Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 18                                                 p 651

Compulsory attendance

If a witness declines an invitation to give evidence, a committee may order the witness to attend the committee by summons, issued by the committee secretary. ¹ The form of the summons is not prescribed by standing orders or by statute.

It appears to have been the practice of committees established in the early years of the Parliament to issue what were called ‘summonses’ to prospective witnesses, whether or not they had shown any reluctance to appear. Contemporary practice is for prospective witnesses to be invited to attend on the committee. The Procedure Committee has proposed the adoption of the following provision:

A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. A witness shall be summoned to appear (whether or not the witness was previously invited to appear) only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons. ²

In 1963 the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications summonsed two witnesses to appear before it. The witnesses were required to give evidence in relation to alleged threats to a witness because of evidence he had given to the committee. Each summons, which was signed by the clerk to the committee (i.e. committee secretary), showed the full name, designation and address of the person being summonsed. In a further case a witness, while willing to give evidence before a particular committee, was concerned that the type of evidence that he would give might affect his future employment prospects. On that basis the witness was concerned that it should not appear as if he was appearing of his own volition. Accordingly the committee resolved to assist the witness by summonsing him to appear before it. The use of a summons has also been considered necessary where evidence was sought from a witness on matters subject to a requirement of confidentiality. ³

On relatively rare occasions, committees intent upon obtaining evidence from particular individuals or organisations reluctant to provide it have drawn attention to their powers to compel the giving of evidence and to the possibility that failure to comply with their orders might be dealt with as a contempt of the House. This approach has usually avoided the necessity of resorting to the issue of a summons.

It is unlikely that the House would take any action against, or in relation to, a recusant witness until that witness had refused or neglected to obey a formal summons. Failure to accept an invitation or request to appear before a committee could not be interpreted as a failure to obey an order of the committee. This view was supported by the Attorney-General in 1951 when the Senate Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force reported to the Senate the failure of the Chiefs of Staff of the armed services and other specified officers of the Commonwealth service to appear before it ( see p. 662 ). ⁴

In 2000 a witness was summonsed to appear before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters after he had been invited and had agreed to appear at a public hearing, but had failed to appear. The witness also failed to appear in response to the summons. However, he contacted the committee secretariat to explain his reasons for not attending, and appeared before a subsequent public hearing, and the committee did not take the matter of the failure to respond to the summons further. ⁵ In the 40th Parliament a public service official who had declined an invitation to appear before a joint committee was summonsed but still did not appear. The committee sought an explanation from the agency head and the official later appeared voluntarily.

S.O. 254. In the Commons the chair signs the order, May , 23rd edn, p. 758.

Committee procedures for dealing with witnesses , PP 100 (1989). Recommendation repeated PP 91 (1998).

Joint Committee of Public Accounts report no. 325, Midford Paramount case, December 1992.

S. Deb. (8.3.51) 155-7.

H.R. Deb. (6.2.2001) 23906-7.