrospective effect, after the Australian Information Commissioner had questioned the previously understood exclusion. Following this intervention the department was subject to the FOI Act for some 12 months from May 2012. The original intent of the FOI Act was that the parliamentary departments were to be excluded, see Minister’s second reading speech, H.R. Deb. (18.8.1981) 43. The definition of ‘department’ in the Privacy Act 1988 also excludes the Parliamentary departments.
[109] Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Report, PP 219 (1984) 70.
[110] House of Representatives Committee of Privileges, Commitment to prison of Mr T. Uren, M.P., PP 40 (1971) 6.
[111] VP 1970–72/667 (23.8.1971); H.R. Deb. (23.8.1971) 526–9.
[112] See Ch. on ‘The Parliament and the role of the House’.
[113] Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Final report, October 1984, PP 219 (1984) 72.
[114] Jury Exemption Act 1965, s. 4 and Schedule.
[115] Jury Exemption Regulations, SR 186 of 1987.
[116] May, 24th edn, p. 248.
[117] And see Di Nardo v. Downer (1966) Victorian Reports 351–2 (Minister excused from attendance).
[118] May, 24th edn, p. 251.
[119] It is sometimes said that the list of possible contempts is not closed. For judicial comment on s. 4 see R v. Theophanous [2003] VSCA 70; see also Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 97–98, 211–2.
[120] Proposed resolution incorporated in Hansard at H.R. Deb. (5.5.1987) 2632. The Senate adopted a resolution to give effect to the recommendation on 25 February 1988.
[121] PP 219 (1984) 83; H.R. Deb. (5.5.1987) 2632–3.
[122] E.g. H.R. Deb. (9.11.1983) 2461; H.R. Deb. (29.4.1986) 2698; H.R. Deb. (16.9.1986) 759; H.R. Deb. (23.10.2008) 10169–70. The Senate has adopted resolutions on this matter, J 1987–90/520–1 (24.2.1988), 536 (25.2.1988).
[123] May, 24th edn, pp. 250–71. It is stated at p. 250 ‘It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt’.
[124] May, 24th edn, p. 839.
[125] VP 1951–53/609 (13.3.1953), 611 (17.3.1953).
[126] May, 24th edn, p. 253.
[127] May, 24th edn, p. 253 (footnote 23).
[128] May, 24th edn, p. 253 (footnote 23).
[129] VP 1907–08/165 (15.11.1907), 267 (13.12.1907).
[130] House of Representatives Committee of Privileges, Report relating to a letter fraudulently written in the name of the honourable Member for Casey published in the Sun-News Pictorial on 6 December 1973, PP 65 (1974); VP 1974/98 (9.4.1974).
[131] May, 24th edn, p. 254.
[132] VP 2010–13/1451 (21.5.2012), 1467, 1468–9 (22.5.2012). Appendix 25 has more detail.
[133] VP 2013–16/309, 311 (24.2.2014). The following day the House agreed to a motion expressing regret for Mr Thomson’s statement to the House and apologising to individuals named in his speech, VP 2013–16/320 (25.2.2014).
[134] VP 2013–16/2007 (17.3.2016). PP 84 (2016).
[135] VP 2016/75 (4.5.2016).
[136] VP 1985–87/1089, 1090 (22.8.1986), 1101–2 (16.9.1986).
[137] VP 1993–96/1906 (7.3.1995).
[138] VP 1993–96/2345 (30.8.1995).
[139] Formerly covered by s. 73A of the Crimes Act 1914. In June 2002 a person was convicted and imprisoned for a number of offences, including a breach of section 73A, committed when he had been a Member, although an appeal succeeded in respect of one charge (R v. Theophanous, County Court, Victoria). And see p. 743 for comments re subsection 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.
[140] May, 24th edn, p. 254. See also May, p. 257.
[141] May, 24th edn, p. 79.
[142] Inquiry concerning the former Member for Dunkley in the 44th Parliament: possible contempts of the House and appropriate conduct of a Member, March 2018, PP 106 (2018).
[143] VP 2016–18/1462 (27.3.2018).
[144] Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s. 4.
[145] VP 2004–07/1954 (14.6.2007) (House resolution agreeing with Committee of Privileges recommendation).
[146] House of Representatives Committee of Privileges, Disruption caused to the work of the electorate office of the honourable Member for Wentworth made in response to false advertisements in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 September 1986, PP 282 (1986) 5–6.
[147] PP (122) 1994.
[148] PP 376 (1995); and see p. 739 re the status of Members’ records.
[149] Criminal Code Act 1995, s. 141.1.
[150] H of R 2 (1954–55) 7. For a full account of this case see J. A. Pettifer, ‘The case of the Bankstown Observer’, The Table XXIV, 1955, pp. 83–92.
[151] VP 1954–55/184 (3.5.1955); H.R. Deb. (3.5.1955) 352–5.
[152] VP 1954–55/267 (9.6.1955).
[153] For proceedings on this day see VP 1954–55/269–71 (10.6.1955), H.R. Deb. (10.6.1955) 1625–65.
[154] PP 428 (1990) 7.
[155] PP 118 (1992).
[156] VP 1990–93/1487 (7.5.1992), 1540 (1.6.1992), 1551 (3.6.1992).
[157] VP 1990–93/1633 (18.8.1992).
[158] PP 78 (1994).
[159] PP 407 (1994). (See also p. 739).
[160] House of Commons Committee of Privileges, Report, HC 118 (1947) xii.
[161] VP 1934–37/149–50 (28.3.1935).
[162] May, 24th edn, p. 840.
[163] May, 24th edn, p. 841.
[164] Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s. 12(3).
[165] Section 14 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act provides that persons required to attend before a House or a committee, shall not be required to attend before a court or a tribunal, or be arrested or detained in a civil cause, on that day.
[166] House of Representatives Committee of Privileges, Report relating to the alleged discrimination and intimidation of Mr David E. Berthelsen in his public service employment because of evidence given by him in a subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, PP 158 (1980); VP 1978–80/1372, 1375 (1.4.1980), 1417, 1422 (23.4.1980), 1672–3 (17.9.1980).
[167] VP 1980–83/80 (24.2.1981).
[168] PP 455 (1991); PP 136 (1994); PP (208) 2001.
[169] See Senate Committee of Privileges, Parliamentary privilege: Precedents, procedure and practice in the Australian Senate 1966—2005, PP 3 (2006); and see Odgers.
[170] S.O. 242(c).
[171] S.O. 242(d).
[172] These requirements were first applied in 1990, but were set out more comprehensively in a statement by Speaker McLeay in 1992—H.R. Deb. (17.9.1990) 1989–90; H.R. Deb. (7.5.1992) 2661–2; VP 1990–93/187 (17.9.1990), 1489 (7.5.1992); for precedents see, for example, H.R. Deb. (18.9.1990), 2087–8; H.R. Deb. (27.10.1993) 2654; H.R. Deb. (8.11.1997) 10630–1; H.R. Deb. (24.3.1999) 4268–9; H.R. Deb. (9.11.2000) 22635–7.
[173] In 2013, although a committee had found that substantial interference had occurred and had identified a source, the Speaker noted that the committee had not found that its immediate work had been interfered with and, having regard to the need for self-restraint in the exercise of the penal jurisdiction, decided not to give precedence to a motion on the matter. H.R. Deb. (29.5.2013) 4213–15.
[174] H.R. Deb. (7.5.1992) 2661–2. For precedents see e.g. H.R. Deb. (23.11.1993) 3401–2; H.R. Deb. (5.5.1994) 367; H.R. Deb. (2.10.1997) 9104 (2). A detailed statement has been made on such an occasion—H.R. Deb. (29.6.1994) 2292–3.
[175] For example, see Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Unauthorised disclosure of committee proceedings and evidence, PP 41 (2010); and statement by the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, H.R. Deb. (30.3.2017) 3907–8.
[176] PP 26 (1995) 7.
[177] Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s. 13.
[178] May, 24th edn, p. 261.
[179] May, 24th edn, p. 261.
[180] VP 1922/190 (6.10.1922), 201 (11.10.1922); H.R. Deb. (6.10.1922) 3337–8; H.R. Deb. (11.10.1922) 3555.
[181] VP 1917–19/587 (24.10.1919); see also Ch. on ‘Parliament House and access to proceedings’.
[182] It is of interest to note that in 1922 the Attorney-General, having promised to do so, examined and advised the House concerning the service of a summons on a Member in the precincts of Parliament House, VP 1922/190 (6.10.1922), 201 (11.10.1922).
[183] VP 1907–08/165 (15.11.1907), 267 (13.12.1907).
[184] ‘Sun News Pictorial’ Case (1973), PP 65 (1974); VP 1974/98 (9.4.1974).
[185] E.g. ‘South Australian Worker’ Case (1931), VP 1929–31/613 (12.5.1931); ‘Sunday Sun’ Case (1933), VP 1932–34/755 (26.10.1933).
[186] E.g. ‘Sun’ Case (1951), VP 1951–53/171 (13.11.1951); ‘Daily Telegraph’ Case (1971), VP 1970–72/901–2 (8.12.1971). For other examples see Uren Case (1971), PP 40 (1971), VP 1970–72/667 (23.8.1971); ‘Sunday Observer’ Case (1978) ‘actions of editor not worthy of occupying the time of the House’, PP 120 (1978), VP 1978–80/147–8 (13.4.1978).
[187] Berthelsen Case (1980), PP 158 (1980), VP 1978–80/1672–3 (17.9.1980), and see p. 760.
[188] See also May, 24th edn, p. 195.
[189] R v. Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 162; (and see p. 757).
[190] Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1987—explanatory memorandum.
[191] PP 210 (1964–66).
[192] VP 1964–66/386 (23.9.1965). The resolution named the persons concerned.
[193] VP 2004–07/1954 (14.6.2007).
[194] VP 2016/75 (4.5.2016).
[195] Senate Committee of Privileges, Report upon articles in the Sunday Australian and the Sunday Review of 2 May 1971, PP 163 (1971) 3. J 1970–72/606 (13.5.1971), 612 (14.5.1971).
[196] J 1998–2001/4866 (18.9.2001).
[197] For details see the 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions and Appendix 25.
[198] PP 118 (1992); VP 1990–93/1487 (7.5.1992), 1540 (1.6.1992), 1551 (3.6.1992), 1633 (18.8.1992).
[199] VP 1912/91 (13.8.1912).
[200] VP 1912/305 (20.12.1912).
[201] S. Deb. (2.6.1942) 1806, 1818–19; S. Deb. (3.6.1942) 1897; H.R. Deb. (3–4.6.1942) 2187. Press passes may be withdrawn for other reasons see Ch. on ‘Parliament House and access to proceedings’.
[202] Professor Campbell has referred to the possibility of review by a court of an order that a Member be suspended. Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 210–13.
[203] VP 1913/151–3 (11.11.1913); VP 1914–17/181 (29.4.1915); see also VP 1929–31/413 (13.11.1930); VP 1945–46/63 (3.5.1945).
[204] Notwithstanding Members’ right to freedom of speech the Committee of Privileges has found that the remarks of a Member in the House making allegations against other Members were not a matter of privilege but one of order. The committee stated that all words in the House are privileged, but the House is able to place restraint on the conduct of Members including their offensive accusations against other Members, ‘Argus’ Case (1955) (report not printed, see Appendix 25, item 42).
[205] See ‘Censure of a Member or Senator’ in Ch. on ‘Motions’.
[206] The matter was raised as a matter of privilege. VP 1945–46/63 (3.5.1945); see also H.R. Deb. (9.3.1929) 856–65.
[207] VP 1985–87/1089, 1090 (22.8.1986), 1101–2 (16.9.1986).
[208] VP 1913/151–3 (11.11.1913); VP 1914–17/181 (29.4.1915).
[209] VP 1985–87/1467–8 (24.2.1987).
[210] PP 498 (1989); VP 1987–90/1695–8 (21.12.1989).
[211] VP 1920–21/423 (9.11.1920), 425 (10.11.1920), 431–3 (11.11.1920); and see Ch. on ‘Members’.
[212] Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s. 8. See also Enid Campbell, Parliamentary privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 213–21.
[213] S.O. 51(a).
[214] S.O. 51(b). Although on one occasion a Member moved immediately, before the Speaker had responded to the matter raised, that a Member be suspended ‘for contempt and for deliberately misleading the House’, H.R. Deb. (27.11.2008) 11643.
[215] S.O. 51(c).
[216] S.O. 51(d); VP 1978–80/1168 (8.11.1979).
