PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN QUEENSLAND. Parliamentary Privilege The privileges of the Westminster...

PARLIAMENTARY PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE

IN IN QUEENSLANDQUEENSLAND

Parliamentary PrivilegeParliamentary Privilege

The privileges of the Westminster Parliament have been The privileges of the Westminster Parliament have been described by Erskine May as: described by Erskine May as:

... the sum of peculiar rights enjoyed by each House ... the sum of peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House Parliament, and by Members of each House individually without which they could not discharge their individually without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law.the general law.[1][1]

[1][1] Erskine May, 21st edition, op cit.Erskine May, 21st edition, op cit.,, n 19, p. 69. n 19, p. 69.


“Parliamentary privilege” is the collective term for the powers, rights and immunities of Parliament, its committees and members


Powers include: Control own proceedings Conduct inquiries (House or Committee) and

general investigative powers (summon persons, paper and things, hold hearings etc.)

Punish for contempt (including discipline own members)


Rights includeRights include Right of each member to participate in Right of each member to participate in

proceedingsproceedings Right to have access to parliamentary Right to have access to parliamentary

documents (tabled papers) etc.documents (tabled papers) etc.

Parliamentary Privilege Parliamentary Privilege

Immunities include:Immunities include: Freedom of speechFreedom of speech Freedom from arrest (virtually now defunct)Freedom from arrest (virtually now defunct) Exemption from jury service and attendance Exemption from jury service and attendance

at court when House sittingat court when House sitting Service of process on precinctService of process on precinct


Note that various rights and immunities are Note that various rights and immunities are “collective” (possessed by the House or “collective” (possessed by the House or Committees) whilst others are “individual” Committees) whilst others are “individual” (enjoyed by each member)(enjoyed by each member)

Depends on which right or immunity is being Depends on which right or immunity is being exercised and the circumstances of its exerciseexercised and the circumstances of its exercise

For example, the protection afforded by Article For example, the protection afforded by Article 9 of the 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688Bill of Rights 1688 is a privilege of the is a privilege of the Parliament itself (see Parliament itself (see Prebble v. Television Prebble v. Television New Zealand LtdNew Zealand Ltd [1995] AC 321 at 335) [1995] AC 321 at 335)

Waiver of privilegeWaiver of privilege

Protection of Article 9, being a collective and Protection of Article 9, being a collective and statutory protection, cannot be waived by either statutory protection, cannot be waived by either an individual member an individual member oror the Assembly itself. the Assembly itself. May only be displaced by legislation.May only be displaced by legislation.

On the other hand, aOn the other hand, a member has the right to member has the right to either decide to release a document prepared either decide to release a document prepared for the member to another person or entity or for the member to another person or entity or not and that must be a decision that the not and that must be a decision that the member alone can makemember alone can make

HistoricalHistorical

In In Kielly v. CarsonKielly v. Carson[1][1] the Privy Council held the Privy Council held that colonial legislatures were only entitled to that colonial legislatures were only entitled to exercise such powers and the protection of exercise such powers and the protection of such privileges as were such privileges as were necessary for the necessary for the existence of such a body, and the proper existence of such a body, and the proper exercise of the functions which it is intended to exercise of the functions which it is intended to exercise.exercise.[2][2]

[1][1] (1842) 1 Moo PC 63(1842) 1 Moo PC 63 [2] [2] IbidIbid., ., at 88.at 88.


At first the Queensland legislature opted to detail At first the Queensland legislature opted to detail its contempt power only. its contempt power only.

The The Parliamentary Privilege Act 1861Parliamentary Privilege Act 1861 (Qld) (Qld) conferred upon the Queensland Legislative conferred upon the Queensland Legislative Assembly a restricted power to punish Assembly a restricted power to punish summarily for certain enumerated contempts. summarily for certain enumerated contempts. Later, these provisions were transferred to the Later, these provisions were transferred to the “consolidated”“consolidated” Constitution Act of 1867 Constitution Act of 1867 (Qld). (Qld). [[


In In Barnes v. PurcellBarnes v. Purcell,,[1][1] Philp J acknowledged that the Philp J acknowledged that the Queensland Parliament by legislation could vest itself Queensland Parliament by legislation could vest itself with the same powers, privileges and immunities of the with the same powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons.House of Commons.[2][2] It was not until 1978 that the It was not until 1978 that the Constitution Act of 1867Constitution Act of 1867 (Qld) was amended, by the (Qld) was amended, by the insertion into the Act of s.40A, to give the Queensland insertion into the Act of s.40A, to give the Queensland Legislative Assembly the same powers, privileges and Legislative Assembly the same powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons “for the time immunities of the House of Commons “for the time being”.being”.

