RE-OPEN THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QLD DONATIONS INQUIRY WITHOUT CENSORSHIP REDACTION OF DONOR MAFIA MATES !! - Pat Coleman
RE-OPEN
THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QLD DONATIONS INQUIRY WITHOUT CENSORSHIP REDACTION OF
DONOR MAFIA MATES !!- Pat Coleman
(NOTE: 23/10/19 The Electoral Commission of Qld has fucked over all my
links to donations returns in my articles. They have changed all links. To make
it easier to view these broken links go to my page with the new links in a new
browser and scroll down to the relevant return in the article. Page link here: https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2019/10/changed-ecq-donor-returns-links-page.html
)
Since I started posting all over they shut off the ECQ Squiz site to break my links. The new site has massive links here https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/donations-and-gift-disclosure/disclosure-of-political-donations/published-disclosure-returns You have to scroll down and chose the archive and manually search from there .
The legal opinion expressed in this article has since been affected by the repeal of s28 of The CTH Crimes Act 1918 . The way around it is show in my article "
Its now in The CTH Electoral Act 1918 s 327 (1)Interference with political liberty etc. (1) A person shall not hinder or interfere with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty that is relevant to an election under this Act. Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months or 10 penalty units, or both.
This article is to be read in the context of every other article on this blog including
Its now in The CTH Electoral Act 1918 s 327 (1)Interference with political liberty etc. (1) A person shall not hinder or interfere with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty that is relevant to an election under this Act. Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months or 10 penalty units, or both.
This article is to be read in the context of every other article on this blog including
SCOOP: THE CRIMES OF TOWNSVILLE MAYOR JENNY HILL’S GANG, MAIDMENT GROUP AND THE CORRUPTION OF LAURENCE LANCINI AND OTHERS. -PAT COLEMAN 5/7/2018 https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/07/scoop-crimes-of-townsville-mayor-jenny.html
RE-OPEN
THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QLD DONATIONS INQUIRY WITHOUT CENSORSHIP REDACTION OF
DONOR MAFIA MATES !!
The Qld
Parliamentarians on the Economics And Governance Committee, the committee
considering the new bill PROPOSING TO BAN ALL DONATIONS FROM “FOR PROFIT
CORPORATIONS” are abusing their powers to suppress submissions or parts of submissions.
The committee is not required to report until November this year yet
submissions closed early and there weren’t many. And of course, they were censored.
Clearly they can still take submissions for another couple of months, but so far,
on this matter they are stifling debate.
Some of them are trying
also to take people to the ethics committee of the parliament for making fun of
a member. This is also unlawful for the same reasons and using the same cases referred
to in this article.
The irony is that Jarrod Bleijie. former Attorney
General of Qld seek to censor a person who is a Member of a labor campaign
company called “Campaign Edge” https://campaignedge.com.au/our-team/ recently involved in a non disclosure scandal
with THE JENNY HILL GANG AND WINGATE PROPERTIES in Townsville. A copy of that
story is available on this link in
comments and replies https://www.facebook.com/pat.coleman.90/posts/10156458884813447
. My submission insulting the dodgy lobbyists
and dodgy donors and ridiculing them has been censored and severely redacted by
his LNP mob and the labor party .
See Article “Queensland MP tries to censor tweet accusing him of a 'toddler tantrum'
THE
ECONOMICS AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE WEBSITE LINKS
Electoral Legislation
(Political Donations) Amendment Bill 2018
My Submission 13
The Uncensored version of my submission was CC’d to
Greens MLA for Maiwar Michael Berkman , who is the private member who’s bill is
being “considered” by the committees-as it was sent to the committee .
The
uncensored text is available online at the following link;
www.parliament.qld.gov.au The guidelines for making submissions Link
“THE
UNLAWFUL GUIDELINE”
How do committees deal with submissions?
Submissions are acknowledged by letter or email.
After considering a submission’s relevance and content, a committee will decide
whether to accept it, and whether to publish it. Most submissions are accepted,
and most are authorised for publication in full. A committee may decide not to
accept a submission or not to publish all or part of it if, for example, the
committee considers the submission:
• is not relevant or does not address the
legislation or inquiry issues
• contains language which is offensive or may be
defamatory
• is sub
judice or otherwise offends the rules of Parliament, or
• is illegible.
The
Relevant Laws
The relevant QLD
LAWS that apply to this (extracted and linked at the end ) are :
Parliament of
Queensland Act 2001
The Parliament of Queensland Act s106, s107(1)(a)
and s107 (2) and s107(3) s107(9) and (10)
Constitution of
Queensland 2001 s26A (3) s26B(1)
Statutory Instruments Act
1992 QLD s7-9
Defamation Act 2005 Qld s9
and ss24-33
WHY
THE CENSORSHIP AND THE REDACTIONS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN BREACH OF THE
ICCPR , FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION ON
MULTIPLE FRONTS AND GROUNDS
- The High Court of Australia Held in Nationwide News (1992) 177 CLR 1 that there is an implied right to access the seat of government at p 60, 72, 73, and 74 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/46.html
- The Supreme Court of Qld said in Coleman v Watson and The State of Qld and Ors Its a fundamental right to access the parliament, Justice Cullinane intentionally did not explain where he got that from to “DILUTE” my precedent ;
- Coleman v Watson and The State of Qld and Ors http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/2007/343.html
- http://cynicismcentral.pvthosting.net/watsonmagistratesday1p1-86.pdf.pdf for evidence and circumstances but day 2 in court for final submissions Townsville Magistrates Court File Number 0332003 D.2 T21/RTN M/T TSV7600 (HILLAN MAGISTRATE) p 112-135 http://cynicismcentral.pvthosting.net/day2.pdf
- The High Court further held in McCloy v NSW [2015] HCA 34 (7 October 2015) there must be equality of access to government They upheld the NSW ban on developer donations . They were against the Americanisation of donations. It was said at par [93] “...the public interest in removing the risk and perception of corruption is evident. These are provisions which support and enhance equality of access to government, and the system of representative government which the freedom protects. The restriction on the freedom is more than balanced by the benefits sought to be achieved.” http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/34.html
- The Qld Court of Appeal held that equality before the law was a constitutional principle In re : Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld), Re [2003] QCA 249 (13 June 2003) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2003/249.html
- It is trite law that there is an implied freedom of communication in governmental and political matters. We wouldn’t be discussing what donations could or could not be banned otherwise.
- Constitutionally the guidelines is a practice that has the effect of impeding the ability of citizens to fully communicate on governmental and political matters which is directly relevant to election funding and elections. In Brown v Tasmania the court held that the laws preventing protests in a specific area where invalid even though the charges had been withdrawn cos, they could be brought again , and if you weren’t protesting you were entitled to be there and therefore could not be arrested or charged so what was all that about basically ?. The laws were deemed to be disproportionate as they went too far
- In QLD, the parliament provided for the donations disclosure sites on the web which it is legal for the entire world to view. It has the names of donors publicly displayed and the persons they donated to. It shows amendments. The parliament website has the details of members on its site that can be compared and viewed by the entire world.
- The committee has redacted and censored many submissions, and mine especially because I provide names of people and of donors and who they donated to for people to draw opinions of that, whatever they may be before an election. This is especially so with the real time disclosures where we can see in 90% of cases where people have donated and to who. It was the whole purpose. We can see it and draw conclusions about it. Outside of parliament we can say the things we say TO the parliament without civil or criminal liability. They even censored the name of the CCC Legal Officer that the CCC provided in their submission (possibly to appear impartial)
- Since my own cases, nobody in the country can say they aren’t allowed to be insulted, as this is a subjective and not an objective thing.
- The relevant cases I rely on Coleman v Australia Communication (1157/2003) www.remedy.org.au , Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39 220 CLR 1; 78 ALJR 1166; 209 ALR 182 http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2004/HCA/39 , Monis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4 249 CLR 92; 87 ALJR 340; 295 ALR 259 http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/browse?col=0&facets=name&page=220&srch-term=monis , Brown v Tasmania [2017] HCA 43 http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2017/HCA/43 Coleman v Power in the Court of Appeal https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2001/QCA01-539.pdf
- Thus I say, on the case law any practice rule or law of the QLD Parliament that would attempt to proscribe or censor or redact such lawful communications is beyond the power of the committee and the Parliament of QLD in these circumstances because it has occurred on many occasions, and possibly may be done again.
- Personally, I am sick of having publicly available information, that THEY have given me, US, censored. In my submission to the developer ban inquiry I provided links to where this occurred. They know, for me, that I take such stupid things as a provocation. http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/EGC/2018/LGElectoralStg1ofBel2018/submissions/022.pdf You are telling them what they already know . And if they cant censor you - its like "Whatever" and probably like the Lyrics to in that song by "The Tenants" - Song "You shit me to tears" especially “I’d Like to shove your head into a barbed wire fence – but you’de probably tell me all about it” at this you tube link .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blO3EtP_D10
- It was said by the former Governor General of Australia Justice Deane sitting on the High Court that if something is unconstitutional, you have the right to ignore it (Metwally (1984) 158 CLR at p 477).
- However;
- The High Court holds that the constitution will displace that which is inconsistent, in its terms operation or effect. But will attempt to read down every piece of law so as to avoid its invocation.
THE
GUILDELINES AND ANY SIMILAR PRACTICE OR RULE IS ULTRA VIRIES OR OTHERWISE
INVALID ACCORING TO STATUTE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
- Even on the unlawful guidelines , if one refers
to the defamation act , and other acts and standing orders , even though
no reason has been given for the redactions of the submissions , THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
CENSORSHIP REDACTIONS –only reference to some vague , capricious and
onerous absolute discretion possibly s38 of The Parliament of Qld Act.
This has though to give way to a higher law and that is where The ICCPR
and s327(1) of the CTH Electoral Act that sets out that 327 (1)Interference with political liberty etc.
(1) A person shall not hinder or
interfere with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any
political right or duty that is relevant to an election
under this Act. Penalty:
Imprisonment for 6 months or 10 penalty
units, or both.
, that means article 19 and full participation in article 25 (a) and (c) https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
THE
UNTED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL COVENENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Article
19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions
without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in
writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in
paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and
responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but
these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of
others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of
public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 25
Every citizen shall have the right and the
opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without
unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public
affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic
elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by
secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality,
to public service in his country.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this
respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons
equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
CTH Electoral Act
s327 (1)Interference with political liberty etc. (1) A person shall not hinder or interfere with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty that is relevant to an election under this Act. Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months or 10 penalty units, or both.
- I refer to the word “ANY” in the above section , in the context of the constitutional freedom of communication ,;
- the fundamental right of access to the seat of government and parliament;
- constitutional equality before the laws; and
- constitutional equality of access to government if it is said that the implication is not , despite Coleman V Watson , a fundamental right in this context , I refer to the Dictionary reference in the Parliament of Qld Act where it shows “rights includes privileges”.
- A person aggrieved at censorship redaction and angrily challenges members of parliament , simply by reference to what they did with their unlawful censorship and the actions of Jarrod Bleijie could face a sanction or violent arrest and may not be able to have natural justice to defend themselves ;
- The ICCPR 19 Freedom of Expression and full participation in article 25 (a) and (c). There are limitations in those articles which are not present in s38 of The Parliament of QLD Act .
