where defendants seek to strike out paragraphs of amended statement of claim on the basis of inconsistency with s 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth)
where plaintiff disclosed information about activities of Hillsong to parliamentarian to obtain benefit of parliamentary privilege
Quick Take
1Tabling documents is part of the business of a House (s 16(2)(b) PP Act). Words spoken or acts done by members of Parliament directed to whether or not to table a document are therefore 'proceedings in Parliament', even where no related matter is then before the House. The test is the objective functional connection to the House's business, not the members' subjective motives.
2Crime and Corruption Commission v [name withheld] concerned whether a document prepared by a third party for its own purposes was privileged. It does not exclude privilege for deliberations between parliamentarians about an anticipated tabling.
3The bare facts exception cannot sustain a claim that depends on inferring a parliamentarian's state of mind from privileged communications, given the broad prohibition in s 16(3)(c). The repetition-and-adoption principle applies only where the cause of action targets a later extra-parliamentary statement, not where it impugns the privileged conduct itself.
