Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/102

< Wy

31.360Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Share

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.

Research on Parliamentary Privilege Concurrently Discuss Chinese National People's Congressional Privilege

von Weizhong Yi

vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
[1.] Wy/Fragment 102 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 20:07:47 WiseWoman
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 2007, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 102, Zeilen: 1-2
Quelle: Griffith 2007
Seite(n): 59, Zeilen: 24-25
[As the debate on search] warrants in Parliament showed, the potential for issues relevant to parliamentary privilege to arise is considerable. As the debate on search warrants in Parliament showed, the potential for issues relevant to parliamentary privilege to arise is considerable.
Anmerkungen

Schließt die auf der vorangegangenen Seite begonnene Übernahme ab (vgl. Wy/Fragment_101_01).

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), WiseWoman

[2.] 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


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Graf Isolan, Zeitstempel: 20130914182621

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki