❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks clarification on the Standing Committee of Attorneys General's (SCAG) stance on 'effective repetition privilege' and whether the Attorney General will amend legislation to address it. The response indicates consideration of the issue and a preference for absolute privilege in WA, but no immediate action.
AnsweredQoN 4Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
EFFECTIVE REPETITION PRIVILEGE — STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 4. Hon GEORGE CASH to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer to the issue of effective repetition. (1) When was the issue of effective repetition raised at the national Standing Committee of Attorneys General, and what was the decision or recommendation of SCAG on this issue? (2) For the avoidance of doubt, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to relevant legislation to put the issue of effective repetition beyond doubt; and, if not, why not? (3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
EFFECTIVE REPETITION PRIVILEGE — STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION
I refer to the issue of effective repetition. (1) When was the issue of effective repetition raised at the national Standing Committee of Attorneys General, and what was the decision or recommendation of SCAG on this issue? (2) For the avoidance of doubt, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to relevant legislation to put the issue of effective repetition beyond doubt; and, if not, why not? (3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(1) When was the issue of effective repetition raised at the national Standing Committee of Attorneys General, and what was the decision or recommendation of SCAG on this issue? (2) For the avoidance of doubt, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to relevant legislation to put the issue of effective repetition beyond doubt; and, if not, why not? (3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to relevant legislation to put the issue of effective repetition beyond doubt; and, if not, why not? (3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
EFFECTIVE REPETITION PRIVILEGE — STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION
I refer to the issue of effective repetition. (1) When was the issue of effective repetition raised at the national Standing Committee of Attorneys General, and what was the decision or recommendation of SCAG on this issue? (2) For the avoidance of doubt, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to relevant legislation to put the issue of effective repetition beyond doubt; and, if not, why not? (3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(1) When was the issue of effective repetition raised at the national Standing Committee of Attorneys General, and what was the decision or recommendation of SCAG on this issue? (2) For the avoidance of doubt, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to relevant legislation to put the issue of effective repetition beyond doubt; and, if not, why not? (3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to relevant legislation to put the issue of effective repetition beyond doubt; and, if not, why not? (3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(3) When will the amending legislation be introduced? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has advised — (1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(1) The Standing Committee of Attorneys General considered on 6 November 2006 the arguments for and against enacting legislation to give absolute privilege to effective repetition. How the matter was progressed will need to be taken on notice as it involves consideration of a variety of correspondence between SCAG attendees. However, it appears that at the SCAG meeting on 6 November 2006 it was agreed that the common law position on the scope of parliamentary privilege and the use of parliamentary records in defamation proceedings in the states and territories, as represented in Buchanan v Jennings, remain unchanged and also that this item be removed from the SCAG agenda. (2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
(2)-(3) The Attorney General’s inclination is a position whereby absolute privilege is included for effective repetition in Western Australia. How that may best be achieved, whether by standalone legislation for Western Australia, through the SCAG process or by some other mechanism, is a matter that the Attorney General will consider in due course.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.