Parliament House grounds. These are defined by reference to Plan 8497 in the Central Plan Register, which shows Lot 3 (surrounding but not including Parliament House) bounded by a heavy black line (s 2(2)). A reduced copy is set out in Schedule 1 for illustration only - the legal boundary is the plan itself, not the schedule. The grounds are not a highway, not capable of becoming a highway, and not a public street under the Traffic Act 1925 (s 4). This means ordinary road rules do not apply as of right; the House Committee can regulate vehicular access without needing traffic authority approvals.

Domain lands of the Crown. The phrase in s 2(1) indicates that the land is Crown land but set apart for a specific use - the Parliament. It is not freehold owned by the Parliament; the Crown retains the underlying title but the use is dedicated to the legislative branch. This distinction may matter if the Crown ever sought to dispose of the land.

House Committee. Not defined in the Act - it is “the House Committee created by the Standing Orders of the Houses of Parliament” (s 3(1)). This is a joint committee of both houses, with membership determined by the Parliament, not by the executive. Its control is statutory and cannot be overridden by a minister without amending the Act.

Controlling officer. A person appointed by the House Committee under s 3(2)(a). The controlling officer can be delegated further powers, including the power to give orders under s 3(2)(c). The controlling officer is the only person who can lay complaints for offences under the Act (s 7(1)). The Act presumes that an allegation in a complaint that a person is the controlling officer is prima facie evidence of that fact (s 9(1)(a)). If the controlling officer changes during proceedings, the successor’s name is substituted (s 7(2)).

Rules and orders. The House Committee may make rules for conduct and exclusion (s 3(2)(b)) - these are ongoing instruments. It may also give orders for a particular occasion (s 3(2)(c)). These can be delegated to the controlling officer (s 3(2)(d)). Neither rules nor orders need be published in the Gazette or tabled in Parliament; the Act does not impose any transparency requirement. The only enforcement mechanism is the offence of knowingly contravening a rule or order (s 6(1)), which carries up to 1.5 penalty units.

Impoundment and immobilisation. Section 5 gives the controlling officer the rights of an occupier to impound chattels wrongfully on the land. For motor vehicles, it specifically allows immobilisation by removing a part (without permanent damage), chains and padlocks, or a barrier, until 10.30 a.m. on the next day the parliamentary offices are open. After that, the vehicle may be towed and kept until towing and storage costs are paid. If the vehicle is deemed by two justices to be scrap, they can authorise sale, with proceeds (less expenses) paid into the Public Account.

Offences. Four main categories: (1) knowingly contravening a rule or order (maximum 1.5 penalty units); (2) remaining after being asked to leave (maximum 2 penalty units); (3) parking, using the drive as a thoroughfare between Murray Street and Salamanca Place, or driving dangerously or over 20 km/h (maximum 2.5 penalty units); (4) failing to remove an unlawfully parked vehicle when asked, or parking after having been told not to park within the previous three months (maximum 5 penalty units). The three-month prohibition in s 6(4)(b) is notable - it operates as a time-limited ban order, and breach is an offence irrespective of whether the original parking was lawful.

Arrest. Section 8 permits the controlling officer or a person acting under orders to apprehend without warrant anyone they believe or suspect has committed an offence under the Act and who refuses to give name and address, or gives a false one. The arrest is solely to take the person before a justice to be dealt with according to law. Refusing to state name and address when required is itself an offence (maximum 2 penalty units). This arrest power is narrower than a general citizen’s arrest; it only applies where the person has committed an offence under this Act (not any offence) and the name/address issue arises.

Visitors, tourists, and members of the public who enter the grounds are subject to the rules and orders made by the House Committee or controlling officer. They can be asked to leave and if they remain, commit an offence. They can be excluded entirely from the grounds for specified classes or individually on a particular occasion. There is no right of entry or right to remain. Any person who parks a vehicle or uses the drive as a thoroughfare is at risk of an offence or impoundment. The three-month parking prohibition applies even to those who may have parked lawfully on a previous occasion - if the controlling officer tells them not to park, that prohibition attaches for three months.

Members of Parliament and staff are also persons subject to the Act. While in practice they may be exempted by rules or orders, the Act does not carve out any special status. The House Committee could theoretically make rules that apply equally to everyone. In practice, the committees are composed of MPs and are unlikely to restrict their own access, but the power exists.

Drivers and vehicle owners are particularly affected by the immobilisation and towing provisions. A vehicle wrongfully left can be held until 10.30 a.m. on the next open day. If no claim is made by then, it can be towed and kept until costs are paid. The cost of towing and keeping is set by the controlling officer (s 5(2)). There is no statutory maximum; the controlling officer effectively sets a private charge that must be paid to recover the vehicle.

Protesters and demonstrators. The grounds are domain lands set apart for Parliament, not a public forum. The House Committee can exclude any class of persons, and the controlling officer can order specific individuals to leave. There is no right to protest on the grounds. Refusal to leave after being asked is an offence. The Act does not require the controlling officer to give reasons or to act reasonably; the only limit is that the rules and orders be made or given under s 3. While the controlling officer may be subject to administrative law review, the Act provides no internal appeal mechanism.

The controlling officer bears the sole power to initiate prosecutions. This centralises enforcement and avoids private prosecutions, but also means that if the controlling officer declines to act, no offence under the Act can be prosecuted. The controlling officer also has the power to arrest and to impound, and to set towing costs.

Two justices in petty sessions may be called upon to deem a vehicle scrap under s 5(3). This is a rare example of justices acting in a non-judicial administrative capacity under this Act.

The House Committee itself has the power to delegate its control to the controlling officer. It can also make rules and orders. Its decisions are not subject to any statutory requirement for consultation, publication, or review.

The Minister administering the Public Works Construction Act 1880 may, at the request of the House Committee, mark out boundaries by pillars, posts, or painted lines, which become prima facie evidence of boundaries (s 9(2)). This affects neighbours and surveyors.

Duty of the controlling officer. The controlling officer must act on behalf of the Crown in exercising the rights of an occupier to impound chattels (s 5(1)). They are also the only person who can make complaints for offences (s 7(1)). There is no duty to act reasonably or proportionately stated in the Act. However, the power to immobilise a motor vehicle under s 5(2) is limited to vehicles “wrongfully left” and the method must not cause permanent damage. There is also a duty to release the vehicle if claimed before 10.30 a.m. on the next open day - the vehicle cannot be towed earlier.

Duty of persons in the grounds. Persons must comply with rules and orders (s 6(1)). They must leave when asked by the controlling officer or a person acting under orders (s 6(2)). They must not park unlawfully, use the drive as a thoroughfare, or drive dangerously or over 20 km/h (s 6(3)). If asked not to park, they must refrain for three months (s 6(4)(b)). If their vehicle is unlawfully parked and they are asked to remove it, they must do so (s 6(4)(a)). If required by the controlling officer or a person acting under orders, they must state their name and place of abode (s 8). Failure to do so is an offence.

Rights of persons in the grounds. The Act does not confer any positive rights on persons. However, the defence of “just cause or reasonable excuse” applies to the offence of remaining after being asked to leave (s 6(2)) and to the parking/thoroughfare/driving offences (s 6(3)). This is an express statutory defence. A person who is asked to leave may argue they had a reasonable excuse to remain - for example, attending a parliamentary proceeding or seeking urgent assistance. The Act does not define what constitutes just cause or reasonable excuse, leaving it to the court.

Right to claim impounded vehicle. The owner of an impounded vehicle has a right to claim it before 10.30 a.m. on the next open day (s 5(2)). After that, the controlling officer may tow it and keep it until towing and keeping costs are paid. There is no right to a hearing before impoundment. The Act does not specify how the owner learns of the impoundment - presumably they would find it missing and enquire.

Right to sale proceeds (scrap vehicles). If a vehicle is deemed scrap by two justices, the controlling officer may sell it and pay the proceeds into the Public Account. The owner may be paid out of that Account the amount awarded by the justices for expenses (s 5(3)). This is a weak right - the owner receives only what is left after the controlling officer’s expenses, and only if the justices so award.

Right to be brought before a justice after arrest. Section 8 provides that a person apprehended must be taken before a justice to be dealt with according to law. This implies a right to a reasonably prompt hearing, though no time limit is specified.

Right to continuity of proceedings. If the controlling officer changes after proceedings commence, the successor is substituted (s 7(2)). This ensures that a change of personnel does not derail a prosecution.

Penalties are expressed in penalty units. A penalty unit under Tasmanian law is currently set by the Penalty Units and Other Penalties Act 1987, though the rate changes periodically. At the time of writing (2025), one penalty unit is $201. However, the Act was originally enacted with fixed monetary amounts that were later converted to penalty units by amendments. Section 6 now sets the following maxima:

• Contravening a rule or order: 1.5 penalty units (about $301.50)
• Remaining after being asked to leave: 2 penalty units (about $402)
• Parking, using drive as thoroughfare, or dangerous/speeding driving: 2.5 penalty units (about $502.50)
• Failing to remove unlawfully parked vehicle or parking after three-month prohibition: 5 penalty units (about $1,005)
• Refusing name and address: 2 penalty units (about $402)

These are low penalties, reflecting the Act’s focus on minor regulatory breaches rather than serious crime. Enforcement is exclusively by summary conviction before a magistrate (s 6(1) says “summary conviction”). The complaint must be made by the controlling officer - not by any other person or agency (s 7(1)). This is an unusual restriction that prevents police or private individuals from prosecuting directly. It also means that if the controlling officer does not wish to prosecute, no offence under the Act can be pursued.

The Act provides for arrest without warrant only in the narrow circumstance where a person whom the controlling officer believes or suspects to have committed an offence under the Act refuses to state name and address (or provides a false one) when required (s 8). This is not an arrest for the offence itself; it is an arrest to enable identification and then being dealt with according to law. The arrest power can be exercised by the controlling officer or a person acting under orders. The Act does not require the use of reasonable force, but that would be implied.

Impoundment and immobilisation are civil remedies, not penalties. The controlling officer can immobilise a vehicle until 10.30 a.m. the next open day. After that, towing and storage costs are payable. If costs are not paid, the vehicle can be sold if deemed scrap. There is no monetary penalty for the owner beyond the costs. This is similar to a lien.

Evidentiary shortcuts reduce the burden on the prosecution. Section 9(1)(a) provides that an allegation in a complaint that a specified person is the controlling officer is prima facie evidence. This means the prosecution does not need to prove the appointment; a simple statement suffices unless the defence challenges it. Similarly, a written statement signed by the controlling officer that a person was acting under orders is prima facie evidence (s 9(1)(b)). This can be used to prove the authority of the person who gave an order or asked someone to leave. The boundaries marked by the minister under s 9(2) are also prima facie evidence. These provisions make it easier for the controlling officer to prove their case without calling witnesses or producing formal documents.

The three-month parking prohibition is self-enforcing: if the controlling officer tells a person not to park, that warning creates a three-month prohibition. Any subsequent parking within that period is an offence, regardless of whether the original parking was lawful or unlawful. The prohibition is personal to the person told, not to the vehicle. The Act does not require the warning to be in writing or served personally - but that would be prudent for proof.

Traffic Act 1925. Section 4(c) expressly provides that the grounds are not a public street as defined by and for the purposes of the Traffic Act 1925. This means that ordinary traffic offences (speeding, parking, drink driving) apply only if they also occur on a public street. Since the grounds are not a public street, the Traffic Act generally does not apply to driving within the grounds. However, the Parliament House Act creates its own driving offences: dangerous driving, exceeding 20 km/h, and using the drive as a thoroughfare (s 6(3)). These are the only traffic-related offences that apply. If a driver were to commit a serious traffic offence (e.g., dangerous driving causing injury), the general criminal law (Criminal Code or common law) would still apply, but specific traffic legislation would not. This means that speed cameras and parking fines under the Traffic Act cannot be issued on the grounds. The House Committee sets its own speed limit (20 km/h) and can enforce it only under this Act.