- The Qld Parliament is a creature of statute, and although there is the constitutional principle that the CTH may not interfere with the functioning of the states and that parliamentary privilege on its own is a constitutional principle , the Qld Parliament has passed laws for the conduct of committee and its processes Though s s9(2)(b) and (c) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (QLD) says that the guidelines on the site for submissions are not subordinate legislation they will refer to the guidelines as apposed to the law .
- On guidelines , its legislation which is the true source of the law that is enforceable R v Szabo at par [49] per Thomas JA with the court including the current Qld Governor De Jersey concurring applying https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/2000/194
- Incidentally, the defence barrister in that case was Greg Lynham, recently appointed to the Townsville district court by Qld Attorney General Yvette D'ATH . She referred to the fact he was capable of dealing with complex matters in her ministerial statement. Indeed he is upon the facts of the SZABO case. http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2017/4/21/district-court-appointment-for-townsville Not only that , he was the yank navy’s man in Townsville , the defendants didn’t come back!
- Szabo is also good for the principles to be applied in determining whether there was apparent bias in the committee chair, and the committee itself in its discriminatory decision to exercise a capricious “discretion” apparently according to the submission guidelines on the Parliament’s website. Linus Power is Logan ALP involved in the same branches that have members up on corruption charges who took money from Laurence Lancini amongst others . Lancini was consistently named from publicly available disclosure websites. In the 2015 inquiry I got through my allegation about Lancini Inquiry Into The Electoral and Other Matters Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 , Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee , Sub 307 http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/LACSC/2015/01-ElectoralOLAB15/submissions/307.pdf )
- The entire committee and parliament bar one, belong to parties bribed by Laurence Lancini and Others.
- Szabo concerned the matter of the “appearance” of bias arising from the Defence and Prosecution “having it off during” the trial and not telling the defendant (who was guilty anyway) . They were “both sleeping with the enemy” . The reason why developer donations have been banned and we want to go further , is, like the high court said in McCloy , because, “the perception of corruption is evident”
- The committee members themselves may be in breach of s37(2)(a) of The Parliament of Qld Act 2011 by preventing the adducing of evidence to the parliament of improper influence .
- The Standing Orders s205 , S207, S208 and S212 say how the committee may take evidence ;
- However , its to provide a report and recommendations to a minister under s107(3)(b) of The Parliament of Qld Act of the Inquiry ;
- But the reasons for recommendations are obscured by the unlawful censorship redactions present on the submissions on this committee’s submissions page.
- S9 , and 24-34 Of The Defamation Act prevents certain companies who are donors suing for defamation outside the parliament even when the submissions have no parliamentary privilege;
- It also protects the publication of public documents and the right to draw conclusions and opinions of them, this, after all was the purpose of real time disclosure.
- The CCC Chair himself, Mr Alan McSporan said to everyone in the state that smelled corruption and smelled a rat -that we were “right on the money” , that’s a learned body aint it ? “Something rotten in the state of Queensland” By Mark Solomons Brisbane Times 4 May 2018 — 7:35pm https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/something-rotten-in-the-state-of-queensland-20180504-p4zdhx.html
- The submissions , especially mine , refer to websites of government bodies , provide the government body internet links which were redacted too and the names of donors and the members who they donated too and give honest opinions about it .
CONCLUSION
Read down, the submissions being
protected by the freedom of communication are also protected by statute by
ignoring the unlawful guidelines. The guidelines, and any practice of the parliament
and the committee to the contrary is unlawful in its terms operation and
especially in their effects. There are ulterior motives for the unlawful censorship
redactions. The redactions must be removed and the time for submissions must be
re-opened for another few months to gain support for the corrupt elements in QLD to be exposed , and for the donations bans to be expanded .
LEGISLATION
LINKS AND EXTRACTS
Constitution of
Queensland 2001 s26A (3) s26B(1)
Parliament of
Queensland Act 2001
The Parliament of Queensland Act s37 s79 , s106,
s107(1)(a) and s107 (2) and s107(3) s107(9) and (10) and Dictionary Schedule
Part 2 Contempts
37 Meaning of contempt of the Assembly
(1) Contempt
of the Assembly means a breach or disobedience of the powers, rights or
immunities, or a contempt, of the Assembly or its members or committees.
(2)
Conduct, including words, is not contempt of the Assembly unless it amounts, or
is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with—
(a)
the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee of its authority or functions;
or
(b)
the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.
Examples of contempt—
1
assaulting, obstructing or insulting a member—
(a) in
the member’s coming to or going from the Assembly or a meeting of a committee;
or
(b)
anywhere else because of the member’s performance of his or her parliamentary
duties
2
attempting to compel a member by force, insult or menace to take a particular
position in relation to a proposition or matter pending, or expected to be
brought, before the Assembly or a committee
3
sending a threat to a member because of the member’s performance of his or her
parliamentary duties
4
sending a challenge to fight a member
5 the
offering of a bribe to or attempting to bribe a member
6
creating or joining in any disturbance in the Assembly or before a committee or
in the Assembly’s or a committee’s vicinity while it is sitting that may
interrupt its proceedings
7
contravention of section 29(1), 30(1) or (4), 31(3), 32(2) or (6), 33(2) or (8)
or 69B(1), (2) or (4)
8
preventing or attempting to prevent a person from complying with section 29(1),
30(1) or (4), 31(3), 32(2) or (6), 33(2) or (8) or 69B(1), (2) or (4)
9
improperly influencing, or attempting to improperly influence, a person, in
relation to any evidence to be given by the person to the Assembly or a
committee
10
treating a person adversely and without lawful authority, or attempting to do
so, because of evidence given by the person to the Assembly or a committee or
because of a belief or suspicion about that evidence
38 Decisions on contempt
Whether
particular conduct is contempt of the Assembly as defined under section 37 is a
matter for the Assembly to decide, acting on any advice it considers
appropriate.
