Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 439270,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/439270/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 89,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "the House so that it is then for the Committee to consider the matter and make a report to the House where upon the House will consider its recommendations.” Hon. Members, of particular noting is step number two as pointed out by Erskine May relating to whether the leak constitutes a substantial interference with the work of a Committee. This is important in terms of deciding what action to take. The type of material that is disclosed is also important in determining what course of action ought to be taken. The 122nd Report of the New South Wales Senate Committee of Privileges, “ Parliamentary privilege ” unauthorized disclosure of Committee proceedings, of June, 2005 at page 37 consider that, the disclosure of a draft Committee Report would usually not be so serious as to constitute contempt. Exceptions would be disclosures resulting in serious consequences thus the Report quoted above and I quote, “It is up to the parliamentary Committee concerned to undertake the necessary disciplining of its Members other than raising the questions as contempt. It is only in circumstances such as divulging of a draft Report which may jeopardize court proceedings or police investigations that the Committee of privileges would entertain advising other Committees that the matter should be raised as contempt.” However the disclosure of in-camera or confidential evidence is a much more serious matter and it is usually treated as contempt regardless of the circumstances. The release of its in-camera evidence undermines the operations of a Committee, in that persons providing information or evidence to Committees in confidence may lose that confidence in the Committee process and future witnesses may not be as forthcoming as they would have been. It is often difficult for Committees to determine who is responsible for an unauthorized disclosure and accordingly, it is difficult for any deterrent action to be taken. It is also inevitable that the people with the greatest motive for premature disclosure of evidence or information would be Members of the Committees themselves. However, I hasten to add that the fact that most unauthorized disclosures are considered to be insufficiently serious to warrant an extensive investigation does not remove the real potential that exists for interference with the operations of Parliamentary Committees, if in-camera or other confidential material is disclosed. You may resume your seats. Walk in quickly, please, those of you who are walking in."
}