Footnotes
Summary
[1]
The terms of reference are set out in paragraph 1.1 of the report.
Chapter 1 - The matter before the committee
[1]
Journals of the Senate, 24 November 2011, p. 1945.
[2]
Journals of the Senate, 24 November 2011, p. 1945.
[3]
Senate Committee of Privileges, 123rd report, PP 224/2005, paragraph
1.23.
[4]
Senate Committee of Privileges, 142nd report, PP 396/2009, paragraphs
1.6 to 1.9 and elsewhere.
[5]
142nd report, paragraph 1.9.
[6]
This approach is documented in the committee’s 125th report, Parliamentary
privilege: Precedents, procedures and practice in the Australian Senate
1966–2005, PP No. 3/2006.
[7]
Senate Debates, 23 November 2011, p. 9380.
[8]
See 125th report, paragraphs 4.27 to 4.29.
[9]
Letter to the President from Senator Kroger, dated 22 November 2011, p.
1.
[10]
Letter to the President from Senator Kroger, p. 3.
[11]
Letter to the President from Senator Kroger, p. 4.
[12]
Letter to the President from Senator Kroger, p. 12.
[13]
See second submission made on behalf of Senators Brown and Milne,
principally at paragraphs 38 to 63.
[14]
Second submission, Annexure 1, p. 1.
[15]
Second submission, Annexure 2, p. 1.
[16]
Second submission, at paragraphs 64 and 65 and in Annexures 3, 4 and 5.
[17]
Second submission, paragraphs 22 and 25; see also paragraphs 35 and
36.
[18]
Second submission, paragraph 27.
[19]
Second submission, paragraphs 29 to 32 and 57 to 63.
[20]
Second submission, paragraph 37.
[21]
Second submission, paragraphs 68 and 69.
[22]
Second submission, paragraph 36.
[23]
Letter to the President from Senator Kroger, p. 3.
[24]
The committee notes, however, the longstanding caution expressed by the
committee and the Senate about applying the principles prohibiting improper
influence to the practices of political parties. See 103rd report, at
paragraphs 1.43 to 1.50.
Chapter 2 - Practice and procedure
[1]
Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Final Report,
PP219/1984.
[2]
'...rather than ruling whether or not a prima facie case exists, we
propose that the Presiding Officer should instead rule whether or not
precedence be accorded to a motion relating to a complaint of a breach of
privilege or other contempt.' Joint Select Committee, Final Report,
paragraph 7.37.
Other
recommendations sought to remove the process of making a determination of
precedence from the 'heat' of Senate debate, by requiring matters be raised in
writing and not referred to in the Senate until the President's determination
as to precedence has been given, see paragraphs 7.28 – 7.37.
[3]
125th report, p. 109.
[4]
125th report, paragraph 2.12.
[5]
Senate Debates, 23 November 2011, p. 9380.
[6]
Second submission, paragraph 74.2.
[7]
Privilege Resolution 3.
[8]
125th report, paragraph 4.116, footnote 102.
[9]
Journals of the Senate, 7 September 2005, p.1050
[10]
Journals of the Senate, 26 March 1998, 3462–63; Journals of the
Senate, 25 June 2009, pp. 2194–95; see also 142nd
report, paragraphs 1.3 and 1.5.
[11]
Second submission, paragraph 4.4.
[12]
Second submission, paragraphs 13 and 14.
[13]
Harry Evans (ed.), Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 12th edition,
p. 64.
[14] R v
Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157 at 162.
[15]
Enid Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege, Federation Press 2003, p.
201.
[16]
Harry Evans (ed.), Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 12th
edition, p. 69.
[17]
Advices from the Clerk of the Senate, published on the committee's web
pages. Advice No. 2, Participation of members of Committee of
Privileges in certain inquiries, 18 January 1989. Advice No. 44, Potential
conflicts of interest, 20 October 2010.
[18]
Senate Committee of Privileges, 35th report, PP.
467/1991.
[19]
Senate Committee of Privileges, 21st report, PP.
461/1989.
[20]
125th Report, paragraph 5.11.
[21]
Senate Debates, 25 February 1988, p. 628.
[22]
125th Report, paragraph 5.11.