{"id":"C2004A00250","name":"Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975","slug":"common-informers-parliamentary-disqualifications-act-1975","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"28 of 1975","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":31189,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004A00250-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title [see Note 1]","content":"#### 1 Short title \\[see Note 1\\]\n\n  This Act may be cited as the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement [see Note 1]","content":"#### 2 Commencement \\[see Note 1\\]\n\n  This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Penalty for sitting when disqualified","content":"#### 3 Penalty for sitting when disqualified\n\n  (1) Any person who, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, has sat as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives while he or she was a person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting shall be liable to pay to any person who sues for it in the High Court a sum equal to the total of:\n    (a) $200 in respect of his or her having so sat on or before the day on which the originating process in the suit is served on him or her; and\n    (b) $200 for every day, subsequent to that day, on which he or she is proved in the suit to have so sat.\n  (2) A suit under this section shall not relate to any sitting of a person as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a time earlier than 12 months before the day on which the suit is instituted.\n  (3) The High Court shall refuse to make an order in a suit under this Act that would, in the opinion of the Court, cause the person against whom it was made to be penalized more than once in respect of any period or day of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Suits not to be brought under section 46 of the Constitution","content":"#### 4 Suits not to be brought under section 46 of the Constitution\n\n  On and after the date of commencement of this Act, a person is not liable to pay any sum under section 46 of the Constitution and no suit shall be instituted, continued, heard or determined in pursuance of that section.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Jurisdiction","content":"#### 5 Jurisdiction\n\n  Original jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court in suits under this Act and no other court has jurisdiction in such a suit.","sortOrder":4}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act does exactly what its title suggests — it replaces the common informer mechanism in section 46 of the Constitution with a modernised (if still modest) statutory equivalent. The scope is narrow, focused, and consistent with its original intent: regulating financial penalties for disqualified MPs sitting in Parliament, while consolidating jurisdiction exclusively in the High Court."},"complexity_factors":["Requires understanding of the Australian Constitution (particularly section 46 and the disqualification provisions) to fully grasp the context","The concept of 'common informer' — a private citizen suing to enforce a public law — is unfamiliar to most modern readers","The interaction between this Act and a specific constitutional provision (s46) creates a layer of constitutional law overlay","Jurisdictional restriction to the High Court alone is an unusual procedural feature","The double-jeopardy-style protection against multiple suits adds a nuanced procedural dimension","Retrospective application (covering conduct before commencement) adds interpretive complexity"],"plain_english_summary":"## Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975\n\n### What does this law do?\nThis Act deals with what happens when a Member of Parliament (Senator or Member of the House of Representatives) sits in Parliament when they are **legally disqualified** from doing so under the Australian Constitution.\n\n### Who can be disqualified from Parliament?\nThe Constitution lists various reasons a person cannot sit in Parliament — for example, holding certain government jobs, being a citizen of a foreign country, or being bankrupt. This Act doesn't change *who* is disqualified; it just sets up the consequences if a disqualified person sits anyway.\n\n### What are the consequences?\nAny member of the public (called a \"common informer\" — historically, someone who sues on behalf of the public to enforce a law) can sue a disqualified MP in the **High Court** (Australia's highest court). If successful, the disqualified MP must pay:\n- **$200** for having sat while disqualified (up to the date they were served with the lawsuit), plus\n- **$200 for every additional day** they are proven to have sat after that.\n\nThese are quite modest penalties by today's standards, reflecting the Act's age.\n\n### Important limits:\n- A lawsuit can only cover sitting that occurred **within the last 12 months**.\n- A disqualified MP **cannot be penalised twice** for the same period of sitting — so multiple lawsuits about the same days are blocked by the court.\n- **Only the High Court** can hear these cases — no other court has the power.\n\n### What did this replace?