Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/180

< Wy

31.385Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Teilen

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 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


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Graf Isolan, Zeitstempel: 20130914162033

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki