Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Quelle:Wy/Griffith 1997

< Quelle:Wy

31.377Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]

Autor     Gareth Griffith
Titel    Parliamentary Privilege: Use, Misuse and Proposals for Reform
Herausgeber    NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service
Datum    September 1997
Nummer    04/97
Reihe    Briefing Paper
ISBN    0 7310 5979 4
ISSN    1325-5142
URL    http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/a21a5d304a093cdaca256ecf00074271/$FILE/Brief%2004-97.pdf

Literaturverz.   

ja
Fußnoten    ja
Fragmente    9


Fragmente der Quelle:
[1.] Wy/Fragment 102 03 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 18:25:25 Graf Isolan
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 102, Zeilen: 3-18, 104-105
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 29-30, Zeilen: 29:28-32 - 30:1-17
This is uncertainty relates to Parliamentary proceeding and Committees and other investigatory bodies such as the Ombudsman. In NSW (New South Wales ) state of Australia, there is a so case. A man, who was Mr Russell Grove, was raised in his briefing to the Legislation Committee on the Defamation Bill 1992. In fulfilling their statutory functions committees handle a large amount of correspondence and, in order to ensure that the absolute privilege afforded to Hansard transcripts of committee proceedings is obtained, committees are at present prepared to hold formal hearings.311

As the NSW Law Reform Commission said, this is despite the fact that the committee’s acknowledge that “this is an over elaborate, expensive and inefficient means of referring a simple matter, such as a letter received from a member of the public which contains potentially defamatory allegations, to the ICAC or Ombudsman for comment and response”.312 Mr Grove commented, “This impedes the Committee’s ability to properly fulfill their statutory duties, and should be rectified”.313 Mr Grove proposed adoption of a provision along the lines of section 17 of the federal Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth)314 which, for [the purposes of the Act, permits the Presiding Officers may certify as to whether any of the following are “proceedings in Parliament”:]


311 See, Gareth Griffith, Parliamentary Privilege: Use, Misuse and Proposals for Reform, [1].

312 NSWLRC, Discussion Paper 32 - Defamation, August 1993, p.138.

313 Report of the Legislation Committee Upon the Defamation Bill 1992, p.60.

314 Parliamentary Privileges Act1987, Section 17 (Certificates relating to proceedings): For the purposes of this Act, a certificate signed by or on behalf of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or a chairman of a committee stating that: (a) a particular document was prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted, to a House or a committee; (b) a particular document was directed by a House or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in camera; (c) certain oral evidence was taken by a committee in camera; (d) a document was not published or authorised to be published by a House or a committee; (e) a person is or was an officer of a House; (f) an officer is or was required to attend upon a House or a committee; (g) a person is or was required to attend before a House or a committee on a day; (h) a day is a day on which a House or a committee met or will meet; or (i) a specified fine was imposed on a specified person by a House; is evidence of the matters contained in the certificate.

[Seite 29]

A second area of uncertainty relates to correspondence received by Parliamentar y [sic] Committees and passed on to other investigatory bodies such as the ICAC or th e [sic] Ombudsman . The matter was raised originally by Mr Russell Grove in his briefing to the Legislation Committee on the Defamation Bill 1992. In fulfilling their statutory functions committees handle a large amount of correspondence and, in order to ensure

[Seite 30]

that the absolute privilege afforded to Hansard transcripts of committee proceedings is obtained, committees are at present prepared to hold formal hearings. As the NSW Law Reform Commission said, this is despite the fact that the committee’s acknowledge that ‘this is an overelaborate, expensive and inefficient means of referring a simple matter, such as a letter received from a member of the public which contains potentially defamatory allegations, to the ICAC or Ombudsman for comment and response’.117 Mr Grove commented, ‘This impedes the Committee’s ability to properly fulfil their statutory duties, and should be rectified’.118 Mr Grove proposed adoption of a provision along the lines of section 17 of the federal Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) which, for the purposes of the Act, permits the Presiding Officers may certify as to whether any of the following are ‘proceedings in Parliament’: (a) a particular document prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted to a House or a committee; (b) a particular document directed by a House or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in camera; (c) certain oral evidence taken by a committee in camera; and (d) a document not published dor [sic] authorised to be published by a House or a committee. The proposal was adopted by the Legislation Committee119 but not, it seems, by the NSW Law Reform Commission.120


117 NSWLRC, Discussion Paper 32 - Defamation, August 1993, p 138.

118 Report of the Legislation Committee Upon the Defamation Bill 1992, p 60.

119 Ibid, p 62.

120 NSWLRC, Report 75 - Defamation, September 1995, p 174.

Anmerkungen

Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet.

Die Artikel (a) bis (d) werden von Wy nicht nur in der Fußnote sondern auch in Übereinstimmung mit der Vorlage wörtlich auf der nächsten Seite wieder aufgeführt.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Singulus

[2.] Wy/Fragment 103 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 16:00:28 Graf Isolan
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 103, Zeilen: 1-10, 101
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 30, Zeilen: 8-17
[Mr Grove proposed adoption of a provision along the lines of section 17 of the federal Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth)314 which, for] the purposes of the Act, permits the Presiding Officers may certify as to whether any of the following are “proceedings in Parliament”:

a) A particular document prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted to a House or a committee;

b) A particular document directed by a House or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in camera;

c) Certain oral evidence taken by a committee in camera; and

d) A document not published or authorised to be published by a House or a committee. The proposal was adopted by the Legislation Committee but not, it seems, by the NSW Law Reform Commission.315

It is, however, in other country, notably the UK, that the case law has developed. At issue are two related questions: Does the disputed evidence constitute parliamentary proceedings? If the proceedings are internal to Parliament, do they lie outside the jurisdiction of the courts?316


[314 Parliamentary Privileges Act1987, Section 17 (Certificates relating to proceedings): For the purposes of this Act, a certificate signed by or on behalf of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or a chairman of a committee stating that: (a) a particular document was prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted, to a House or a committee; (b) a particular document was directed by a House or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in camera; (c) certain oral evidence was taken by a committee in camera; (d) a document was not published or authorised to be published by a House or a committee; (e) a person is or was an officer of a House; (f) an officer is or was required to attend upon a House or a committee; (g) a person is or was required to attend before a House or a committee on a day; (h) a day is a day on which a House or a committee met or will meet; or (i) a specified fine was imposed on a specified person by a House; is evidence of the matters contained in the certificate.]

315 NSWLRC, Report 75 - Defamation, September, 1995, p.174.

316 Gareth Griffith, Parliamentary Privilege: Major Developments and Current Issues, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/18DBE18C7D65CDF0CA2572D100091751/$File/ParliamentaryPrivelige07.pdf.

Mr Grove proposed adoption of a provision along the lines of section 17 of the federal Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) which, for the purposes of the Act, permits the Presiding Officers may certify as to whether any of the following are ‘proceedings in Parliament’: (a) a particular document prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted to a House or a committee; (b) a particular document directed by a House or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in camera; (c) certain oral evidence taken by a committee in camera; and (d) a document not published dor [sic] authorised to be published by a House or a committee. The proposal was adopted by the Legislation Committee119 but not, it seems, by the NSW Law Reform Commission.120

119 Ibid, p 62.

120 NSWLRC, Report 75 - Defamation, September 1995, p 174.

Anmerkungen

Art und Umfang der Übernahme sind ungekennzeichnet. Die Quelle wird nur für den letzten Absatz angeführt, der einen anderen Zusammenhang einleitet. Siehe http://de.vroniplag.wikia.com/wiki/Wy/Fragment_103_11

Übrigens hat Wy die Punkte, die er hier wiedergibt, bereits in einer Fußnote auf der vorangegangenen Seite wörtlich aufgelistet und wiederholt sich somit.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Agrippina1