79 Definitions for ch 5
consider includes examine and inquire into.
106 Act does not limit Assembly’s powers
The
Assembly’s power to establish committees, and confer functions and powers on
committees (including statutory committees), is not limited by this Act.
Example—
The
Assembly may, by resolution, establish a standing or select committee.
107 Ministerial response to committee report
(1)
This section applies if—
(a) a
report of a committee recommends the Government or a Minister should take
particular action, or not take particular action, about an issue; or
(b) a
report of the Committee of the Legislative Assembly or the Ethics Committee
recommends a motion be moved in the Assembly to implement a recommendation
of the
committee.
(2)
The following Minister must provide the Assembly with a response—
(a)
for a report mentioned in subsection (1)(a)—the Minister who is responsible for
the issue that is the subject of the report;
(b)
for a report mentioned in subsection (1)(b)—the Premier or a Minister nominated
by the Premier.
(3)
The response must set out—
(a)
any recommendations to be adopted, and the way and time within which they will
be carried out; and
(b)
any recommendations not to be adopted and the reasons for not adopting them.
(4)
The Minister must table the response within 3 months after the report is
tabled.
(5) If
a Minister can not comply with subsection (4), the Minister
must—
(a)
within 3 months after the report is tabled, table an interim response and the
Minister’s reasons for not complying within 3 months; and
(b)
within 6 months after the report is tabled, table the response.
(6) If
the Assembly is not sitting, the Minister must give the response, or interim
response and reasons, to the Clerk.
(7)
The response, or interim response and reasons, is taken to have been tabled on
the day they are received by the Clerk.
(8)
The receipt of the response, or interim response and reasons, by the Clerk, and
the day of the receipt, must be recorded in the Assembly’s Votes and
Proceedings for the next sitting day after the day of receipt.
(9)
The response, or interim response and reasons, is a response, or interim
response and reasons, tabled in the Assembly.
(10)
Subsection (6) does not limit the Assembly’s power by resolution or order to
provide for the tabling of a response, or interim response and reasons, when
the Assembly is not
sitting.
(11)
This section does not apply to an annual report of a committee.
The
Dictionary Schedule to that Act where it states :
“committee means a committee of the
Assembly, whether or not a statutory committee”
“fundamental
legislative principles see the Legislative
Standards Act 1992, section 4.”
“rights includes privileges”.
Legislative
Standards Act 1992 s4
4 Meaning of fundamental legislative principles
(1)
For the purposes of this Act, fundamental legislative
principles are the principles
relating to legislation that underlie a parliamentary democracy based on the rule
of law.
Note—
Under
section 7, a function of the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel is
to advise on the application of fundamental legislative principles to proposed
legislation.
(2)
The principles include requiring that legislation has sufficient regard to—
(a)
rights and liberties of individuals; and
(b)
the institution of Parliament.
(3)
Whether legislation has sufficient regard to rights and liberties of
individuals depends on whether, for example, the legislation—
(a)
makes rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power
only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review;
and
(b) is
consistent with principles of natural justice; and
(c)
allows the delegation of administrative power only in appropriate cases and to
appropriate persons; and
(d)
does not reverse the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate
justification; and
(e)
confers power to enter premises, and search for or seize documents or other
property, only with a warrant issued by a judge or other judicial officer; and
(f)
provides appropriate protection against self-incrimination; and
(g)
does not adversely affect rights and liberties, or impose obligations,
retrospectively; and
(h)
does not confer immunity from proceeding or prosecution without adequate
justification; and
(i)
provides for the compulsory acquisition of property only with fair
compensation; and
(j)
has sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Island custom; and
(k) is
unambiguous and drafted in a sufficiently clear and precise way.
(4)
Whether a Bill has sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament depends
on whether, for example, the Bill—
(a)
allows the delegation of legislative power only in appropriate cases and to
appropriate persons; and
(b)
sufficiently subjects the exercise of a delegated legislative power to the
scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly; and
(c)
authorises the amendment of an Act only by another Act.
(5)
Whether subordinate legislation has sufficient regard to the institution of
Parliament depends on whether, for example, the subordinate legislation—
(a) is
within the power that, under an Act or subordinate legislation (the authorising
law), allows the subordinate legislation to be made; and
(b) is
consistent with the policy objectives of the authorising law; and
(c) contains only matter appropriate to subordinate
legislation; and
(d)
amends statutory instruments only; and
(e)
allows the subdelegation of a power delegated by an Act only—
(i) in
appropriate cases and to appropriate persons; and
(ii)
if authorised by an Act.
Statutory Instruments Act
1992
(2)The
instrument must be made under—
(a)an
Act; or
(b)another statutory instrument;
or
(c)power
conferred by an Act or statutory instrument and also under power conferred
otherwise by law.
an instrument made partly under
an express or implied statutory power and partly under the Royal Prerogative
(3)The
instrument must be of 1 of the following types—
•a
regulation
•an order in council
•a rule
•a local law
•a by-law
•an ordinance
•a subordinate local law
•a statute
•a proclamation
•a notification of a public
nature
•a standard of a public nature
•a guideline of a public nature
•another instrument of a public
nature by which the entity making the instrument unilaterally affects a right
or liability of another entity.
(4)However, to remove doubt, an
Executive Council minute is not itself a statutory instrument.
