Procedure Committee - Second report of 2015
[1] 'Clerk of the Parliaments' is the name of the office occupied by the Clerk of the NSW Legislative Council.
[2] For the history and background to the procedure, see Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 13th edition, Chapter 19, Relations with the executive government, pp 595-626; Paula Waring, "'This Is a Procedure on Which We Should Not Lightly Embark': Orders for the Production of Documents in the Australian Senate, 1901 to 1988", Papers on Parliament, No. 58, August 2012, pp 89-105.
[3] Journals of the Senate, 16 July 1975, p. 831.
[4] See, for example the 52nd Report of the Committee of Privileges on disputed documents regarding Commonwealth leases in Casselden Place, Melbourne.
[5] Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Independent Arbitration of Public Interest Immunity Claims, 2 February 2010.
[6] See Egan v Willis & Cahill (1996) 40 NSWLR 650; Egan v Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424; Egan v Chadwick (1999) 46 NSWLR 563.
[7] Source: NSW Legislative Council, House in Review, vol. 55/82 (2014 Summary) and vol. 55/63 (2013 Summary).
[8] This material comprised the following three submissions made on its behalf: Submission to the inquiry of the NSW Legislative Council Privileges Committee into the 2009 Mt Penny return to order, July 2013; Submission on the role of the independent legal arbiter under Standing Order 52 to the Hon Keith Mason AC QC, 21 July 2014; Submission in reply on the role of the independent legal arbiter under Standing Order 52 to the Hon Keith Mason AC QC, 1 August 2014; together with a report authored by an independent arbiter – The Hon Keith Mason AC QC, Report under Standing Order 52 on disputed claim of privilege in relation to the Westconnex business case, 8 August 2014.
[9] Egan v Willis & Cahill (1996) 40 NSWLR 650; Egan v Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424; Egan v Chadwick (1999) 46 NSWLR 563.
[10] An example was the decision by the 2002 Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident not to issue summonses to ministerial advisers and former Members of the House of Representatives who had been ministers at the time of the relevant events. As recorded in the Executive summary to the report, "Faced with the continued refusal of prospective witnesses to respond to invitations to appear, and with correspondence from ministers indicating that advisers and certain officials would not appear, the Committee decided not to seek to compel their attendance, and thereby expose the advisers and officials to the risk of being in contempt of the Senate should they not respond to the summons. Part of its reason not to summon was based on the Senate resolution that it would be unjust for the Senate to impose a penalty on a person who declines to provide evidence on the direction of a minister. The penalties for contempt include a gaol term and/or a heavy fine." The committee chose to appoint an independent assessor to help it address the role played by such persons.