Save Search
    Prev (6)   Next (8)   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch19 Parliamentary privilege / PENAL JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE / Reprimand or admonishment

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Parliamentary privilege

Chapter No.

Chapter 19

Page

740

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter19.61.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 / PENAL JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE / Reprimand or admonishment



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 19                                                 p 740

 

Parliamentary privilege / PENAL JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE

 

Reprimand or admonishment

Another acknowledged form of penalty available to the Houses is that of public reprimand or admonishment at the Bar of the House or Senate by the Speaker or President, as the case may be. Any reprimand or admonishment is in the name and with the authority of the House concerned. The House has not used the procedure of requiring the attendance of a privilege offender at the Bar of the House to receive a reprimand by the Speaker.

In the BMC Case (1965) the Committee of Privileges found that an advertisement 1 which appeared in the Canberra Times and other newspapers on 18 August 1965, represented a breach of privilege. The committee also found that the ultimate responsibility for publication of the advertisement lay with ten named individuals, and that the publication was done without malice towards the House or any Member, or intent to libel any Member, and appeared through negligence and lack of appreciation of what was involved. 2

The committee made no recommendation to the House as to what action it might take in respect of the offenders. A number of apologies by those involved were received or printed prior to the presentation of the committee’s report to the House. 3

On 23 September 1965, on the motion of the Prime Minister, the House agreed that the advertisement involved a breach of privilege, that it was defamatory of the Leader of the Opposition and, while it accepted that it was published without malice and apologies had been made, the House recorded its ‘censure of the advertisement and its reprimand to those concerned in its publication’. The House further resolved that ‘those newspapers who published the advertisement should publish this resolution in full’. The resolution was transmitted to the named offenders. 4

In 1971 two people found guilty of a breach of privilege were called to the Bar of the Senate and were reprimanded by the Deputy President. The background to this case was that on 4 May 1971 articles published in the Sunday Australian and the Sunday Review newspapers allegedly contained certain findings and recommendations of a Senate select committee which had not been reported to the Senate. 5

The committee reported to the Senate that the publication constituted a breach of the privileges of the Senate and that the editor and publisher of each of the newspapers were the people responsible and culpable in the breach of privilege. On the recommendation of the committee, the two editors were required to attend before the Senate, where they were reprimanded by the Deputy President. 6



The advertisement contained a reproduction of a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition addressing the House and was used for the purpose of advertising products of the British Motor Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd.



PP 210 (1964-66) 7.



PP 210 (1964-66) 18-19.



VP 1964-66/386.



J 1970-72/555.



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, 612.