[3.] Wy/Fragment 156 10 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-13 22:26:20 Hindemith
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 156, Zeilen: 10-18, 101-102
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 44-45, Zeilen: 44:26-29 - 45:1-6
12.3.1 Parliament Privilege is Peculiar, Arbitrary and Obscure

According to Sir Geoffrey Palmer, most people know nothing about parliamentary privilege and “The law relating to it is ancient, obscure and potentially draconian”. He notes that it is, in the words of the noted English constitutional lawyer, O Hood Phillips, “exceptional, peculiar and discretionary”.487

12.3.2 Potential for Injustice

Parliamentary privilege has the capacity to cause substantial injustice to individuals who have no means of redress. Various examples of the alleged abuse [of privilege can be cited in this context but the general point to make is that the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament can and does come into conflict with the principle that “every person is entitled to access to the Courts...to obtain redress for alleged wrongs”.488]


487 G.Palmer, Parliament and Privilege: Whose Justice?, New Zealand Law Journal, September, 1994.

[488 R.Best, Freedom of Speech in Parliament: Constitutional Safeguard or Sword of Oppression?, VUWLR, Vol. 24, 1994.]

[Seite 44]

Following on from this, the case for the reform of parliamentary privilege includes the following arguments:

(i) peculiar, arbitrary and obscure: according to Sir Geoffrey Palmer, most people know nothing about parliamentary privilege and ‘The law relating to it is ancient, obscure and potentially draconian’. He notes that it is, in the words of the noted English constitutional lawyer, O Hood Phillips, ‘exceptional, peculiar and discretionary’.176

[Seite 45]

(ii) potential for injustice: parliamentary privilege has the capacity to cause substantial injustice to individuals who have no means of redress. Various examples of the alleged abuse of privilege can be cited in this context but the general point to make is that the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament can and does come into conflict with the principle that ‘every person is entitled to access to the Courts...to obtain redress for alleged wrongs’.177



176 G Palmer, ‘Parliament and privilege: whose justice?’ (September 1994) New Zealand law Journal 325.


177 R Best, ‘Freedom of speech in Parliament: constitutional safeguard or sword of oppression?’ (1994) 24 VUWLR 91 at 95. Cited is a comment from McKay J in TVNZ v Prebble [1993] 3 NZLR 513.

Anmerkungen

Die Übernahme wird vorher in FN 486 angedeutet, die langen wörtlichen Übernahmen sind damit aber natürlich nicht abgedeckt.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith

[4.] Wy/Fragment 157 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-13 22:34:02 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 157, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett)
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 45, Zeilen: 45:2-10, 22-30
[Various examples of the alleged abuse] of privilege can be cited in this context but the general point to make is that the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament can and does come into conflict with the principle that “every person is entitled to access to the Courts...to obtain redress for alleged wrongs”.488 Thus, a citizen defamed by an MP may be denied a remedy by the absolute privilege afforded to what is said in Parliament under Article 9. The reports of Parliamentary Committees are protected by the same absolute privilege and the point is made that potential exists for such Committees

“to engage in activities which are oppressive or which may do irreparable harm to individuals”.489

12.3.3 Contrary to Democratic Values

According to the ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission, the present construction of what is meant by freedom of speech in Parliament under Article 9 is “fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to subject their parliamentary representatives to scrutiny and to be governed in an open and accountable manner”.490

12.3.4 Inflated and Unhistorical Interpretation of Parliamentary Privilege

The present Construction of Article 9 (Bill of rights, 1689) makes inflated claims for parliamentary privilege which owes little or nothing to its original purpose and intent. Again, this was the view of Hunt J in Murphy’s case where his Honour proposed a “narrower interpretation” consistent with “both the mischief which the Bill of Rights was enacted to remedy and the history of what led to the [enactment of Art. 9.”]