[1][1] (1946) St.R.Qd 87.(1946) St.R.Qd 87.

[2] [2] IbidIbid.,., pp.108-109. pp.108-109.


The The Parliamentary Privilege Act 1861Parliamentary Privilege Act 1861 (Qld) (Qld) conferred upon the Queensland Legislative conferred upon the Queensland Legislative Assembly a restricted power to punish Assembly a restricted power to punish summarily for certain enumerated contempts. summarily for certain enumerated contempts.

Later, these provisions were transferred to the Later, these provisions were transferred to the “consolidated”“consolidated” Constitution Act of 1867 Constitution Act of 1867 (Qld). (Qld).


1978 – s.40A of the Constitution Act 1978 – s.40A of the Constitution Act 1867 amended, to give Queensland 1867 amended, to give Queensland Parliament, the same privileges as the Parliament, the same privileges as the House of Commons “from time to time” House of Commons “from time to time”

Current lawCurrent law

Section 9 of the Section 9 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001Constitution of Queensland 2001 provides that provides that the Legislative Assembly has the same powers, rights and the Legislative Assembly has the same powers, rights and immunities of the House of Commons as at 1 January 1901.immunities of the House of Commons as at 1 January 1901.

9 Powers, rights and immunities of Legislative Assembly9 Powers, rights and immunities of Legislative Assembly (1)(1) The powers, rights and immunities of the Legislative Assembly and its The powers, rights and immunities of the Legislative Assembly and its

members and committees are—members and committees are— (a(a the powers, rights and immunities defined under an Act; and the powers, rights and immunities defined under an Act; and (b)(b) until defined under an Act—the powers, rights and immunities, by until defined under an Act—the powers, rights and immunities, by

custom, statute or otherwise, of the Commons House of Parliament of the United custom, statute or otherwise, of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members and committees at the establishment of the Kingdom and its members and committees at the establishment of the Commonwealth.Commonwealth.

Note—Note— Date of establishment of the Commonwealth—1 January 1901.Date of establishment of the Commonwealth—1 January 1901. (2) (2) In this section—In this section— ““rights” rights” includes privileges.includes privileges.


Sections 8 and 9 of the Sections 8 and 9 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 provide a clear reinforcement of the protection afforded provide a clear reinforcement of the protection afforded parliamentary proceedings. (Article 9 immunity)parliamentary proceedings. (Article 9 immunity)

8 Assembly proceedings can not be impeached or 8 Assembly proceedings can not be impeached or questionedquestioned

(1)(1) The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the Assembly can not be impeached or questioned in any court or Assembly can not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the Assembly.place out of the Assembly.

(2)(2) To remove doubt, it is declared that subsection (1) is To remove doubt, it is declared that subsection (1) is intended to have the same effect as article 9 of the Bill of Rights intended to have the same effect as article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688) had in relation to the Assembly immediately before the (1688) had in relation to the Assembly immediately before the commencement of the subsection.commencement of the subsection.


9 Meaning of “proceedings in the Assembly”9 Meaning of “proceedings in the Assembly” (1)(1) “Proceedings in the Assembly” “Proceedings in the Assembly” include all words spoken and acts include all words spoken and acts

done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, transacting business done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, transacting business of the Assembly or a committee.of the Assembly or a committee.

(2)(2) Without limiting subsection (1), Without limiting subsection (1), “proceedings in the Assembly” “proceedings in the Assembly” includeinclude——

(a)(a) giving evidence before the Assembly, a committee or an inquiry; andgiving evidence before the Assembly, a committee or an inquiry; and (b)(b) evidence given before the Assembly, a committee or an inquiry; andevidence given before the Assembly, a committee or an inquiry; and (c)(c) presenting or submitting a document to the Assembly, a committee or an presenting or submitting a document to the Assembly, a committee or an

inquiry; andinquiry; and (d)(d) a document tabled in, or presented or submitted to, the Assembly, a a document tabled in, or presented or submitted to, the Assembly, a

committee or an inquiry; andcommittee or an inquiry; and (e)(e) preparing a document for the purposes of, or incidental to, transacting preparing a document for the purposes of, or incidental to, transacting

business mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c); andbusiness mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c); and (f)(f) preparing, making or publishing a document (including a report) under preparing, making or publishing a document (including a report) under

the authority of the Assembly or a committee; andthe authority of the Assembly or a committee; and (g)(g) a document (including a report) prepared, made or published under the a document (including a report) prepared, made or published under the

authority of the Assembly or a committee.authority of the Assembly or a committee.


