Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
[Volume:626;Page:20899] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am also a member of the Privileges Committee. First I want to thank the chair and the select committee staff the other members on the committee and particularly the Clerk of the House who provided the committee with exceptional advice and assistance in dealing with such a serious issue. 
This report concerns the extent to which members of Parliament can affirm outside the Parliament potentially defamatory statements made inside the Parliament. Parliamentary privilege is a very old principle established to protect the freedom of speech of members of Parliament in the House. It derives from article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 which prevents proceedings in Parliament from being impeached or questioned in court. This right ensures that MPs are able to explore debate and investigate within Parliament any relevant issues and concerns without fear of legal proceedings being brought against them. This privilege plays a crucial role in what we like to think is our open and transparent democracy. 
The issue before the Privileges Committee arose out of legal proceedings taken against Owen Jennings for a statement he made in the House. While in Parliament Owen Jennings made a defamatory comment about the actions of an employee of the Wool Board. That statement was protected by parliamentary privilege but later Mr Jennings said to a reporter outside Parliament that he did not resile from his claim about the official’s relationship. The employee took an action in defamation against Mr Jennings on the basis that because he said to the reporter he did not resile from the defamatory statement he was effectively repeating it. 
Mr Jennings pleaded the protection of parliamentary privilege but eventually the Privy Council agreed with the employee that by saying he did not resile from his statement Mr Jennings had effectively repeated his statement outside the House and therefore his statement was not protected by parliamentary privilege. Now the law is that if members of Parliament say they do not resile from what they said without repeating the defamatory words in any way they can still be held liable in defamation proceedings. 
John Carter is quite right in raising the concern that this ruling will also now apply to members of the public who come before select committees. For many people outside this House parliamentary privilege is an unjustifiable protection that allows MPs to get away with saying vile defamatory and inflammatory things in the House without suffering any consequences. Those who are the subject of those comments suffer the most as they have virtually no ability to force a retraction or apology from the MP. They do not always have access to the media and are not necessarily able to tell their side of the story to the public. Their reputations can be seriously and permanently impugned with their having no recourse at all. 
The Privileges Committee did consider Parliament’s internal controls on the abuse of freedom of speech. It said that such persons can comment on any accusations and that the provisions in the Standing Orders strike an appropriate balance. But I want to consider in more detail those internal controls. There is no doubt that parliamentary privilege comes with a responsibility. It should not be used to incite ethnic tensions. It should not be used to make personal attacks for political purposes that serve only the interests of the MP and not those of the community. Many MPs are careful and measured in their use of privilege but many are not. 
Just this week New Zealand First has named various individuals and impugned their reputations suggesting that they are part of the Saddam Hussein regime. The truth of those accusations will come out in due course but we must remember that those accusations were made under the protection of parliamentary privilege. We must ask whether those individuals are being named their places of residence identified and their families exposed to xenophobic abuse for legitimate community purposes or simply to drive up ethnic tensions and to use those people and their families as scapegoats to justify a draconian election immigration policy that is even worse than the dawn raid crimes committed against the Pacific Island community. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech but Winston Peters to her right and New Zealand First members all around her are interjecting continuously. 
Dail Jones 
: That’s not true. I didn’t say a word. Neither did Winston Peters. 
Rodney Hide 
: Now they interrupt on points of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that points of order are to be heard in silence. 
Rodney Hide 
: When the member giving a speech has people behind and beside her interjecting continuously it makes it very very difficult for her to speak and it is against the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not really need any help but I will hear the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all Mr Hide’s complaint is not correct with regard to a number of the members about whom he made it. I am happy to say that I was interjecting. If that member gets on her feet and starts accusing people of raising xenophobic expectations and all sorts of racism she will get bounced around this House because she is not telling the truth and is saying something highly inflammatory herself. She is bound to get that reaction. That is what previous Speakers would have ruled on these Standing Orders. Why should that member not have the same treatment? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. The second part of your remarks on the point of order actually got into debating material. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 57/5 which states that back-benchers should not interject when they are in close proximity to the member speaking. It is a longstanding convention. The reason is quite simple: it muffles the microphones. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Are those people being used by some parties as scapegoats to justify a draconian immigration policy—a policy that rivals the unjust dawn raid crimes that were committed against the Pacific Island community in the 1970s? Are the actions of New Zealand First a highly irresponsible use of parliamentary privilege? How are MPs to be held to account for pejorative prejudiced statements made within Parliament? 
One mechanism is that under the Standing Orders a person who is impugned may respond to the allegations recorded in  
Hansard 
. While that may be useful it does not hold the MP himself or herself to account. An MP may take a complaint to the Privileges Committee if it fits into one of the established grounds but again the person impugned does not get an effective defence. 
The Green Party has been a strong advocate for the establishment of a member of Parliament code of conduct to be incorporated into the Standing Orders setting out the standard of behaviour that we and the community expect in this House. This code would be enforceable as an internal control within Parliament. It would assist in controlling the currently very high level of unpleasantness aggression and verbal abuse that simply would not be tolerated in any classroom playground workplace or home in this country. 
Of course the community has other opportunities to hold members of Parliament to account for their irresponsible misuse of parliamentary privilege—at the ballot box. New Zealanders expect a much higher standard of behaviour from their highest and most privileged representatives than for example that demonstrated by Winston Peters who used the term “Ying Tong” to refer to Asian members of the New Zealand community. That sort of intolerant vicious extreme abuse is not acceptable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect you ask us not to interject but when a member and a new member at that gets to her feet and starts talking about parliamentary standards—she does not say of course whether that includes pot smoking marijuana and every other illegal activity— 
Dail Jones 
: And what else she does over the holidays. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: She does not say what else she is going to do with her holidays—going around universities and cursing and swearing using the foulest language. If that is the standard of Parliament now— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will come to the point of order. This is debating material. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Then she makes an allegation with regard to “Ying Tongs” and Asians. That cannot be correct can it? Asia goes all the way to Turkey and only certain people in the whole of Asia would have that sort of name. Of course that member would not know that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member again to Speaker’s ruling 35/3 which deals with misrepresentation. If the member feels that he has been misrepresented then he does not take a point of order now; he waits until the end of the speech. He should also look at Standing Order 106. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That sort of intolerant vicious extremist abuse is not acceptable in this community and it is not acceptable for members of Parliament to espouse. 
Parliamentary privilege is a very important constitutional protection and responsibility. The Privileges Committee which has considered the issue in great depth recognises both the freedom of speech principles and the public interests in the fair and responsible use of privilege. The committee recommends that the Legislature Act be amended to return Parliament effectively to the situation that existed prior to the Privy Council ruling. 
The Green Party agrees with the principle of free speech. Should such legislation come before the House the Green Party would give it very serious consideration in light of the mischief it is designed to remedy and the public interest in retaining freedom of speech and protecting members of the public from unjust unfounded intolerant and extremist personal attacks.