Orders' australian Senate practice : supplement updates to 31 December 2001 [10th]
Orders' australian Senate practice : supplement updates to 31 December 2001 [10th]
- S.l. : The Senate, Australia, 2002
- 12 p.: tables ; 25 cm.
after paragraph 3 --
The proportionality of representation produced by the Senate electoral system
compares very favouranly eith the results of other proportional systems, such as
those of the Tasmanian House of Assembly and the Australian Capital Territory
Legislative Assembly , as indieated by the outcomes of their generil elections in
1998 and 2001, respectively . --
paragraph 5, end
(8/8/2001,J.4617: 27/8/2001, J.4761) --
after paragraph 5
Documents would not haave to by in the possession of a semator to attract the
immunity. for example, documents scuh as briefing notes provided by an advicer
to a senator for the purposes of proceedings in the Senate or a committee and in
the possession of the adviser would be immune from seizure from the adviser. --
The "dominant purpose" test applied by the courts in respect of legla professional
privilege (Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of taxation, 1999 74
ALJR 339) would probably also be applied to documents to determine their
immunity under parliamentary privilege...
0642711666
Australia. Parliament. Senate -- Rule and practices
Parliamentary practice -- Australia
Senate -- Australia -- Standing orders
KD219.A8.42 S72 2002
after paragraph 3 --
The proportionality of representation produced by the Senate electoral system
compares very favouranly eith the results of other proportional systems, such as
those of the Tasmanian House of Assembly and the Australian Capital Territory
Legislative Assembly , as indieated by the outcomes of their generil elections in
1998 and 2001, respectively . --
paragraph 5, end
(8/8/2001,J.4617: 27/8/2001, J.4761) --
after paragraph 5
Documents would not haave to by in the possession of a semator to attract the
immunity. for example, documents scuh as briefing notes provided by an advicer
to a senator for the purposes of proceedings in the Senate or a committee and in
the possession of the adviser would be immune from seizure from the adviser. --
The "dominant purpose" test applied by the courts in respect of legla professional
privilege (Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of taxation, 1999 74
ALJR 339) would probably also be applied to documents to determine their
immunity under parliamentary privilege...
0642711666
Australia. Parliament. Senate -- Rule and practices
Parliamentary practice -- Australia
Senate -- Australia -- Standing orders
KD219.A8.42 S72 2002