(a)that
is made by the Governor or the Governor in Council; or
(b)that
is made by another person or body, but—
(i)is
required by law to be approved, confirmed or otherwise consented to by the
Governor or Governor in Council; or
(ii)is subject to being
disapproved or otherwise disallowed by the Governor or Governor in Council.
9Meaning
of subordinate legislation
(a)a
statutory rule that is a regulation, rule, by-law, ordinance or statute;
(b)a
statutory rule that is an order in council or proclamation of a legislative
character;
(c)any
statutory instrument (including an order in council or proclamation) that is
declared to be subordinate legislation by an Act or a regulation made under
this Act;
(d)any
other statutory instrument that fixes or otherwise determines the commencement
of—
(i)an
Act or a provision of an Act; or
(ii)an
instrument, or a provision of an instrument, mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or
(c).
(2)The
following instruments are not subordinate legislation—
(a)a
local law or other statutory instrument made by a local government;
(b)a
rule, order, direction or practice of the Legislative Assembly;
(c)a
statutory rule (other than a regulation) that is mentioned in schedule 1A
or declared not to be subordinate legislation by—
(i)an
Act; or
(ii)in
the case of a statutory rule made under a provision commencing before the
commencement of this Act—a regulation made under this Act.
Standing Orders s205
, S207,S208 and S212
205. Powers
(1) The House may give a
committee power to send for persons, documents and other things, and a committee
with that power may summon witnesses, examine witnesses (including on oath or affirmation),
and require the production of documents and things.
(2) The Chairperson and the
Committee Secretary of a committee are authorised to administer an oath or affirmation
to witnesses.
(3) Any powers that the House may
give a committee under (1) are, in the case of a committee which is a statutory
committee within the meaning of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001,
in addition to any powers conferred on the statutory committee by that Act.30
(4) Any powers that the House may
give a committee under (1) are, in the case of a committee which is created by
statute (including the Crime and Corruption Act 2001), in addition to
any powers conferred on the committee by that Act. Footnote Section 25(2) of
the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 provides an authorised committee
may order a person, other than a member, to attend before the committee and
also to produce to the committee any document or other thing in the person’s possession.
206. Methods of
receiving evidence
(1) A committee may take evidence
from witnesses by any means the committee resolves, including by telephone,
video conference or other electronic means.
(2) A committee may receive
submissions and other documents by any means the committee resolves, including
electronic means.
207. Public and
private meetings
Persons other than members and
officers of a committee may attend a public meeting of a committee but shall
not attend a private meeting except by express invitation of the committee, and
shall always withdraw when the committee is deliberating.
208. Admission
to hearings
Any person admitted to a public
hearing of a committee may be excluded at the discretion of the Chairperson or
by order of the committee.
212. Minutes
(1) The Committee Secretary of a
committee is responsible for recording the minutes of the proceedings of the
committee.
(2) The minutes of the
proceedings of a committee shall include:
(a) the names of the members
attending each committee meeting;
(b) every motion or amendment
proposed in the committee and the mover and seconder; and
(c) the names and votes of the
members voting in any division.
(3) The committee shall confirm
the minutes of its proceedings.
(4) The Chairperson or Committee
Secretary shall sign the minutes of proceedings after the committee has confirmed
the minutes.
Defamation Act 2005
9 Certain corporations do not have
cause of action for defamation
(1)A corporation has no cause of
action for defamation in relation to the publication of defamatory matter about
the corporation unless it was an excluded corporation at the time of the
publication.
(2)A
corporation is an excluded corporation if—
(a)the
objects for which it is formed do not include obtaining financial gain for its
members or corporators; or
(b)it employs fewer than 10
persons and is not related to another corporation;
and the corporation is not a public
body.
(3)In counting employees for the
purposes of subsection (2)(b), part-time employees are to be taken into
account as an appropriate fraction of a full-time equivalent.
(4)In determining whether a
corporation is related to another corporation for the purposes of
subsection (2)(b), the Corporations Act, section 50 applies as if
references to bodies corporate in that section were references to corporations
within the meaning of this section.
(5)Subsection (1) does not
affect any cause of action for defamation that an individual associated with a
corporation has in relation to the publication of defamatory matter about the
individual even if the publication of the same matter also defames the
corporation.
(6)In
this section—
corporation includes any body corporate or corporation
constituted by or under a law of any country (including by exercise of a
prerogative right), whether or not a public body.
public body means a local government body or other governmental
or public authority constituted by or under a law of any country.
Division 2 Defences
(1)A
defence under this division is additional to any other defence or exclusion of
liability available to the defendant apart from this Act (including under the
general law) and does not of itself vitiate, limit or abrogate any other
defence or exclusion of liability.
(2)If
a defence under this division to the publication of defamatory matter may be
defeated by proof that the publication was actuated by malice, the general law
applies in defamation proceedings in which the defence is raised to determine
whether a particular publication of matter was actuated by malice.
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory
matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the
matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory
matter if the defendant proves that—
(a)the
matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the
plaintiff complains, 1 or more other imputations (contextual imputations)
that are substantially true; and
(b)the
defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff
because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.
(1)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves
that it was published on an occasion of absolute privilege.
