Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4059 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

"Parliamentary privilege" is a term that describes the powers, privileges and immunities of a parliament. These privileges ensure the proper operation of the parliament. In some ways parliamentary privilege places the parliament above the general law. But we should not forget that the focus is the public interest. It is in the public interest that Assembly members should be able to speak their minds. It is also in the public interest that Assembly proceedings should be free of outside interference or obstruction.

Mr Speaker, this is not intended as stand-alone legislation. This Bill sits within a wider framework of law dealing with parliamentary privilege. Section 24 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act applies the privileges of the House of Representatives to this Assembly. We also have our own ACT laws, such as the broadcasting legislation passed earlier this year. The Bill acknowledges the wider context. It clearly states this law still applies, unless the Bill provides otherwise. The self-government Act limits the power of the Assembly to punish a person for contempt of the parliament. It provides that, unlike other parliaments, the Assembly cannot fine or imprison a person. The courts are the appropriate place for that kind of action. Therefore, the Bill provides that certain contempts can be punished by a court as an additional enforcement mechanism. The Assembly will retain its current power to punish contempts.

The laws that ensure absolute privilege of parliamentary proceedings will still apply. They will be subject to two necessary exceptions. One is, of course, that courts may need to refer to documents such as the Hansard to interpret ACT laws. The second exception relates to the fact that courts will administer the offences created by the Bill. The offences are structured to reduce the need for detailed examination of proceedings. The use of certificate evidence will reduce the need for a court to examine Assembly proceedings to decide whether an offence was committed. This strikes a balance between the importance of the immunity of the parliament and the need for courts to administer the statutory offences.

The Bill clarifies an area of doubt in the existing law by ensuring that staff are not subject to legal action because they have published authorised documents. This would include Hansards and other reports and papers. Other immunities are stated in Part II of the Bill. Members and some staff cannot be arrested or required to attend court during sitting times and shortly before and after sittings. Exemption from jury duty is covered in the Juries (Amendment) Bill 1997, passed by the Assembly last week.

Part III of the Bill deals with the Assembly precinct. This area includes the Assembly building, the canopies and the members car park. A statutory offence may apply where a person does not comply with a direction to leave the precinct. It is likely that this would be rarely used. A defence of reasonable excuse ensures that the offence is not imposed harshly. For example, a person may not hear a direction or may be unable to comply. The Bill identifies an area within the precinct which is occupied by the Executive. The power of the Speaker to manage the area will be subject to any agreement between the Chief Minister and the Speaker.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .