Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
[Volume:626;Page:20895] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Anyone who listens to this debate will think that parliamentarians are taking their responsibilities very very seriously except that anyone who understands the background to this debate will know what an indictment it is on doublespeak doubletalk and worse when it comes to this Privileges Committee. The reality of course is that we have a decision of this committee that is not unanimous and those members who were on the committee—and I am one of them—knew from the word go that I was opposed to the  
Buchanan  
v  
Jennings 
 thing being considered by the committee because I believe that Jennings was guilty and I will tell members why. 
 Effective repetition as a test is a very serious test but it is totally different utterly different and utterly opposite to say the following as opposed to the last thing I will say and that is this. To say “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” is nothing like saying “What I said in Parliament is true.” All the same words are there but the reality is that the meaning is utterly different and those members should know it. 
Mr Jennings said that what he said in Parliament was true. He said: “I don’t resile from anything I said.” In short he was affirming and reaffirming his belief that what he had said was correct. That is utterly different from someone saying “It is a fact I said that in Parliament.” or “It is true I said that in Parliament.” 
Why those members of the committee should be brought to account is to explain how they have had a Damascus experience on this matter. What makes the Jennings case special when he was as guilty as sin for repeating his allegation when in fact another member of Parliament—namely myself—went to this committee and those arrogant sods had the effrontery to say: “Well why don’t you suck it and see.”? 
Pita Paraone 
: Is that what they said? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what they said. If members look at the decision of the Privy Council appeal with regard to the case of  
Jennings 
 v 
 Buchanan 
 the first reference to  
Peters 
 v  
Cushing  
is on page 18. It is dealt with in a short paragraph that states: “For his first cause of action”—that is Cushing—“based on these defamatory remarks”—that is what he claimed—“the plaintiff could not succeed with relying on the naming of him in the House. This was held rightly in the opinion of the board to be impermissible.” So tell me how come I got sued and how come I had all those cases all the way up to the Court of Appeal where I was recommended to get a strike-out at the District Court? I went to my parliamentary colleagues and they would not raise a muscle. The Privy Council is saying that I am innocent and people like Mr Robson his party Labour and National— 
Edwin Perry 
: Hidden agenda. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They did their best to bankrupt me. What do members think of that? They talk about lofty principles which they are forever going to be fighting for for the rest of their parliamentary life! If people believe that they will believe anything. This is what the Court of Appeal said about that case: “Thus the defendant had to be free to name the plaintiff in Parliament if he judged it right to do so without fear of adverse civil consequences. Such a case is however to be distinguished from a case such as the case of Jennings a precedent case where the extra-parliamentary confirmation followed the parliamentary publication.” 
How do members like that? What will Mr Robson say about that or his colleagues the Labour Party and people like Mr Caygill who sat on that committee and told me to suck it and see and $250000 later they sit there with that precious lazy look on their face as though they are men of honour? What a disgrace! 
I shall tell members what I see in this judgment. I shall go back to it because it is very pertinent. This is the matter I brought to the Privileges Committee on 11 June 1996. This is what the committee said amongst other things: “Mr Peters seeks to distinguish  
Hyams 
 v  
Peterson 
 on two grounds—first that in that case identification in the House occurred before any defamatory statement was made”. What does the Court of Appeal state right there? It states that I am right on that matter for a start and that illustrious little committee should not be given any respect whatsoever when it comes to doing a thing that is honourable and right or upholding the law. 
The committee went on to state: “first that in that case identification in the House occurred before any defamatory statement was made and secondly that no member was a party to the action and hence the member’s statement was there called into question.” It stated: “Judge Willy”—this is a District Court judge I might add not a High Court judge a Court of Appeal judge or a Privy Council judge—“has rejected Mr Peters’ argument” and that I therefore had invited the committee to intervene. It is a great committee when one thinks about it. It goes on: “What this committee has to determine is whether to recommend that the House should seek to intervene as amicus curiae.” What did it do? It could not wait to try to bankrupt the member and they would not raise a finger. 
Here is what it went on to state: “A decision to intervene should never be made lightly and only when it is in the public interest to do so.” Where is the apology for the disgraceful victimisation of a member of Parliament simply because he did not hold to their views about flogging off all the State assets to every foreigner and every one of their friends and hiding every bit of corrupt action in this country and that is how the case started in the first place? 
The decision goes on to state: “The House’s role is in an appropriate case to protect its privileges if a case of sufficient importance arises and if it appears that the court can profit from arguments adduced on behalf of the House.” Tell me how was Jennings’ case more meritorious than mine? It was not was it? 
Dail Jones 
: He lost. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Of course he lost. I had to appeal all the way back to the High Court. There were two courts. I had already been to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal said to me: “No Mr Peters we think that a District Court can decide this issue on a case such as a strike-out.” and then a bum at the District Court was saying that the Court of Appeal does not know what he is doing. That is what was going on and there was a Privileges Committee with experienced members of Parliament saying: “We’ll ignore the Court of Appeal. We’ll just go out there and see whether we can get this guy stiffed up as hard as we can.” That is what happened. 
The committee went on to state that it “does not consider that the conditions for the House to intervene are satisfied here.” No they rushed off to defend Prebble in London even though he was not a member. He was just plain Richard Prebble citizen. They rushed to the Privy Council at all that expense and paid for it themselves to defend him but they could not raise a finger for a member who had a meritorious case. 
Then of course they joined this action. At all points they made sure that they were represented. Is that not amazing. There is a word for that that starts with “h” and it stinks. 
There was a clear attempt on the part of one of the litigants to question the motives behind statements. Members should listen to this. They were distinguishing my case: “In Prebble’s case there was a clear attempt on the part of one of the litigants to question the motives behind statements that members had made in the House. There is no evidence that such a question will arise in the present case.” Members should look at the District Court judgment against me. I did not turn up of course. I knew it was a contempt of this Parliament. I knew that it was a breach of my civil rights. I knew the Bill of Rights 1689 was being held in contempt by that court but not one of those flash Harrys over there or behind me in that committee was prepared to raise a finger. Therefore I am utterly opposed to this report because it goes far too far. They seek to usurp to themselves a right that no other citizen can have. 
If one says: “It is true I said that in Parliament.” one should be safe as I was eventually proven to be safe. But if one says: “What I said in Parliament is true.” one should not be.