Save Search
    Prev (9)   Next (11)   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch19 Parliamentary privilege / ACTS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPTS / Attempts by improper means to influence Members in the performance of their duties / Intimidation etc. of Members / BANKSTOWN OBSERVER (BROWNE/FITZPATRICK) CASE

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Parliamentary privilege

Chapter No.

Chapter 19

Page

731

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter19.45.doc


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch19 Parliamentary privilege / ACTS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPTS / Attempts by improper means to influence Members in the performance of their duties / Intimidation etc. of Members / BANKSTOWN OBSERVER (BROWNE/FITZPATRICK) CASE



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 19                                                 p 731

 

Parliamentary privilege / ACTS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPTS / Attempts by improper means to influence Members in the performance of their duties / Intimidation etc. of Members

 

‘Bankstown Observer’ ( Browne/Fitzpatrick) Case

On 8 June 1955 the Committee of Privileges reported to the House that it had found:

  • That Messrs Fitzpatrick and Browne were guilty of a serious breach of privilege by publishing articles intended to influence and intimidate a Member (Mr Morgan), in his conduct in the House, and in deliberately attempting to impute corrupt conduct as a Member against him, for the express purpose of discrediting and silencing him. The committee recommended that the House should take appropriate action.

  • That there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Member in his capacity as a Member of the House.

  • That some of the references to the Parliament and the Committee of Privileges contained in the newspaper articles constituted a contempt of the Parliament. However, the committee considered the House would best consult its own dignity by taking no action in this regard. 1

    • The committee’s inquiry and report followed a complaint made by a Member (Mr Morgan) on 3 May 1955 that an article published on 28 April 1955 in a weekly newspaper known as the Bankstown Observer , circulating in his electorate, had impugned his personal honour as a Member of Parliament and was a direct attack on his integrity and conduct as a Member of the House. 2

    The committee’s report and findings were considered by the House on 9 June 1955 and a motion moved by the Prime Minister ‘That the House agrees wi th the Committee in its Report’ was agreed to without division. On a further motion of the Prime Minister it was resolved that Messrs Browne and Fitzpatrick be notified that at 10 a.m. the following day the House would hear them at the Bar before proceeding to decide what action it would take in respect of their breaches of privilege. 3

    On being brought to the Bar of the House the following morning 4 Mr Fitzpatrick sought permission for his counsel to act on his behalf. The request was refused by the Speaker and Mr Fitzpatrick apologised to the House for his actions and withdrew. Mr Browne was then brought to the Bar and addressed the House at some length without apologising and withdrew.

    Following a suspension of 51 minutes, the House resumed and the Prime Minister moved motions in respect of Messrs Fitzpatrick and Browne to the effect that, being guilty of a serious breach of privilege, they should be imprisoned for three months and that the Speaker should issue warrants accordingly. The Leader of the Opposition moved, as an amendment, that both motions be amended to read:

    That this House is of opinion that the appropriate action to be taken in these cases is the imposition of substantial fines and that the amount of such fines and the procedure of enforcing them be determined by the House forthwith.

    Following considerable debate, the amendment was defeated, on division, and the motions of the Prime Minister agreed to, on division.

    The action taken by the legal repr esentatives of Messrs Browne and Fitzpatrick to apply to the High Court for writs of habeas corpus and their subsequent petition to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court is referred to earlier ( see p. 709).



    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.



    VP 1954-55/184; H.R. Deb. (3.5.55) 352-5.



    VP 1954-55/267.



    For proceedings on this day see VP 1954-55/269-71; H.R. Deb. (10.6.55) 1625-65.