[217] S.O. 51(e).
[218] E.g. H.R. Deb. (3.6.1997) 4675.
[219] As difficulties had arisen in the past (H.R. Deb. (11.11.1913) 2987, 2993) the requirement for a motion was adopted in the 1950 standing orders and clarified in the 1963 amendments, H of R 1 (1962–63) 25.
[220] VP 1980–83/26 (27.11.1980). Members have also spoken after the Chair’s opinion has been given, VP 1978–80/990 (13.9.1979).
[221] H.R. Deb. (26.2.2001) 24319.
[222] E.g. H.R. Deb. (21.6.2004) 30952–4.
[223] VP 1976–77/123 (7.4.1976).
[224] E.g. H.R. Deb. (25.5.1955) 1060; VP 2002–04/1070 (13.8.2003).
[225] VP 2008–10/1797 (31.5.2010), 1819 (2.6.2010), 1825–6 (3.6.2010).
[226] VP 1917–19/177–8 (5.4.1918), 587 (24.10.1919); VP 1951–53/131 (18.10.1951), 609 (13.3.1953).
[227] H.R. Deb. (22.10.1948) 2039.
[228] See H.R. Deb. (27.9.1904) 4916–17.
[229] H.R. Deb. (20.5.1914) 1131.
[230] H.R. Deb. (16.3.1917) 11699.
[231] E.g. VP 1993–96/909 (3.5.1994); VP 1998–2001/681 (29.6.1999); H.R. Deb. (6.11.2000) 2219 (on matter being raised at start of proceedings, Speaker suggested that rather than take up private Members’ business, the matter could be proceeded with after question time). A delay in the raising of a matter because of the serious illness of a Member’s spouse has not been regarded as breaching the first opportunity requirement, H.R. Deb. (10.8.2005) 81, 140.
[232] E.g. VP 1974–75/310 (14.11.1974); H.R. Deb. (12.8.2003) 18215–23, VP 2002–04/1062–3 (12.8.2003).
[233] VP 1978–80/714 (29.3.1979), 1100 (23.10.1979).
[234] The Chair has refused to proceed with a matter of privilege raised between the moving of the closure motion and the putting of the question until after this question and the further question were resolved by the House, H.R. Deb. (8.6.1978) 3245–6.
[235] S.O. 53; VP 1978–80/27 (28.2.1978).
[236] E.g. VP 1978–80/1035 (27.9.1979); VP 2002–04/1126 (21.8.2003).
[237] E.g. VP 1978–80/1372, 1375 (1.4.1980); VP 2008–10/1711, 1718 (18.3.2010).
[238] E.g. VP 1998–2001/681 (29.6.1999), 702–3 (30.6.1999); VP 2008–10/675–6 (23.10.2008); VP 2010–13/1131 (23.11.2011).
[239] VP 1980–83/449 (8.9.1981); H.R. Deb. (8.9.1981) 976; VP 1985–87/319 (23.5.1985); H.R. Deb. (23.5.1985) 3080–1; VP 1985–87/649 (29.11.1985); H.R. Deb.(29.11.1985) 3981.
[240] VP 1980–83/449 (8.9.1981); H.R. Deb. (8.9.1981) 976; VP 1985–87/319 (23.5.1985); H.R. Deb. (23.5.1985) 3080–1; VP 1985–87/649 (29.11.1985); H.R. Deb. (29.11.1985) 3981; VP 1985–87/650 (29.11.1985); H.R. Deb. (29.11.1985) 3982; VP 1996–98/2109 (2.10.1997).
[241] E.g. VP 1976–77/129 (8.4.1976); VP 1978–80/76 (15.3.1978), 471 (17.10.1978); VP 1998–2001/702–3 (30.6.1999); VP 2008–10/1718 (18.3.2010).
[242] VP 1993–96/1330–1 (22.9.1994), 1352 (11.10.1994).
[243] See p. 752 (misconduct in presence of House or committee); and also H.R. Deb. (18.3.2010) 3011.
[244] Submission of Mr L. A. Abraham to House of Commons Select Committee in 1967 refers, HC 34 (1967) 108. There is, however, an example of a motion of dissent having been moved and debated on such a matter, VP 1985–87/203 (8.5.1985).