PRIVILEGED SPEECH

Chronicle (Levin), 8 June 1949, Page 5

PRIVILEGED SPEECH

(N:Z.P.Ai-

-Reuter,

Reactions To Hubbub At Canberra

Gopyright)

■ Received- Tu&sday, 7 p.m. SYDNEY, June V: SHoulfl members of Parliament be permitted fo attack citlier members ana private citizens from the privileged sanctity bf ParMariieat?' Is it pOssible or feasible -tb remove some of the pfoteetion which surrouiids a member when he spbaks from the ddof of 'the llo'hse ? '* ' These questidhs are -exercising thfe minds o'f Attstralians of all shades o'±i politibal dpihiou fbllowihg receht exchanges in the House of Rfepresentativbs b'etwefeh the Prime MihiSter, Mr. Ghifley, and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. ;Mehzies. . .. 1 ^ ('The ddbate o'ir the Mehzies cehsufe motiOn hhs revealed the OppoSition Leader and Prime Minister in apparent dgreeihent ott th6 need for changing stahding brders touching privilege," commeiits' thfe Sydney Mbrning Heraid. "*Mr. Menzies declarfed that Parliament Should Seribusly consider removihg protection from members who alle'ge dish'ohest, fraudtilent, criminal, foul or immoral .coridixct.. In a neat tactical rejoinder Mr. Ghifley said, ifl effect, that this Would suit him admirably but thpugh he boaSted -that a removal ot privilege was his complete cure for defamation in Parliament, there was no real sign that he was prepared to wnte it out on a Government presCription form. " The fact is that slander from the protected precihets of Ganberra has become so common- that no Party ^ can accuse another without admitting itselt at fault. The remarks arose from the fact that the Minister of Immigration, Mr. Calwell, assailed a Country Party member in terms whicn,'to quote Mr. Menzies, represented him as a fraudulent rogue. Mr. Calwell's attack was inade on the strength of allegations in a confidential letter from na unreveaied souree. In the eyes of th'e Opposition, the position was not improved by the fact that Mr. Calwell made his charges at a time when proceedings in the House were being broadcast throughbvA Australia. Correspondents suggest, however, that neither the Government nor the Opposition would be prepared to see standing orders revised to curb freedom of speech in Parliament. The law is the same in Australia as in New Zealand and the United. Kingdom Pariiaments, in that no action can lie against a member for defamatory statements made by him in the . course of any Pajliamentary proceeding or debate. ^ Beaction in Australia has been restrained and there have been few suggestions, sueh as that of the Sydnpy Telegraph, that Mr: Menzies should take Mr. Chifley at his word and move to elistire that an individual libelled in Parliament can force the traducer to prove his assertions in Court. The We'ight of opinion seems to suggest that the best way to restore a standard of behaviour in the Austraiian House of Representatives, would be for Party leaders to exert their auttiority rather than for the safeguards of privilege to be ^loosened, .