Justices Act 1959. Complaints for offences under this Act must be made under the Justices Act 1959, but only by the controlling officer (s 7(1)). This picks up the procedural machinery of the Justices Act for summary proceedings, but with a standing restriction. If the controlling officer fails to appear or withdraws, proceedings likely cannot continue except by substitution under s 7(2). The Act does not affect the general powers of justices to issue warrants or hear matters.

Public Works Construction Act 1880. The minister administering that Act may mark boundaries at the request of the House Committee (s 9(2)). This is an incidental interaction; the 1880 Act probably contains powers to erect markers on Crown land. The markers become prima facie evidence of boundaries, which is useful in disputes about whether conduct occurred within the grounds.

Crown lands legislation. The Act declares Parliament House and grounds to be domain lands of the Crown set apart for the use of Parliament (s 2(1)). This may affect how the land is dealt with under the Crown Lands Act or similar legislation. For example, it may prevent the executive from selling or leasing the land without parliamentary approval, because it is “set apart” by statute. However, the Act does not say that the land is inalienable; it merely states its legal position.

Criminal Code and general criminal law. The Act does not displace general criminal offences. A person who assaults a controlling officer or damages property can still be charged under the Criminal Code. The Act’s offences are additional and specific.

Police powers. The Act does not confer any police powers on the controlling officer beyond the limited arrest power in s 8. Police may still enter the grounds for law enforcement purposes, but they would be subject to the House Committee’s rules and orders like any other person, unless those rules are overridden by other legislation. The House Committee could theoretically exclude police, but that would likely be politically impossible.

Human rights legislation (Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006). Tasmania does not have a state human rights act. Commonwealth human rights instruments are not directly binding on state legislation. Therefore, the Act’s provisions on exclusion, arrest, and freedom of speech are not constrained by a statutory charter. However, common law principles of natural justice and reasonableness may apply to the House Committee’s rule-making power, albeit weakly.

The Act has been amended several times:

• No. 55 of 1965 - amended s 6(1), (2), (3), (4) and s 8(2) to increase penalties (the original Act had fixed monetary sums). Also amended s 8(2) penalty.

• No. 75 of 1973 - amended s 6(3) and (4), presumably adjusting penalties further (the Act notes mention “s. 2 and Sched. 1” but the exact changes are not specified in the text provided; likely penalty unit conversions).

• No. 47 of 1988 - significant amendment: amended s 5(3) (impoundment provisions), s 6(1)-(4) (offences), s 7(1) (proceedings), s 8(1)-(2) (arrest), s 9(1)-(2) (evidence). This appears to have introduced or clarified penalty units (s 6 previously had dollar amounts). It also amended s 8(2) penalty.

• No. 5 of 1990 - amended s 9(2) (evidence of boundaries), presumably updating reference to the minister.

• No. 38 of 2009 - major amendment: substituted s 2(2) to define the grounds by reference to Plan 8497 (lot 3) instead of a more vague description. Inserted s 2(3) and Schedule 1 (illustrative plan). Substituted s 4 entirely to clarify that no part of the grounds is a highway, capable of dedication, or a public street. Also amended s 6(4) by inserting a new paragraph (b) (three-month parking prohibition) and repealing former paragraph (c) (which was left as a blank “. . . . . .” in the current text, indicating deletion). This was a substantive expansion of the parking offence.

• No. 4 of 2017 - amended s 5(3) (impoundment), effective 1 July 2019. This appears to be a minor amendment, possibly updating references or procedures.

The Act number itself is 1962-049. The text shows that the Act is still in force as at 12 April 2026 (the date in the URL). The most recent amendment applied in 2019.

The Act does not cite any case law, and no cases are mentioned in the text. Given the low penalties and the exclusive prosecution power of the controlling officer, litigation under the Act is likely uncommon. Prosecutions would be heard in the Magistrates Court (now the Court of Petty Sessions). There may be unreported decisions on the meaning of “just cause or reasonable excuse” or on the scope of the controlling officer’s powers, but they are not noted in the Act. The evidentiary provisions in s 9 suggest that the drafters anticipated challenges to the identity of the controlling officer and the authority of persons giving orders, so those points have been litigated or at least feared.

The power of arrest without warrant under s 8 might be challenged under s 23 of the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant) or under common law principles. The Act provides its own warrant - “without any other warrant than this Act” - so if the conditions are met, the arrest is lawful. But if the controlling officer arrests someone who has not committed an offence under the Act (e.g., only a suspected offence under another law), the arrest would be unlawful.

There is no recorded constitutional challenge. The Act’s restriction on the use of the grounds as a thoroughfare could potentially be challenged as an interference with the implied freedom of political communication (e.g., if used to prevent protestors from accessing a nearby location). However, the High Court has upheld similar restrictions on parliamentary precincts. The specific exclusion of highways and public streets status (s 4) would likely defeat any argument about public rights of way.

Given the age of the Act and the lack of case law, it is reasonable to consider the Act as rarely litigated, with enforcement by administrative action (impoundment, exclusion) being the primary mechanism.

1. Three-month parking prohibition (s 6(4)(b)). A person who has been asked within the previous 3 months not to park in the grounds commits an offence if they park again, regardless of whether the original parking was unlawful or whether the grounds were open. The prohibition is triggered by a verbal or written request from the controlling officer or delegate. There is no requirement for the request to be formal or signed. A one-time warning can have effect for three months. The penalty is up to 5 penalty units - the highest under the Act.

2. Use of the drive as a thoroughfare (s 6(3)(b)). It is an offence to use the drive of Parliament House as a thoroughfare between Murray Street and Salamanca Place. This means drivers cannot cut through the grounds to avoid traffic on Salamanca Place or Murray Street. Even if there is no sign or barrier, the mere act of driving through for that purpose is an offence, unless there is a just cause or reasonable excuse. The controlling officer does not need to have posted a rule - the Act itself creates the offence directly.

3. Arrest for name refusal (s 8). The power to arrest without warrant is limited to persons whom the controlling officer believes or suspects to have committed an offence under the Act and who refuse to state name/address or give a false one. If the person has not committed an offence under the Act, there is no arrest power under this section. Also, the arrest is not for the offence itself but only to take the person before a justice “to be dealt with according to law”. This may mean being charged or released. The Act does not permit detention for questioning.

4. Evidentiary shortcuts that shift burden. Section 9(1)(a) allows the prosecution to prove the controlling officer’s status by a mere allegation in the complaint. The defendant would need to rebut that prima facie evidence. Similarly, a written statement from the controlling officer that a person was acting under orders is prima facie evidence. This means that if the controlling officer signs a statement that X was acting under orders, the court accepts that unless the defence disproves it. The defendant may not even know who X is.

5. No requirement for rules to be published. The House Committee can make rules under s 3(2)(b) that are not published in the Gazette, on a website, or even posted on site. The only way to know if you are contravening a rule is if you “knowingly” contravene it - the offence requires knowledge. But if the rule is not publicised, a defendant can argue they did not know. However, if the controlling officer tells someone about a rule, that may create knowledge. The Act does not require the committee to give notice.

6. Immobilisation until 10.30 a.m. the next open day. If your vehicle is immobilised at 4 p.m. on a Friday, and the parliamentary offices are closed over the weekend, you cannot claim it until Monday before 10.30 a.m. If you miss that window, the vehicle can be towed and you must pay towing and storage costs. The costs are set by the controlling officer with no statutory cap. This could be disproportionately expensive for a minor parking infraction.

7. The controlling officer can be a “person”. Section 3(2)(a) says the House Committee may appoint “a person” as controlling officer. There is no requirement that this person be a police officer, a security guard, or a public servant. It could be a private contractor. The arrest power in s 8 would then be exercised by a private individual, not a police officer. This raises potential issues about the use of force and accountability.