(2)Without
limiting subsection (1), matter is published on an occasion of absolute
privilege if—
(a)the
matter is published in the course of the proceedings of a parliamentary body,
including (but not limited to)—
(i)the
publication of a document by order, or under the authority, of the body; and
(ii)the
publication of the debates and proceedings of the body by or under the
authority of the body or any law; and
(iii)the
publication of matter while giving evidence before the body; and
(iv)the
publication of matter while presenting or submitting a document to the body; or
(b)the
matter is published in the course of the proceedings of an Australian court or
Australian tribunal, including (but not limited to)—
(i)the
publication of matter in any document filed or lodged with, or otherwise
submitted to, the court or tribunal (including any originating process); and
(ii)the
publication of matter while giving evidence before the court or tribunal; and
(iii)the
publication of matter in any judgment, order or other determination of the
court or tribunal; or
(c)the
matter is published on an occasion that, if published in another Australian
jurisdiction, would be an occasion of absolute privilege in that jurisdiction
under a provision of a law of the jurisdiction corresponding to this section;
or
(d)the
matter is published by a person or body in any circumstances specified in
schedule 1.
(1)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves
that the matter was contained in—
(a)a
public document or a fair copy of a public document; or
(b)a
fair summary of, or a fair extract from, a public document.
(2)For
the purposes of subsection (1), if a report or other document under the
law of a country would be a public document except for non-compliance with a
provision of that law about—
(a)the
formal requirements for the content or layout of the report or document; or
(b)the
time within which the report or document is prepared, or presented, submitted,
tabled or laid to or before a person or body;
the report or document is a public document despite
that non-compliance.
(3)A
defence established under subsection (1) is defeated if, and only if, the
plaintiff proves that the defamatory matter was not published honestly for the
information of the public or the advancement of education.
(4)In
this section—
(a)any
report or paper published by a parliamentary body, or a record of votes,
debates or other proceedings relating to a parliamentary body published by or
under the authority of the body or any law; or
(b)any
judgment, order or other determination of a court or arbitral tribunal of any
country in civil proceedings, including—
(i)any
record of the court or tribunal relating to the judgment, order or
determination or to its enforcement or satisfaction; and
(ii)any
report of the court or tribunal about its judgment, order or determination and
the reasons for its judgment, order or determination; or
(c)any
report or other document that under the law of any country—
(i)is
authorised to be published; or
(ii)is
required to be presented or submitted to, tabled in, or laid before, a
parliamentary body; or
(d)any
document issued by the government (including a local government) of a country,
or by an officer, employee or agency of the government, for the information of
the public; or
(e)any
record or other document open to inspection by the public that is kept—
(i)by
an Australian jurisdiction; or
(ii)by
a statutory authority of an Australian jurisdiction; or
(iii)by
an Australian court; or
(iv)under
legislation of an Australian jurisdiction; or
(f)any
other document issued, kept or published by a person, body or organisation of
another Australian jurisdiction that is treated in that jurisdiction as a
public document under a provision of a law of the jurisdiction corresponding to
this section; or
(g)any
document of a kind specified in schedule 2.
(1)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves
that the matter was, or was contained in, a fair report of any proceedings of
public concern.
(2)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that—
(a)the
matter was, or was contained in, an earlier published report of proceedings of
public concern; and
(b)the
matter was, or was contained in, a fair copy of, a fair summary of, or a fair
extract from, the earlier published report; and
(c)the
defendant had no knowledge that would reasonably make the defendant aware that
the earlier published report was not fair.
(3)A
defence established under subsection (1) or (2) is defeated if, and only
if, the plaintiff proves that the defamatory matter was not published honestly
for the information of the public or the advancement of education.
(4)In
this section—
proceedings of public concern means—
(a)any
proceedings in public of a parliamentary body; or
(b)any
proceedings in public of an international organisation of any countries or of
the governments of any countries; or
(c)any
proceedings in public of an international conference at which the governments
of any countries are represented; or
(d)any
proceedings in public of—
(i)the
International Court of Justice, or any other judicial or arbitral tribunal, for
the decision of any matter in dispute between nations; or
(ii)any
other international judicial or arbitral tribunal; or
(e)any
proceedings in public of a court or arbitral tribunal of any country; or
(f)any
proceedings in public of an inquiry held under the law of any country or under
the authority of the government of any country; or
(g)any
proceedings in public of a local government body of any Australian
jurisdiction; or
(h)proceedings
of a learned society, or of a committee or governing body of the society, under
its relevant objects, but only to the extent that the proceedings relate to a
decision or adjudication made in Australia about—
(i)a
member or members of the society; or
(ii)a
person subject by contract or otherwise by law to control by the society; or
(i)proceedings
of a sport or recreation association, or of a committee or governing body of
the association, under its relevant objects, but only to the extent that the
proceedings relate to a decision or adjudication made in Australia about—
(i)a
member or members of the association; or
(ii)a
person subject by contract or otherwise by law to control by the association;
or
(j)proceedings
of a trade association, or of a committee or governing body of the association,
under its relevant objects, but only to the extent that the proceedings relate
to a decision or adjudication made in Australia about—
(i)a
member or members of the association; or
(ii)a
person subject by contract or otherwise by law to control by the association;
or
(k)any
proceedings of a public meeting (with or without restriction on the people
attending) of shareholders of a public company under the Corporations Act held
anywhere in Australia; or
(l)any
proceedings of a public meeting (with or without restriction on the people
attending) held anywhere in Australia if the proceedings relate to a matter of
public interest, including the advocacy or candidature of a person for public
office; or
(m)any
proceedings of an ombudsman of any country if the proceedings relate to a
report of the ombudsman; or
(n)any
proceedings in public of a law reform body of any country; or
(o)any
other proceedings conducted by, or proceedings of, a person, body or
organisation of another Australian jurisdiction that are treated in that
jurisdiction as proceedings of public concern under a provision of a law of the
jurisdiction corresponding to this section; or
(p)any
proceedings of a kind specified in schedule 3.
(5)In
this section—
law
reform body of a country means a body (however
described and whether or not permanent or full-time) established by law to
conduct inquiries into, and to make recommendations on, reforming the laws of
that country.