\nBefore this Act, the same issue was covered by **section 46 of the Constitution** itself. This Act effectively replaced that constitutional provision with its own system. From the date this Act commenced, people **can no longer sue** under section 46 of the Constitution — only under this Act.\n\n### Why does this matter to you?\nIf you ever believed an MP was sitting in Parliament while constitutionally disqualified (for example, during the 2017–2018 dual citizenship crisis), this Act is the mechanism that theoretically allowed any ordinary Australian to take legal action in the High Court. In practice, the low penalty amounts ($200/day) make such suits more of a constitutional safeguard than a practical deterrent."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act replaces and constrains the pre-existing route under section 46 of the Constitution by abolishing liability and suits under that section from commencement and creating a new statutory remedy. Under the Act the remedy is a private suit in the High Court with fixed monetary amounts, a 12‑month look‑back limit, a service‑triggered per‑day liability, and an express prohibition on multiple penalisation for the same period (see ss 3–5)."},"complexity_factors":["Short, self-contained statutory scheme with a single civil remedy (s 3)","Interaction with the Constitution via exclusion of s 46 remedies (s 4)","Procedural and evidential gatekeeping because all suits must be brought in the High Court (s 5)","Retroactive coverage of sittings before commencement combined with a 12‑month limitation period (s 3(1), s 3(2))","Timing-triggered liability (different fixed amount for sittings before service versus per‑day liability after service) (s 3(1)(a)–(b))","Judicial discretion to prevent double penalisation (s 3(3))"],"plain_english_summary":"This law lets any person sue in the High Court for fixed monetary sums if someone sat in Parliament while constitutionally ineligible. Recoveries are fixed ($200 for sittings before service, $200 per day after), limited to the previous 12 months, and bars double penalisation.\n\nIt displaces parallel constitutional suits, so disqualified parliamentarians risk statutory liability and private claimants must bear High Court litigation costs—centralising enforcement and making remedies predictable but procedurally burdensome."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation remains tightly focused on its original purpose: replacing the constitutional common informer procedure with a statutory equivalent. It has not expanded beyond penalizing disqualified parliamentarians and reallocating jurisdiction from the general constitutional provision to this specific Act."},"complexity_factors":["Very short statute — only 5 operative sections","No defined terms section; relies on external constitutional concepts ('person declared by the Constitution to be incapable of so sitting')","Simple arithmetic formula for penalties (flat $200 per day)","Minimal cross-referencing (only to section 46 of the Constitution and the High Court's jurisdiction)","Straightforward temporal limitation (12-month lookback period in section 3(2))","Single clear jurisdictional provision (section 5) with no exceptions or carve-outs"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does:**\n\nThis Act creates a **civil penalty system** for politicians who sit in Parliament when they're not legally allowed to (for example, because they hold dual citizenship, have a conflict of interest, or are bankrupt — situations the Constitution says disqualify someone from being a member).\n\n**How it works:**\n\n- **Who can sue?** Any ordinary person (called a \"common informer\" — basically, a private citizen acting as a whistleblower) can take a disqualified politician to the **High Court** and claim money from them.\n- **How much?** The penalty is **$200 per day** the politician sat while disqualified, with a minimum of $200. This applies to sitting days both before and after the lawsuit starts.\n- **Time limit:** You can only claim for the **last 12 months** of sitting — anything older is off-limits.\n- **No double-dipping:** The High Court won't make someone pay twice for the same day.\n\n**Why it matters:**\n\nBefore this law, the Constitution (section 46) had a similar penalty, but it was **£100 per day** (an old British amount) and was confusing to use. This Act:\n- Replaces the old constitutional penalty with a clearer, modern system\n- **Blocks** anyone from using the old section 46 of the Constitution anymore\n- Gives the **High Court exclusive power** to hear these cases — no other court can touch them\n\n**In short:** It's a mechanism for citizens to financially punish politicians who illegally cling to their parliamentary seats, while tidying up an outdated constitutional provision."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/common-informers-parliamentary-disqualifications-act-1975","history":"/api/acts/common-informers-parliamentary-disqualifications-act-1975/history","analysis":"/api/acts/common-informers-parliamentary-disqualifications-act-1975/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/common-informers-parliamentary-disqualifications-act-1975/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/common-informers-parliamentary-disqualifications-act-1975/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/common-informers-parliamentary-disqualifications-act-1975/documents"}}