Or evidence under privelege in The Senate which most "givers" are prior warned of contempt;
The principal immunity is the freedom of parliamentary debates and proceedings from question and impeachment in the courts, the most significant effect of which is that members of Parliament cannot be sued or prosecuted for anything they say in debate in the houses. The principal powers are the power to compel the attendance of witnesses, the giving of evidence and the production of documents, and to adjudge and punish contempts of the house.
Is evidence thus assumed to be sworn because of the contempt provisions?