(a)the
objects of which include the advancement of any art, science or religion or the
advancement of learning in any field; and
(b)authorised
by its constitution—
(i)to
exercise control over, or adjudicate on, matters connected with those objects; and
(ii)to
make findings or decisions having effect, by law or custom, in any part of
Australia.
ombudsman
of
a country means a person (however described and whether or not permanent or
full-time) authorised by law to investigate complaints about the actions or
other conduct of any public officials or public bodies of that country.
(a)in
relation to a learned society—objects of the kind referred to in paragraph (a)
of the definition learned society in this subsection; or
(b)in
relation to a sport or recreation association—objects of the kind referred to
in paragraph (a) of the definition sport or recreation association in
this subsection; or
(c)in
relation to a trade association—objects of the kind referred to in paragraph
(a) of the definition trade association in this subsection.
(a)the
objects of which include the promotion of any game, sport, or pastime to the
playing of which or exercise of which the public is admitted as spectators or
otherwise and the promotion or protection of the interests of people connected
with the game, sport, or pastime; and
(b)authorised
by its constitution—
(i)to
exercise control over, or adjudicate on, matters connected with the game,
sport, or pastime; and
(ii)to
make findings or decisions having effect, by law or custom, in any part of
Australia.
(a)the
objects of which include the promotion of any calling, that is to say, a trade,
business, industry or profession, and the promotion or protection of the
interests of people engaged in any calling; and
(b)authorised
by its constitution—
(i)to
exercise control over, or adjudicate on, matters connected with a calling or
the conduct of people engaged in the calling; and
(ii)to
make findings or decisions having effect, by law or custom, in any part of
Australia.
(1)There
is a defence of qualified privilege for the publication of defamatory matter to
a person (the recipient) if the
defendant proves that—
(a)the
recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some
subject; and
(b)the
matter is published to the recipient in the course of giving to the recipient
information on that subject; and
(c)the
conduct of the defendant in publishing that matter is reasonable in the
circumstances.
(2)For
the purposes of subsection (1), a recipient has an apparent interest in
having information on some subject if, and only if, at the time of the
publication in question, the defendant believes on reasonable grounds that the
recipient has that interest.
(3)In
determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the conduct of the
defendant in publishing matter about a person is reasonable in the
circumstances, a court may take into account—
(a)the
extent to which the matter published is of public interest; and
(b)the
extent to which the matter published relates to the performance of the public
functions or activities of the person; and
(c)the
seriousness of any defamatory imputation carried by the matter published; and
(d)the
extent to which the matter published distinguishes between suspicions,
allegations and proven facts; and
(e)whether
it was in the public interest in the circumstances for the matter published to
be published expeditiously; and
(f)the
nature of the business environment in which the defendant operates; and
(g)the
sources of the information in the matter published and the integrity of those
sources; and
(h)whether
the matter published contained the substance of the person’s side of the story
and, if not, whether a reasonable attempt was made by the defendant to obtain
and publish a response from the person; and
(i)any
other steps taken to verify the information in the matter published; and
(j)any
other circumstances that the court considers relevant.
(4)For
the avoidance of doubt, a defence of qualified privilege under
subsection (1) is defeated if the plaintiff proves that the publication of
the defamatory matter was actuated by malice.
(5)However,
a defence of qualified privilege under subsection (1) is not defeated
merely because the defamatory matter was published for reward.
(1)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves
that—
(a)the
matter was an expression of opinion of the defendant rather than a statement of
fact; and
(b)the
opinion related to a matter of public interest; and
(c)the
opinion is based on proper material.
(2)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves
that—
(a)the
matter was an expression of opinion of an employee or agent of the defendant
rather than a statement of fact; and
(b)the
opinion related to a matter of public interest; and
(c)the
opinion is based on proper material.
(3)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves
that—
(a)the
matter was an expression of opinion of a person (the commentator), other than
the defendant or an employee or agent of the defendant, rather than a statement
of fact; and
(b)the
opinion related to a matter of public interest; and
(c)the
opinion is based on proper material.
(4)A
defence established under this section is defeated if, and only if, the
plaintiff proves that—
(a)in
the case of a defence under subsection (1)—the opinion was not honestly
held by the defendant at the time the defamatory matter was published; or
(b)in
the case of a defence under subsection (2)—the defendant did not believe
that the opinion was honestly held by the employee or agent at the time the
defamatory matter was published; or
(c)in
the case of a defence under subsection (3)—the defendant had reasonable
grounds to believe that the opinion was not honestly held by the commentator at
the time the defamatory matter was published.
(5)For
the purposes of this section, an opinion is based on proper material if it is based
on material that—
(a)is
substantially true; or
(b)was
published on an occasion of absolute or qualified privilege (whether under this
Act or at general law); or
(c)was
published on an occasion that attracted the protection of a defence under this
section or section 28
or 29
.
(6)An
opinion does not cease to be based on proper material only because some of the
material on which it is based is not proper material if the opinion might
reasonably be based on such of the material as is proper material.
(1)It
is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves
that—
(a)the
defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or
agent, of a subordinate distributor; and
(b)the
defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was
defamatory; and
(c)the
defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the
defendant.
(2)For
the purposes of subsection (1), a person is a subordinate distributor of
defamatory matter if the person—
(a)was
not the first or primary distributor of the matter; and
(b)was
not the author or originator of the matter; and
(c)did
not have any capacity to exercise editorial control over the content of the
matter (or over the publication of the matter) before it was first published.
