In countries with a parliamentary system of government, contempt of parliament is the offence of obstructing the legislature in the carrying out of its functions, or in the hindering any legislator in the performance of their duties.
[2] In the Commonwealth of Australia, the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 defines contempt of parliament as: Conduct (including the use of words)... [which] amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member.Contempt decisions by the House of Representatives or the Senate are subject to review by federal courts.
This follows after the Browne–Fitzpatrick privilege case, in which Morgan, Fitzpatrick and Frank Browne were denied legal representation, subsequently convicted, and served 90 days each in jail for publishing an allegedly defamatory article against a member of Parliament.
[5] The April 10, 2008, case involved Royal Canadian Mounted Police deputy commissioner Barbara George who was cited for contempt for deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee over an income trust scandal.
[5] The second ruling found the Cabinet could possibly be in contempt of Parliament for not meeting Opposition members' requests for details of proposed bills and their cost estimates, an issue which had "been dragging on since the fall of 2010".
[15] During the campaign the Conservatives portrayed the "Liberal motion of non-confidence over the contempt-of-Parliament finding" as mischief, instead of focusing on the economy and making constructive proposals for the budget.
On June 17, 2021, Opposition parties voted to declare the Liberal government in contempt of Parliament for refusing to provide unredacted documents to the House of Commons that could explain the firing of two scientists from Canada's top infectious disease lab in Winnipeg, amid concerns over their ties with Chinese military research.
The contempt vote was made possible by a ruling from Speaker Anthony Rota on June 16, 2021, that the Liberal government breached parliamentary privileges by failing to provide documents to the House that would explain the firing of the two scientists.
The motion adopted by the Conservatives, Bloc Québécois and NDP censured the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) for failing to produce the requested records.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), ruled that parliamentary privilege in both the provincial and the federal context is an unwritten convention of the Canadian constitution.
[25] The bill also allows mandatory summons to anyone to attend legislature hearings, in addition to governmental and public officials, and are subjected to the controversial clauses too.
Thousands of people gathered to the Legislative Yuan to protest the proposal as well,[32][33][34][35] calling for such bill to undergo review in line with due process.
[36] In spite of public pleas, the controversial bill was passed nonetheless on 28 May 2024 while legal challenges are expected from DPP on unconstitutionality ground.
[46] The vote was triggered by the government failing to lay before Parliament any legal advice on the proposed withdrawal agreement on the terms of the UK's departure from the European Union, after a humble address for a return was unanimously agreed to by the House of Commons on 13 November.
The government then agreed to publish the full legal advice[47] for Brexit that was given to the Prime Minister by the Attorney General during negotiations with the European Union.
The Commons Privileges Committee found Boris Johnson had deliberately misled MPs by denying "Partygate" while prime minister.