The The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 also provides the also provides the Legislative Assembly with an explicit statutory definition of Legislative Assembly with an explicit statutory definition of contempt; based largely on the Commonwealth legislation.contempt; based largely on the Commonwealth legislation.

37 Meaning of “contempt” of the Assembly37 Meaning of “contempt” of the Assembly (1)(1) “Contempt” “Contempt” of the Assembly means a breach or of the Assembly means a breach or

disobedience of the powers, rights or immunities, or a contempt, disobedience of the powers, rights or immunities, or a contempt, of the Assembly or its members or committees.of the Assembly or its members or committees.

(2)(2) Conduct, including words, is not contempt of the Conduct, including words, is not contempt of the Assembly unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to Assembly unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with—an improper interference with—

(a)(a) the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee of its the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee of its authority or functions; orauthority or functions; or

(b)(b) the free performance by a member of the member’s duties the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.as a member.


Section 13B of the Section 13B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954Acts Interpretation Act 1954 provides: provides:

13B Acts not to affect powers, rights or immunities of 13B Acts not to affect powers, rights or immunities of Legislative Assembly except by express provisionLegislative Assembly except by express provision

(1)(1) An Act enacted after the commencement of this section An Act enacted after the commencement of this section affects the powers, rights or immunities of the Legislative affects the powers, rights or immunities of the Legislative Assembly or of its members or committees only so far as the Act Assembly or of its members or committees only so far as the Act expressly provides.expressly provides.

(2)(2) For subsection (1), an Act affects the powers, rights or For subsection (1), an Act affects the powers, rights or immunities mentioned in the subsection if it abolishes any of the immunities mentioned in the subsection if it abolishes any of the powers, rights or immunities or is otherwise wholly or partly powers, rights or immunities or is otherwise wholly or partly inconsistent with their continued existence, enjoyment or exercise.inconsistent with their continued existence, enjoyment or exercise.

(3)(3) In this section—In this section— ““rights” rights” includes privileges.includes privileges.

Particular Issues – Particular Issues – “Republication”“Republication” Jennings v Buchanan [2002] Jennings v Buchanan [2002]

ICHRL 11 (23 May 2002) ICHRL 11 (23 May 2002)

Adopting outside the House things said Adopting outside the House things said inside the Houseinside the House

Not necessarily repeating, but adopting Not necessarily repeating, but adopting or referring to statement in the Houseor referring to statement in the House

Particular Issues – Particular Issues – “Republication”“Republication”Jennings v Buchanan Jennings v Buchanan

[2002] ICHRL 11 (23 May [2002] ICHRL 11 (23 May 2002)2002)

MajorityMajority

Two facts in the present case are critical. Firstly, the defamatory Two facts in the present case are critical. Firstly, the defamatory statement is made up, in part, of a statement published in a statement is made up, in part, of a statement published in a newspaper in respect of which no claim of parliamentary privilege newspaper in respect of which no claim of parliamentary privilege could be or is made. Secondly, the non-privileged statement was could be or is made. Secondly, the non-privileged statement was made after the privileged statement was made. made after the privileged statement was made.

Particular Issues – Particular Issues – “Republication”“Republication”

The important public interest which is protected by the absolute privilege of Article 9 is to ensure that Members The important public interest which is protected by the absolute privilege of Article 9 is to ensure that Members of Parliament and Committee witnesses at the time they speak are not inhibited from stating fully and freely of Parliament and Committee witnesses at the time they speak are not inhibited from stating fully and freely what they have to say (dicta of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in what they have to say (dicta of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Prebble v Television New Zealand Prebble v Television New Zealand [1994] 3 NZLR 1 [1994] 3 NZLR 1 at 8 applied). In this context, the prospect of the present proceedings would not have inhibited J at the time he at 8 applied). In this context, the prospect of the present proceedings would not have inhibited J at the time he spoke in Parliament. It was only his unprotected later statement that enabled these proceedings to be brought. spoke in Parliament. It was only his unprotected later statement that enabled these proceedings to be brought. Therefore, the court is not concerned with the use of a later parliamentary statement to give content or identity Therefore, the court is not concerned with the use of a later parliamentary statement to give content or identity to an earlier non-privileged statement which would contradict Article 9 (to an earlier non-privileged statement which would contradict Article 9 (Peters v CushingPeters v Cushing [1999] NZAR 241 [1999] NZAR 241 distinguished). distinguished).

