Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 439266,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/439266/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 85,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "However, the disclosure of certain information held by Committees such as in-camera evidence or other confidential documents has a real potential to interfere with the work of Parliamentary Committees by undermining the operations of Committees and should be taken seriously. An unauthorized disclosure of an incomplete Report has even more serious consequences. Most parliamentary jurisdictions have longstanding rules regarding the custody of records of the House and the requirements for the Speaker to authorize their release. These principles stem from the privilege of houses of parliament to control their own proceedings. Even more, most jurisdictions have adopted a standing rule or order that deals specifically with unauthorized disclosure of Committee proceedings. For instance, in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Standing Order No. 297 provides and I quote: “A Member or any other persons shall not disclose evidence, submissions or other documents and information presented to the Committee which have not been reported to the House, unless such disclosure is first authorized by the House or the Committee”. Similarly, Standing Order No. 240 of the House of Representatives of New Zealand states as follows: “ The proceedings of a Select Committee or a Sub-committee other than during the hearing of evidence are not open to the public and remain strictly confidential to the Committee until it reports to the House”. Our own Standing Orders put such a caveat in Standing Order No. 86 which provides as follows: “ No Member shall refer to the substance of proceedings of a Select Committee before the Committee has made its report to the House”. Despite these provisions, some Committee Members in a number of parliaments have unwittingly continued to disclose information from Committees. Thus, in recent years it has become common for parliaments to place the onus for investigating unauthorized disclosures on the relevant Committees as opposed to a privileges committee or the House itself. This approach requires Committees to determine whether the source of unauthorized disclosure can be determined and whether in view of the Committee Members, the leakage is serious enough to interfere with the work of the Committee and therefore constitute contempt. It is then for the House to determine whether contempt has been committed, and what punishment should be handed down."
}