488 R.Best, Freedom of Speech in Parliament: Constitutional Safeguard or Sword of Oppression?, VUWLR, Vol. 24, 1994.

489 Explanatory Note, Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1994 (NZ), p.28.

490 Western Australia, Report of the Royal commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para. 5,8,7.

[Seite 45]

Various examples of the alleged abuse of privilege can be cited in this context but the general point to make is that the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament can and does come into conflict with the principle that ‘every person is entitled to access to the Courts...to obtain redress for alleged wrongs’.177 Thus, a citizen defamed by an MP may be denied a remedy by the absolute privilege afforded to what is said in Parliament under Article 9. The reports of Parliamentary Committees are protected by the same absolute privilege and the point is made that potential exists for such Committees ‘to engage in activities which are oppressive or which may do irreparable harm to individuals’.178

[...]

(iii) contrary to democratic values: according to the ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission, the present construction of what is meant by freedom of speech in Parliament under Article 9 is ‘fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to subject their parliamentary representatives to scrutiny, and to be governed in an open and accountable manner’.181

(iv) inflated and unhistorical interpretation of Article 9: the present construction of Article 9 makes inflated claims for parliamentary privilege which owe little or nothing to its original purpose and intent. Again, this was the view of Hunt J in Murphy’s case where his Honour proposed a ‘narrower interpretation’ consistent [with ‘both the mischief which the Bill of Rights was enacted to remedy and the history of what led to the enactment of art. 9'.]



177 R Best, ‘Freedom of speech in Parliament: constitutional safeguard or sword of oppression?’ (1994) 24 VUWLR 91 at 95. Cited is a comment from McKay J in TVNZ v Prebble [1993] 3 NZLR 513.

178 Explanatory Note, Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1994 (NZ), p 28.

181 Western Australia, Report of the Royal commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para 5.8.7.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme außer der Fußnote 486 auf der Vorseite, die sich möglicherweise auch auf diesen Text hier beziehen könnte.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith

[5.] Wy/Fragment 158 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-13 22:37:15 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 158, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett)
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 46, Zeilen: 2ff
He observed: “Freedom of speech in parliament is not now, nor was it in 1901 or even in 1688 so sensitive a flower that, although the accuracy and the honesty of what is said by members of parliament (or witnesses before parliamentary committees) can be severely challenged in the media or in public, it cannot be challenged in the same way in the courts of law”.491 As noted, for Hunt J only when legal consequences are to be visited on Members or witnesses should parliamentary privilege and be used to prevent a court questioning what they said or did in Parliament. In support of this approach and contrary to the decision in Prebble, Geoffrey Marshall said the “formula in the Murphy case reflects a more rational attitude to parliamentary privilege as well as to the interests of justice and free speech”.492 He went on to observe: “The freedom of debate is sufficiently protected if members enjoy absolute privilege from criminal and civil actions directed at what they say in the course of debate or proceedings in the House. There is no need to inflate claims of privilege beyond that”.493

12.3.5 Facilitating a Regard for Truth

Witnesses to a parliamentary committee and MPs are more likely to tell the truth if they know there is a prospect that what they say may be challenged elsewhere, than if they know they are protected from such challenge. The ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission commented in this regard: “Statements made in parliament should not be treated, for purposes associated with court and like proceedings, as if they were never uttered. To provide such immunity is likely to encourage, or at least facilitate, a disregard for the truth by those to whom the protection is given.


491 (1986) 5 NSWLR 18, p.34.

