Australia Like in other countries, Parliamentary privilege in Australia is granted to those who participate in “proceedings in Parliament” from outside interference or suit. Freedom of speech is considered one of the most important privileges. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 states: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament." Freedom from prosecution is incorporated in Australian law by section 49 of the Constitution and by section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Members of parliament taking part in proceedings in parliament enjoy absolute privilege. They may not be prosecuted if they make defamatory statements of an opponent during the heat of debate, nor can they be prosecuted if they make a statement that would be considered a criminal offence outside of the parliamentary chamber. The privilege of freedom of speech is also granted to those taking part in ‘proceedings in parliament’ such as witnesses who give evidence to properly constituted parliamentary committees.
Canada In Canada, the
Senate and
House of Commons and provincial
legislative assemblies follow the definition of parliamentary privilege offered by the British parliamentary authority, ''Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament'', which defines parliamentary privilege as "the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each house individually, without which they could not discharge their function... the privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the service of its Members, and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity." Parliamentary privilege can therefore be claimed by Members individually or by the House collectively. Initially, the rule for when parliamentary privilege applies is that it cannot exceed the powers, privileges and immunities of the imperial parliament as it stood in 1867, when the first constitution was written. However, in 1875, this rule was amended by the
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, to specify that it cannot exceed the powers, privileges and immunities of the parliament of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of Canadian legislation defining those powers, privileges and immunities. This amendment was necessary because the British parliament acquired the right to examine witnesses on oath only in 1871, and the Canadian parliament would not have enjoyed this right if its powers were limited to those extant in 1867. Individual parliamentary privileges include: • Freedom of speech • Freedom from arrest in civil action • Exemption from jury duty • Exemption from appearing as a witness • Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation Collective parliamentary privileges include: • Power to discipline • Regulation of the House's internal affairs • Management of employees • Authority to maintain the attendance and service of Members • Right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers • Right to administer oaths to witnesses • Right to publish papers containing defamatory material The
Supreme Court of Canada has previously dealt with the question of parliamentary privilege in
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly). In that case, the Court made these observations about parliamentary privilege: Recent cases of parliamentary privilege in Canada adjudicated by the courts include: • 1993:
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), where the courts held parliament could restrict who could enter the parliamentary precincts. • 1999:
Zundel v. Boudria, et al., where the courts held parliament could restrict who could enter the parliamentary precincts. • 2001:
Ontario (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), where the courts held the actions of the provincial legislative assembly were immune from review by other government bodies including the Human Rights Commission. • 2005:
Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, where the Supreme Court of Canada analyzed the scope of parliamentary privilege and the role of courts in deciding its existence. • 2018:
Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, where a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada determined that parliamentary privilege over the management of employees did not extend to immunizing the Quebec legislature from the labour relations scheme governing its security guards.
India The government of India, based largely on the Westminster model, grants limited immunity from legal proceedings to members of Parliament and State Legislature under Articles 105 and 194 respectively, of the Indian Constitution. Article 105(2) reads as follows: No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
Ireland In Ireland, as in other countries, members of the
Oireachtas, Irish parliament, are granted privileges to perform their constitutional functions. These privileges are enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution. Freedom of speech is one of the most important and fundamental privileges enjoyed by Irish parliamentarians. Article 15.12 of the Constitution provides that — “All official reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either House thereof and utterances made in either House wherever published shall be privileged”. However, an Appendix to Article 15, Standing Order 59, places limits on freedom of speech with regards to potential defamation. It states: (1) "A member shall not make an utterance in the nature of being defamatory and where a member makes such an utterance it may be prima facie an abuse of privilege, subject to the provisions of this Standing Order." The standing order further states that any utterance that is known to be defamatory must immediately be withdrawn. If the member of parliament does not withdraw the statement it is viewed as an act of disorder and may be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for review.
New Zealand The New Zealand Parliament accords its members parliamentary privilege like its British counterpart, preventing members for being sued or prosecuted for anything that was said on the floor while in session.
Singapore In Singapore, parliamentary privileges are statutorily accorded under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962. The
Parliament of Singapore accords parliamentary privilege to its members, preventing them from being sued or prosecuted for anything said on the floor while parliament is in session, or during any parliamentary committee meetings. However, section 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 allows the Parliament of Singapore to imprison, fine, reprimand, or suspend from Parliament any member found to have engaged in "abuse of privilege." This has provided a powerful tool for the ruling
People's Action Party to suppress and punish criticism in or about Parliament by opposition members.
South Africa Parliamentary privilege has existed in South Africa since the first legislatures were established in the 1850s. Early laws on the subject included the
Cape Colony's Freedom of Speech in Parliament Act 1854, and
Natal's Law to Secure Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in the Legislative Council (1857) and Privileges of Parliament Act 1895. The South Africa Act 1909, which established the
Union of South Africa in 1910, provided that the Cape's system of parliamentary privilege would apply to the Union's parliament until such time as it made its own rules. This served as an interim measure until the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act 1911 was passed. After the country became a republic in 1961, the Act was replaced with the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act 1963, which, in turn, was replaced with the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 2003. The 1993 'interim' Constitution expressly protected members of the National Assembly and the Senate against civil or criminal action for anything which he or she said, produced, submitted or revealed in or before parliament or any of its committees, and gave similar protection to members of provincial legislatures. The 1996 Constitution contains similar provisions.
Helen Suzman used parliamentary privilege in her anti-apartheid campaigning. Helen Suzman reported during a 1994 interview that she was able to get around
state of emergency rules applied against press reporting of violence in the country by asking questions in parliament about the subjects that the press were forbidden from talking about. South African legislation allowed anything said in parliament to be published in spite of emergency legislation. She commented on the hypocrisy of anti-apartheid campaigners criticising her for fighting apartheid from the inside in this way, yet publishing information revealed by her by means of parliamentary privilege.
United Kingdom The ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the Commons are claimed by the
Speaker at the beginning of each new Parliament. The privileges, asserted in general terms by the
Bill of Rights 1689, are only codified in
Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, which is not strictly speaking a source of law, and the House itself is the only judge of its own privileges. Most of those specifically claimed are practically obsolete, but others remain very real: •
Freedom of speech (members speaking in the House are immune to legal action for their speeches, including defamation and contempt of court); • Freedom from
arrest in civil matters (practically obsolete); This means that any evidence given by a witness to a select committee may not be used against them or any other person in a court of law, whether for civil or criminal proceedings. This privilege only applies, however, if the committee has formally accepted it as evidence and does not apply to materials published before they were given to the committee.
United States In the United States, the
Speech or Debate Clause in
Article One of the United States Constitution provides for a similar privilege, and many
state constitutions provide similar clauses for their
state legislatures. == Leading cases ==