Interference in "the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member" by intimidation

In view of this (key content copied below), why has action not been taken against the reported intimidation of a Member of the Australian Parliament by the Prime Minister?

 By virtue of section 49 of the Constitution, the House has the ability to treat as a contempt:

    … any act or omission which obstructs or impedes … [it] … in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer … in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results … even though there is no precedent of the offence.

Whilst the House thus has a degree of flexibility in this area, section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act imposes a significant qualification:

    Conduct (including the use of words) does not constitute an offence against a House unless it 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.