492 G.Marshall, Impugning parliamentary privilege, Public Law, Winter, 1994.

493 Id.

He observed: ‘Freedom of speech in parliament is not now, nor was it in 1901 or even in 1688 so sensitive a flower that, although the accuracy and the honesty of what is said by members of parliament (or witnesses before parliamentary committees) can be severely challenged in the media or in public, it cannot be challenged in the same way in the courts of law’.182 As noted, for Hunt J only when legal consequences are to be visited on Members or witnesses should parliamentary privilege be used to prevent a court questioning what they said or did in Parliament. In support of this approach and contrary to the decision in Prebble, Geoffrey Marshall said the ‘formula in the Murphy case reflects a more rational attitude to parliamentary privilege as well as to the interests of justice and free speech’.183 He went on to observe: ‘The freedom of debate is sufficiently protected if members enjoy absolute privilege from criminal and civil actions directed at what they say in the course of debate or proceedings in the House. There is no need to inflate claims of privilege beyond that’.184

(v) facilitating a regard for truth: witnesses to a parliamentary committee and MPs are more likely to tell the truth if they know there is a prospect that what they say may be challenged elsewhere, than if they know they are protected from such challenge. The ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission commented in this regard: ‘Statements made in parliament should not be treated, for purposes associated with court and like proceedings, as if they were never uttered. To provide such immunity is likely to encourage, or at least facilitate, a disregard for the truth by those to whom the protection is given.


182 (1986) 5 NSWLR 18 at 34.

183 G Marshall, ‘Impugning parliamentary privilege’ (Winter 1994) Public Law 509 at 512.

184 Ibid at 513.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme (abgesehen vielleicht von FN 486 auf Seite 156).

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith

[6.] Wy/Fragment 159 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-13 22:40:42 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 159, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett)
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 46, Zeilen: 46:24ff - 47:1-8
We have no doubt that if it is understood by members of Parliament or persons appearing before a parliamentary committee that they may be called to account for their parliamentary statements at a later time, they are more likely than not to speak honestly, although no less freely. To suggest otherwise is to equate the right to speak freely in Parliament with the right to be disingenuous. Such a proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to be governed in an open and accountable manner”.494

12.3.6 Procedural Fairness

There is no mechanism for ensuring that witnesses before parliamentary committees generally will be protected by the requirements of procedural fairness. In 1991 the NSW Attorney General’s Discussion Paper commented that this had not proved to be a controversial matter in this jurisdiction. But at the same time it said that “Procedural questions such as whether evidence should be heard in-camera, the degree to which counsel should be involved, and the admissibility of questions are currently left to the Committees themselves to determine”. The Discussion Paper went on to say that it is “essential that persons summoned to give evidence before a Committee be accorded procedural fairness”.495 Likewise, in a New Zealand context Sir Geoffrey Palmer argued for a legislative provision “explicitly requiring select committees of Parliament to follow the rules of natural justice”.496


494 Western Australia, Report of the Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para. 5, 8, 6.

495 NSW Attorney General’s Department, Discussion Paper-Parliamentary Privilege in NSW, 1991, p.34.

496 G. Palmer, Parliament and privilege: Whose Justice?, New Zealand law Journal, September, 1994.

[Seite 46]

We have no doubt that if it is understood by members of Parliament or persons appearing before a parliamentary committee that they may be called to account for their parliamentary statements at a later time, they are more likely than not to speak honestly, although no less freely. To suggest otherwise is to equate the right to speak freely in Parliament with the right to be disingenuous. Such a proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to be governed in an open and accountable manner’.185

(vi) procedural fairness: there is no mechanism for ensuring that witnesses before parliamentary committees generally will be protected by the requirements of procedural fairness. In 1991 the NSW Attorney General’s Discussion Paper commented that this had not proved to be a controversial matter in this

[Seite 47]

jurisdiction. But at the same time it said that ‘Procedural questions such as whether evidence should be heard in-camera, the degree to which counsel should be involved, and the admissibility of questions are currently left to the Committees themselves to determine’. The Discussion Paper went on to say that it is ‘essential that persons summoned to give evidence before a Committee be accorded procedural fairness’.186 Likewise, in a New Zealand context Sir Geoffrey Palmer argued for a legislative provision ‘explicitly requiring select committees of Parliament to follow the rules of natural justice’.187


185 Western Australia, Report of the Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para 5.8.6.

186 NSW Attorney General’s Department, Discussion Paper - Parliamentary Privilege in NSW, 1991, p 34.

187 G Palmer, op cit, p 329.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme (außer vielleicht FN 486 auf Seite 156).

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith

[7.] Wy/Fragment 179 07 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 16:05:58 Graf Isolan
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 179, Zeilen: 7-23, 101-102
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 48-49, Zeilen: 48:24ff - 49:1-7
In view of this circumstance, the introduction of a citizen’s right of reply has

been canvassed on many occasions on the ground that it would offer some means of reply for people who feel that they have been unfairly attacked under the cover of privilege. The 1984 Commonwealth Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege concluded on this issue: “We think the only practical solution consistent with the maintenance in its most untrammelled form of freedom of speech and the rights of members of the public to their good reputation may lie - and we emphasise the word ‘may’ - in adopting an internal means of placing on record an answer to a Parliamentary attack. If such an answer is to have any efficacy, we think it should become part of the record of Parliament so as to carry back to the forum in which the attack was made a refutationor [sic] explanation”.541 The Committee recommended that complaints be: (a) subject torigorous [sic] screening; (b) that there be clear limits on what may be put in an answer which is to be incorporated in Hansard; and (c) that complaints are raised directly with the Privileges Committees.542

The Australian Senate in 1988 was the first legislature to adopt a right of reply as part of a package of resolutions relating to parliamentary privilege.


541 Parliament of the Commonwealth, Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Final Report, October, 1984, p.55.

542 See, Parliament of the Commonwealth, Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Final Report, October, 1984.

[Seite 48]

The following proposals can be noted at this stage:

(i) citizens right of reply: the introduction of a citizens right of reply has been canvassed on many occasions on the ground that it would offer some means of reply for people who feel that they have been unfairly attacked under the cover of privilege. The 1984 Commonwealth Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege concluded on this issue: ‘We think the only practical solution consistent with the maintenance in its most untrammelled form of freedom of speech and the rights of members of the public to their good reputation may lie - and we emphasise the word “may” - in adopting an internal means of placing on record an answer to a Parliamentary attack. If such an answer is to have any efficacy, we think it should become part of the record of

[Seite 49]

Parliament so as to carry back to the forum in which the attack was made a refutation or explanation’.195 The Committee recommended that complaints be: (i) subject to rigorous screening; (ii) that there be clear limits on what may be put in an answer which is to be incorporated in Hansard; and (iii) that complaints be raised directly with the Privileges Committees.

The Australian Senate in 1988 was the first legislature to adopt a right of reply as part of a package of resolutions relating to parliamentary privilege.196


195 Parliament of the Commonwealth, Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Final Report, October 1984, p 55.

196 The 11 resolutions on parliamentary privilege agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988 are set out at Appendix ??. [sic]

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Singulus

[8.] Wy/Fragment 180 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 16:19:36 Graf Isolan
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 180, Zeilen: 1ff
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 49, Zeilen: 7-29
[A] detailed account of its method of operation is set out in 1996 report of the Senate Committee of Privileges, but the essence of it is stated by Odgers in these terms: “A person aggrieved by a reference to the person in the Senate may make a submission to the President requesting that a response be published. The submission is scrutinised by the Privileges Committee, which is not permitted to inquire into the truth or merits of statements in the Senate or of the submission, and provided the suggested response is not in any way offensive, it may be incorporated in Hansard or ordered to be published”.543 The 1996 report says that since 1988 only 22 responses have been recommended for publication. A further five were not proceeded with because the person concerned chose not to pursue the matter after the Committee had made contact. In no case had the Committee refused a right of reply. The relative dearth of right of reply cases was analysed in the report but at the same time the conclusion was reached that “the procedure is both desirable and successful”. In most cases, the report noted, the Committee found that “the persons have been concerned not with vengeance or apology, but rather to ensure that their voice is heard or views are put in the same medium as the original comments were made”. It added that the procedure is usually “quick, cheap and effective” and open to anyone, “regardless of either skill or financial capacity”.544

The merits and demerits of a right of reply have been debated in several jurisdictions. In its 1995 report the WA Commission on Government reviewed developments in that State. It noted that in 1989 the Parliamentary Standards Committee had rejected the idea of introducing a right of reply and that in doing so it followed the 1988-89 report of the British House of Commons Select [Committee on Procedure.]