8. No right to a hearing before impoundment. Section 5 allows the controlling officer to impound chattels wrongfully on the land as an occupier’s right. There is no requirement for notice or an opportunity to be heard. The vehicle can be immobilised or towed without any prior warning.

9. Boundary marks are only prima facie evidence. Section 9(2) says marks by the minister are prima facie evidence, not conclusive. However, in practice, a defendant disputing the boundary would need to produce survey evidence to rebut the presumption. The Act places the burden on the accused to challenge the boundary.

10. Successor controlling officer is substituted in proceedings. Section 7(2) can lead to confusion if the defendant is unsure who is the current controlling officer. The substitution can happen without notice to the defendant, as long as the name change is made on the court file. This might undermine the defendant’s ability to prepare a defence.

Compliance with the Parliament House Act 1962 is straightforward for most users if they follow basic rules. However, because the Act gives the House Committee and controlling officer broad discretion, the safest approach is to treat the grounds as private property with no public rights.

Obey any visible signs or instructions. The House Committee may post rules or orders (e.g., “No parking”, “No entry”, “Keep off the grass”). Even if not posted, if a controlling officer or a person acting under orders gives you an instruction, comply immediately. If you are asked to leave, leave. If you are asked to remove a vehicle, do so promptly. If you are asked not to park in the future, do not park for at least three months.

Do not drive through the grounds as a shortcut. The drive between Murray Street and Salamanca Place is specifically prohibited for use as a thoroughfare. If you need to access Parliament House for a legitimate purpose, drive directly to it and park only in designated areas. Do not use the drive to bypass traffic.

Observe the 20 km/h speed limit. This is statutory - driving faster is an automatic offence, even if no sign is posted. Also, drive carefully; dangerous driving is an offence regardless of speed.

Park only in authorised areas. There are no public parking spaces under this Act. If there are marked visitor parking spots, use them. If there are none, do not park at all. If you park and are told not to park again, comply for three months. If your vehicle is immobilised, claim it as soon as possible, but only during office hours before 10.30 a.m. on the next open day. If it is towed, pay the towing and storage costs to retrieve it. Do not attempt to break the immobilisation device - that could be criminal damage.

Carry identification. If the controlling officer or a delegate asks for your name and place of abode, provide it truthfully. Failure to do so is an offence and can lead to arrest. You are not required to provide a driver’s licence or any particular document, but you must state your name and address honestly.

Know who the controlling officer is. The controlling officer is not necessarily uniformed. However, the Act presumes that anyone acting on his or her orders has authority. If you are unsure, you can ask for confirmation, but refusing to comply while you wait for an answer could be risky. The safest approach is to comply and later seek clarification.

Keep records. If you are given a warning not to park, ask for it in writing or note the date, time, and person who gave it. The three-month prohibition runs from the date of the warning. If you are asked to leave, document the circumstances in case you need to argue “just cause or reasonable excuse” later.

Do not engage in confrontations. The controlling officer has the power to arrest you for refusing name and address, and to impound your vehicle. Resisting or arguing could lead to additional charges under the Criminal Code.

Seek permission for any non-standard activity. If you wish to hold a protest, conduct media interviews, or set up a stall, assume it is prohibited unless you have written permission from the House Committee or the controlling officer. The Act does not provide for any public use rights.

Legal advice. If you are charged with an offence, or if your vehicle has been impounded and you dispute the costs, consult a lawyer. The defence of “just cause or reasonable excuse” may apply in some circumstances, and the evidentiary provisions can be challenged. Because only the controlling officer can initiate prosecution, you may also be able to resolve the matter informally.

In summary, the Act is a low-compliance-burden statute for the average person: obey instructions, do not park, do not drive through, state your name if asked, and leave if told. The main traps are the three-month parking prohibition and the thoroughfare offence, both of which can be triggered without a posted rule. The best strategy is to treat the grounds as a private driveway - enter only with a specific purpose, follow any direction, and leave as soon as your business is done.