The purpose of protecting freedom of debate and of speech in Parliament is not infringed by defamation The purpose of protecting freedom of debate and of speech in Parliament is not infringed by defamation proceedings being founded on a later unprivileged statement. Nor are the precise terms of Article 9 itself proceedings being founded on a later unprivileged statement. Nor are the precise terms of Article 9 itself breached even when the defamatory statement is repeated word for word on a non-privileged occasion breached even when the defamatory statement is repeated word for word on a non-privileged occasion ((Hyams v PetersonHyams v Peterson [1991] 3 NZLR 648; [1991] 3 NZLR 648; Beitzel v CrabbBeitzel v Crabb [1992] 2 VR 121 and [1992] 2 VR 121 and Laurance v KatterLaurance v Katter [1996] 141 [1996] 141 ALR 447 considered). To hold otherwise would mean that persons who have made an absolutely privileged ALR 447 considered). To hold otherwise would mean that persons who have made an absolutely privileged defamatory statement in Parliament, knowing that it is in the public domain, could continue with impunity to defamatory statement in Parliament, knowing that it is in the public domain, could continue with impunity to repeat on non-privileged occasion as often as they wished that they stood by the statement. Such a course repeat on non-privileged occasion as often as they wished that they stood by the statement. Such a course was not contemplated by 17th century parliamentarians. was not contemplated by 17th century parliamentarians.

Silence outside the House maintains the protection, as does any statement that merely acknowledges but Silence outside the House maintains the protection, as does any statement that merely acknowledges but does not affirm or effectively repeat the defamatory statement. Whether a later statement either affirms or does not affirm or effectively repeat the defamatory statement. Whether a later statement either affirms or effectively repeats the privileged statement is a matter of fact to be determined in the circumstances of the effectively repeats the privileged statement is a matter of fact to be determined in the circumstances of the case. Not recoiling and retreating from something is equivalent to adopting or affirming it, being more than a case. Not recoiling and retreating from something is equivalent to adopting or affirming it, being more than a mere acknowledgement. Merely by saying that he 'does not resile from' a statement, a Member has effectively mere acknowledgement. Merely by saying that he 'does not resile from' a statement, a Member has effectively repeated it. repeated it.


The purpose of protecting freedom of debate and of speech in Parliament is not The purpose of protecting freedom of debate and of speech in Parliament is not infringed by defamation proceedings being founded on a later unprivileged infringed by defamation proceedings being founded on a later unprivileged statement. Nor are the precise terms of Article 9 itself breached even when the statement. Nor are the precise terms of Article 9 itself breached even when the defamatory statement is repeated word for word on a non-privileged occasion defamatory statement is repeated word for word on a non-privileged occasion ((Hyams v PetersonHyams v Peterson [1991] 3 NZLR 648; [1991] 3 NZLR 648; Beitzel v CrabbBeitzel v Crabb [1992] 2 VR 121 and [1992] 2 VR 121 and Laurance v KatterLaurance v Katter [1996] 141 ALR 447 considered). To hold otherwise would mean [1996] 141 ALR 447 considered). To hold otherwise would mean that persons who have made an absolutely privileged defamatory statement in that persons who have made an absolutely privileged defamatory statement in Parliament, knowing that it is in the public domain, could continue with impunity to Parliament, knowing that it is in the public domain, could continue with impunity to repeat on non-privileged occasion as often as they wished that they stood by the repeat on non-privileged occasion as often as they wished that they stood by the statement. Such a course was not contemplated by 17th century parliamentarians. statement. Such a course was not contemplated by 17th century parliamentarians.

Silence outside the House maintains the protection, as does any statement that Silence outside the House maintains the protection, as does any statement that merely acknowledges but does not affirm or effectively repeat the defamatory merely acknowledges but does not affirm or effectively repeat the defamatory statement. Whether a later statement either affirms or effectively repeats the statement. Whether a later statement either affirms or effectively repeats the privileged statement is a matter of fact to be determined in the circumstances of the privileged statement is a matter of fact to be determined in the circumstances of the case. Not recoiling and retreating from something is equivalent to adopting or case. Not recoiling and retreating from something is equivalent to adopting or affirming it, being more than a mere acknowledgement. Merely by saying that he affirming it, being more than a mere acknowledgement. Merely by saying that he 'does not resile from' a statement, a Member has effectively repeated it. 'does not resile from' a statement, a Member has effectively repeated it.


The important public interest which is protected by the absolute The important public interest which is protected by the absolute privilege of Article 9 is to ensure that Members of Parliament and privilege of Article 9 is to ensure that Members of Parliament and Committee witnesses at the time they speak are not inhibited from Committee witnesses at the time they speak are not inhibited from stating fully and freely what they have to say (dicta of Lord stating fully and freely what they have to say (dicta of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Browne-Wilkinson in Prebble v Television New Zealand Prebble v Television New Zealand [1994] 3 [1994] 3 NZLR 1 at 8 applied). In this context, the prospect of the present NZLR 1 at 8 applied). In this context, the prospect of the present proceedings would not have inhibited J at the time he spoke in proceedings would not have inhibited J at the time he spoke in Parliament. It was only his unprotected later statement that Parliament. It was only his unprotected later statement that enabled these proceedings to be brought. Therefore, the court is enabled these proceedings to be brought. Therefore, the court is not concerned with the use of a later parliamentary statement to not concerned with the use of a later parliamentary statement to give content or identity to an earlier non-privileged statement give content or identity to an earlier non-privileged statement which would contradict Article 9 (which would contradict Article 9 (Peters v CushingPeters v Cushing [1999] NZAR [1999] NZAR 241 distinguished). 241 distinguished).


The purpose of protecting freedom of debate and of speech in The purpose of protecting freedom of debate and of speech in Parliament is not infringed by defamation proceedings being Parliament is not infringed by defamation proceedings being founded on a later unprivileged statement. Nor are the precise founded on a later unprivileged statement. Nor are the precise terms of Article 9 itself breached even when the defamatory terms of Article 9 itself breached even when the defamatory statement is repeated word for word on a non-privileged occasion statement is repeated word for word on a non-privileged occasion ((Hyams v PetersonHyams v Peterson [1991] 3 NZLR 648; [1991] 3 NZLR 648; Beitzel v CrabbBeitzel v Crabb [1992] 2 [1992] 2 VR 121 and VR 121 and Laurance v KatterLaurance v Katter [1996] 141 ALR 447 considered). [1996] 141 ALR 447 considered). To hold otherwise would mean that persons who have made an To hold otherwise would mean that persons who have made an absolutely privileged defamatory statement in Parliament, knowing absolutely privileged defamatory statement in Parliament, knowing that it is in the public domain, could continue with impunity to that it is in the public domain, could continue with impunity to repeat on non-privileged occasion as often as they wished that repeat on non-privileged occasion as often as they wished that they stood by the statement. Such a course was not contemplated they stood by the statement. Such a course was not contemplated by 17th century parliamentarians. by 17th century parliamentarians.

Particular Issues – Use to Particular Issues – Use to increase damagesincrease damages

Erglis v. Buckely and Others Erglis v. Buckely and Others [2004] QCA 223[2004] QCA 223 Issue in media and Parliament about hospital Issue in media and Parliament about hospital

resources and Ward 9D of the Royal Brisbane resources and Ward 9D of the Royal Brisbane HospitalHospital

Claims and counter claims over resources and Claims and counter claims over resources and risks to patients etc.risks to patients etc.

11 Queensland Health employees sign letter 11 Queensland Health employees sign letter critical of Ms Erglis a nurse at Ward 9D and critical of Ms Erglis a nurse at Ward 9D and informant as to alleged problems at Ward.informant as to alleged problems at Ward.


Letter addressed to the Minister and passed on Letter addressed to the Minister and passed on to the Minister, but a copy of it before it was to the Minister, but a copy of it before it was tabled spent time on a notice board at the tabled spent time on a notice board at the hospital.hospital.

Minister receives letter, makes Ministerial Minister receives letter, makes Ministerial Statement in the House and tables the letter in Statement in the House and tables the letter in the House.the House.

Erglis commences defamation action against Erglis commences defamation action against 11 signatories and Queensland Health as their 11 signatories and Queensland Health as their employer. employer.


Supreme Court Trial Judge ruled that in Supreme Court Trial Judge ruled that in determining damages regard cannot be determining damages regard cannot be made to ultimate wider publication of the made to ultimate wider publication of the document as a result of its being read out document as a result of its being read out and tabled in the Parliament by the and tabled in the Parliament by the Minister as to do so would to be an Minister as to do so would to be an impeachment of the proceedings of the impeachment of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.Legislative Assembly.


The trial judge held that the pleadings by The trial judge held that the pleadings by seeking to claim the publication in the seeking to claim the publication in the House exacerbated the damages to the House exacerbated the damages to the plaintiff’s reputation was seeking to prove plaintiff’s reputation was seeking to prove inferences that reflect upon the Ministers inferences that reflect upon the Ministers conduct and impeach proceedings.conduct and impeach proceedings.


Trial judge:Trial judge: ““A Member must not be inhibited from A Member must not be inhibited from

speaking freely in the Assembly and speaking freely in the Assembly and taking part in proceedings in the taking part in proceedings in the Assembly because of the risk that such Assembly because of the risk that such conduct may result in an increased conduct may result in an increased award of damages against another”award of damages against another”


On appeal, 2 to 1, the appeal was On appeal, 2 to 1, the appeal was upheld.upheld.

Thus, the exacerbated damage to the Thus, the exacerbated damage to the plaintiff’s reputation caused by the plaintiff’s reputation caused by the publication in the Assembly and as a publication in the Assembly and as a result into the wider community could be result into the wider community could be taken into account.taken into account.


Dissenting Judge (Jerrard JA) largely Dissenting Judge (Jerrard JA) largely took the approach of the trial judge.took the approach of the trial judge.

Jerrard JA carefully considered the Jerrard JA carefully considered the pleadings and found that what they were pleadings and found that what they were really doing was to impute improper really doing was to impute improper motives and mala fides in the Minister’s motives and mala fides in the Minister’s conduct in the Assembly even though the conduct in the Assembly even though the actual action was against a third party.actual action was against a third party.


Majority – McPherson JA stated it was Majority – McPherson JA stated it was clear that there was no claim against the clear that there was no claim against the Minister for her actions in the Assembly, Minister for her actions in the Assembly, but merely trying to recover more but merely trying to recover more damages from the defendants for the damages from the defendants for the foreseeable consequences of giving the foreseeable consequences of giving the letter to the Minister with the intention it letter to the Minister with the intention it be tabled and thus circulated widely.be tabled and thus circulated widely.


McPherson JA considered that all the McPherson JA considered that all the plaintiff was seeking to do was lead plaintiff was seeking to do was lead evidence that the letter had been read evidence that the letter had been read and tabled in the House as “historical and tabled in the House as “historical fact” (and in this context referred to fact” (and in this context referred to Buchanan v. Jennings [2002] 3 NZLR Buchanan v. Jennings [2002] 3 NZLR 145)145)


The other majority judge, Fryberg J did not The other majority judge, Fryberg J did not think that there was any allegation that the think that there was any allegation that the Minister’s action in the House caused the Minister’s action in the House caused the damage but merely assisted them to become damage but merely assisted them to become known to the public at large and that the known to the public at large and that the defendants intended that this would happen. defendants intended that this would happen.

He emphasised that no damages were sought He emphasised that no damages were sought in respect of the Ministers actions in the House in respect of the Ministers actions in the House per se, but that damages were exacerbated by per se, but that damages were exacerbated by the subsequent republication in the public the subsequent republication in the public domain.domain.

Particular Issues – Particular Issues – Protection of InformantsProtection of Informants

Laurence v. Katter [1996] QCA 471Laurence v. Katter [1996] QCA 471 Rowley v. O’Chee [2000] 1 Qd R 207 –Rowley v. O’Chee [2000] 1 Qd R 207 –

The “chilling effect” in deterring Members The “chilling effect” in deterring Members and witnesses from participating in and witnesses from participating in proceedings was emphasised.proceedings was emphasised.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN QUEENSLAND. Parliamentary Privilege The privileges of the Westminster...

Documents

Transcript of PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN QUEENSLAND. Parliamentary Privilege The privileges of the Westminster...