Section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), properly construed, does not prevent a plaintiff from proving what was said in Parliament where the purpose is to establish the content of statements adopted and reaffirmed outside Parliament, because such proof does not impeach or question the freedom of speech in Parliament. A member of Parliament who adopts and reaffirms parliamentary statements outside Parliament cannot rely on s 16(3) to prevent proof of those parliamentary statements in a defamation action based on the extra-parliamentary publication. However, the three judges reached different conclusions on the constitutional validity of s 16(3) if read literally, with no majority on that question.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.