Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Defamation Action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the NZSISText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Defamation Action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the NZSIS[Sitting date: 12 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):First of all I want to recognise the Attorney-General and my fellow members of the Privileges Committee who considered what was and is a very serious issue. The committee’s consideration of this issue is an example of how Parliament should work when people put the best interests of the institution they belong to and a great tradition that they have been part of establishing to the forefront and forget about party politics. It may be pure serendipity that there was no politics involved in this at all which is probably why Parliament acted as it did—not in a surprising manner but in a far too infrequently seen manner.First of all article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688 is an ageless beacon for our democracy and it is often misunderstood in terms of how important that is. The right for an MP—in short we interpret it—to speak in Parliament openly and honestly without fear of later legal action is fundamental to sound debate and the expansion of knowledge and argument on which parliamentarians collectively can make a decision. There has been over the years a slow erosion of parliamentary privilege in this countryin two respects. First of all as to the public’s understanding of it an MP is frequently portrayed as hiding behind parliamentary protection when everyone knows particularly in the press gallery that without that parliamentary protection not one media outlet would publish what that MP is saying not in terms of any consideration of the merit of what that MP is saying but simply a blanket embargo because they themselves the media fear the cost of publication being a later lawsuit. That is the first misunderstanding. Often a member of Parliament will say something in Parliament because that is the only way that the communication or media industry can actually broadcast without fear of a lawsuit what has been said.I want to emphasise that. Far too many journalists will say to you: “Why are you saying it with parliamentary privilege?”. My response always has been personally to say: “That is because you’re too gutless to report it without fear of being sued. You have all the resources you are backed by millions and you are putting that up as some sort of act of temerity or even cowardice when in fact it is a protection of you as well.” If you trace back the recent history of this country you see how often that allegation has been made when in fact at the end of the day the MP has been proven to be reserved in the extreme about the allegations he or she made.The second thing is that the courts have taken the view that their arena—and it has been a slow erosion—is the appropriate place where an MP can fairly defend him or herself for something said in Parliament. For example it may be in respect of the connectedness of a statement whereby a parliamentary speech is made first and the MP is asked about what happened in Parliament and he has merely said words to this effect: “Well you have heard him and you have heard me. Make up your own mind.” That has been as thin a connection or link needed for a court to seek to hear an action that it should not be hearing in the first place and it is an affront to parliamentary privilege in my view.It also invites the use of a gagging writ to shut down further disclosure and there have been some serious examples of that in recent time. Every one of them has failed except for one—or rather two. But that one went on appeal to the High Court and got half turned over. I am frequently met by law students all around this country who say: “Well why didn’t you go the whole way?” which is a marvellous question to ask someone when that person is financing the whole action from his own resources—after paying tax—and all himself. It is quite shocking to hear that because of course one would have loved to go the whole way to clarify the law and that is what I would like to say to the judiciary. It is as clear as daylight and the message is this: “Yes you sit there with all the resources of the taxpayer at no expense on this matter whatsoever and you’re hearing before you an MP who is funding an action all by himself or with the support of like-minded people in the community.”There are good examples of that. Nick Smith had a legal fund in respect of a defamation case he was facing that emanated out of the top of the South Island. John Banks similarly had a legal fund that emanated from I think a case relating toTruth magazine in which he was involved. The extraordinary thing about that of course is that I had one as well. That became a fund that in law I was told by this Parliament I could not have and that was the kangaroo court of the Privileges Committee the august committee that got it right this time but got it wrong back then.We all know how hypocrisy works but all I am saying to the court and to the members of the judiciary who think we are wrong is this: who is funding the MP to defend something he or she has properly put to the Parliament of the country? The answer is no one. So they—that is the judiciary—are not in the shoes of someone who sits here with a protection that is 100 years old and emanating from the UK and thank heavens for that.I also say this to my colleagues who have heard this argument before and they heard it before the Privileges Committee inquiry back in 2008. Do you understand the risk you take when you go down that path of denying an MP to obtain not for political reasons—there are no votes in it—the right to start a fund to defend him or herself and when frequently up against the very wealthy the extraordinarily wealthy? If you as an MP have ever faced millions and millions of dollars of defamation writs from some of the wealthiest people in the country then you might know what I mean. But I am sad to say that back then the committee decided to restrain and curb their rights to fight such defences and I believe they acted in a most inappropriate way.The great thing about this committee and this report is that I think there is a view across the committee that we need to correct this erosion and restore the situation to what it should be legally. We commend this to the rebalance of Parliament not on the basis of some venal self-interest but on something far more important by way of principle and that is the right of an MP whether wrong or right to honestly state his or her view in the hope that that adds to the public debate and the quality of decision making in Parliament. That is an important right. I want to thank the Attorney-General for chairing the committee in an extraordinarily competent way. Thank you.