(3)Without
limiting subsection (2)(a), a person is not the first or primary
distributor of matter merely because the person was involved in the publication
of the matter in the capacity of—
(a)a
bookseller, newsagent or news-vendor; or
(b)a
librarian; or
(c)a
wholesaler or retailer of the matter; or
(d)a
provider of postal or similar services by means of which the matter is
published; or
(e)a
broadcaster of a live program (whether on television, radio or otherwise)
containing the matter in circumstances in which the broadcaster has no
effective control over the person who makes the statements that comprise the
matter; or
(f)a
provider of services consisting of—
(i)the
processing, copying, distributing or selling of any electronic medium in or on
which the matter is recorded; or
(ii)the
operation of, or the provision of, any equipment, system or service, by means
of which the matter is retrieved, copied, distributed or made available in
electronic form; or
(g)an
operator of, or a provider of access to, a communications system by means of
which the matter is transmitted, or made available, by another person over whom
the operator or provider has no effective control; or
(h)a
person who, on the instructions or at the direction of another person, prints
or produces, reprints or reproduces or distributes the matter for or on behalf
of that other person.
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory
matter if the defendant proves that the circumstances of publication were such
that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm.
Cross references
TOWNSVILLE'S JENNY HILL GANG SPLITS ON LABOR TICKET - WORRIED ABOUT SPLITTING THE LOOT AND QUESTIONS FOR EX COPPER AND 2012 -16 COUNCILOR GARY EDDIEHAUSEN-PAT COLEMAN
STILL TIME TO PROSECUTE TOWNSVILLE MAYOR HILL , ROCKHAMPTON MAYOR MARGARET STRELOW AND LABOR/LNP PARTY AGENTS FOR TAKING ILLEGAL FOREIGN ADANI DONATIONS-PAT COLEMAN
SUBMISSION -LIVE EXPORT CATTLE YARDS AT OAK VALLEY TOWNSVILLE -WADDYAH KNOW - THERES USUAL SUSPECT DONORS TOO !- PAT COLEMAN 18/7/2018
SCOOP : COUNCIL ELECTION DONORS BUY COURT MEDIATION OUTCOMES – “PATTERN FORMS”, and, MIADMENT APPROVAL COVERUP - PAT COLEMAN
RE-OPEN THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QLD DONATIONS INQUIRY WITHOUT CENSORSHIP REDACTION OF DONOR MAFIA MATES !! - Pat Coleman
CENSORED - My Submission to The Electoral Legislation (Political Donations) Amendment Bill 2018 - Pat Coleman
- Pat Coleman
SCOOP: THE CRIMES OF TOWNSVILLE MAYOR JENNY HILL’S GANG, MAIDMENT GROUP AND THE CORRUPTION OF LAURENCE LANCINI AND OTHERS. -PAT COLEMAN 5/7/2018
SCOOP : TOWNSVILLE ENTERPRISE GANG BEGINS DONATING TO THE QLD LNP IN TOWNSVILLE COUNCIL/ MAFIA TURF WAR –PAT COLEMAN
CTH AUDITOR GENERAL SLAMS COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE IN TENDERS -AND MY REPONSE TO TOWNSVILLE MAGPIE - Pat Coleman
A message to Jackie Trad and Tony Mooney (chair of the Hospital Board), Laurence Lancini Chair of The Cowboys Legues Club and Property Council Honcho, and of course , the team. -Pat Coleman
TOWNSVILLE "HIVE DEVELOPMENT" OLD STYLE HERITAGE BROWN BAG BRAWL OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL VOTING FOR AUSTRALIA-COVERING THE FIELD - Pat Coleman
ITS BATTERY ! Everywhere you look , public tenders go to donors .- Pat Coleman
THE LOBBYIST BAG MAN MONEY LAUNDERERS ARTICLES
PURE PROJECTS BRIBES AND TOWNSVILLE LABOR MAYOR JENNY HILL –THE CREATURE OF THE WHITE SHOE BRIGADE LAGOON - Pat Coleman
WHO GOT THE BURDEKIN TOWNSVILLE WATER PIPELINE TENDERS AND WHY - Pat Coleman
Lobbyists take over where developer donors left off in QLD - Pat Coleman
COMPULSORILY ACQUIRE QLD NICKEL AND CLEAN IT OFF THE MAP - Pat Coleman
https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/06/my-views-on-qld-nickel-refinery-at.html
THE CONDUCT OF DODGY TOWNSVILLE EX COPPER DALE LAST , FORMER COPPER IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES TOWNSVILLE COP SHOP BEFORE PALM ISLAND WENT OFF IN 2002- NOW LNP MEMBER FOR BURDEKIN QLD –PAT COLEMAN
https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-conduct-of-dodgy-townsville-ex.html
PROPOSED ATTACK ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL CHAPLAINS FUNDING . MAKING KIDS BELEIVE IN THINGS THAT DONT EXIST IS ABUSE! - Pat Coleman
https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/06/proposed-attack-on-unconstitutional.html
SCOOP KERRY CHIKAROVSKI’S LOBBYING FIRM STILL REPRESENTING THE MURDERING RON MEDICH-Pat Coleman 18/7/2018
https://cynicismcentraltownsvilleaustralia.blogspot.com/2018/07/scoop-kerry-chikarovskis-lobbying-firm.html
Amberley Fish Deaths -Townsville PFAS Environment Investigators Long time donors- Pat Coleman
A PFAS FOAM INQUIRY’S SUBMISSIONS CLOSE ON THE 6TH of JULY 2018 AND WE HEAR NOTHING FROM CATHY O’TOOLE ???? WHY??? - Pat Coleman
OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL VOTING FOR AUSTRALIA-COVERING THE FIELD - Pat Coleman
AUTHORISED BY PAT COLEMAN FORD ST HERMIT PARK 4812 QLD
Comments
Post a Comment