Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
[Volume:625;Page:20494] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I must say that having read the report and its conclusions I entirely agree. I want to say how delighted I am after all this time to find that I am surrounded by colleagues who would rush to defend their rights that go all the way back to the Bill of Rights 1688. [ 
Interruption 
] It says 1688 in this document. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s always been wrong. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No it has not always been wrong. Lawyers would more likely go for the accurate date than historians who could somehow get confused as to when it came into force. [ 
Interruption 
] There the member goes but he is not right. It is recited by the legal fraternity as being 1688. Do members know what is said about historians? 
Here is my point: it is wonderful that I am surrounded by colleagues who would rush to shelter behind those great rights that were conferred hundreds of years ago on ourselves and on our profession. I know very well a case in which a member of Parliament was involved. He made a speech in Parliament about a member of the public then went outside and all he said was that people had seen that person on TV and that they had seen him and that they could make up their own mind. The lawyers had to link the parliamentary speech to get any case up at court except that the person who claimed to be offended sued for only $50000 so that he could get a District Court hearing. Why would he want that? I do not know. 
The other party to the case decided to take the matter all the way to the Court of Appeal on the basis that it was a very serious case and that it required a much higher court to decide. The Court of Appeal said to that very worthy MP that it thought a District Court could decide that issue on a case or action such as a strike out. The Court of Appeal told a member of Parliament to go back to the District Court where he was bound to have his case struck out. But down at the District Court something went wrong and the other man won. So the poor member of Parliament had to go to the High Court on appeal. He won half the case. Round about then the money ran out. About seven other legal cases were going on at the same time so members can see what I mean. 
Darren Hughes 
: How many did the member win? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I won every one of them. With this one here I got only halfway because I could not afford to go back to the Court of Appeal where I am certain I would have got justice. In fact one might say that like Cassius Clay I am about 21 and nought. That is a serious contender! 
But here is my point: when I went to the Privileges Committee back then—and this is why I am very curious about this conclusion—I was told by members of that committee including people like Lange and Caygill to suck it and see. That is right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later they told me to suck it and see. Meanwhile of course I remind members that we as a Parliament rushed all the way to the Privy Council in London to defend the rights of a person who was not even a member of Parliament—namely Richard Prebble. That is the history of this Parliament. 
So I am delighted today to know that I am surrounded all of a sudden in 2005 by members who understand the majesty and romance of their profession and the great historic privilege that has befallen us all of a sudden. 
Motion agreed to.