543 H Evans, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 11th ed., Department of the Senate 2004, p.65.

544 The Senate Committee of Privileges, 62nd Report, June, 1996, p.17

A detailed account of its method of operation is set out in 1996 report of the Senate Committee of Privileges, but the essence of it is stated by Odgers in these terms: ‘A person aggrieved by a reference to the person in the Senate may make a submission to the President requesting that a response be published. The submission is scrutinised by the Privileges Committee, which is not permitted to inquire into the truth or merits of statements in the Senate or of the submission, and provided the suggested response is not in any way offensive, it may be incorporated in Hansard or ordered to be published’.197 The 1996 report says that since 1988 only 22 responses have been recommended for publication. A further five were not proceeded with because the person concerned chose not to pursue the matter after the Committee had made contact. In no case had the Committee refused a right of reply. The relative dearth of right of reply cases was analysed in the report but at the same time the conclusion was reached that ‘the procedure is both desirable and successful’. In most cases, the report noted, the Committee found that ‘the persons have been concerned not with vengeance or apology, but rather to ensure that their voice is heard or views are put in the same medium as the original comments were made’.198 It added that the procedure is usually ‘quick, cheap and effective’ and open to anyone, ‘regardless of either skill or financial capacity’.199

The merits and demerits of a right of reply have been debated in several jurisdictions. In its 1995 report the WA Commission on Government reviewed developments in that State. It noted that in 1989 the Parliamentary Standards Committee had rejected the idea of introducing a right of reply and that in doing so it followed the 1988-89 report of the British House of Commons Select Committee on Procedure.


197 Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, p 65.

198 The Senate Committee of Privileges, 62nd Report, June 1996, p 17.

199 Ibid at 18.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Singulus

[9.] Wy/Fragment 181 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 16:21:39 Graf Isolan
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 181, Zeilen: 1-11, 101-102
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 49-50, Zeilen: 49:29-33 - 50:1-5
Perhaps the most serious reservation expressed by both Committees was that, as the rebuttal is likely to appear several weeks after the original allegation, the reply will be robbed of “any immediacy”, with the WA Standing Committee adding that the Senate procedures also “required the drafting of cumbersome regulations which are not easy to interpret in practice and it is difficult to find any evidence to this stage that they have added significantly to the rights available to citizens”.545

On the other hand, the Commission on Government found in support of a right of reply, concluding “We are firmly of the view that this innovation is a very high priority amongst the citizens of this State, and is one that is demonstrably workable”.546


545 Western Australia, Report of the Parliamentary Standards Committee, Vol 1, 1989, p.55

546 Western Australia, Commission on Government, Report No 1, August, 1995, p.385.

[Seite 49]

Perhaps the most serious reservation expressed by both Committees was that, as the rebuttal is likely to appear several weeks after the original allegation, the reply will be robbed of ‘any immediacy’, with the WA Standing Committee adding that the Senate procedures also ‘required the drafting of cumbersome regulations which are not easy to interpret in practice and it is

[Seite 50]

difficult to find any evidence to this stage that they have added significantly to the rights available to citizens’.200 On the other hand, the Commission on Government found in support of a right of reply, concluding ‘we are firmly of the view that this innovation is a very high priority amongst the citizens of this State, and is one that is demonstrably workable’.201


200 Western Australia, Report of the Parliamentary Standards Committee, Vol 1, 1989, p 55.

201 Western Australia, Commission on Government, Report No 1, August 1995, p 385.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Singulus

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki