Jones Dail: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
Jones Dail: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
[Volume:626;Page:20908] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This debate is about the extension of the right to exercise free speech in Parliament which we call parliamentary privilege to outside Parliament as well. As members of Parliament we currently have the right to say things within Parliament about people outside Parliament without being sued. However currently if we go outside Parliament and make a statement such as: “I do not resile from the statement I made in Parliament.” we can be sued and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can find us liable for damages. 
Some members of Parliament do not like that. New Zealand First takes the view that we should restrict the right of parliamentary privilege to what is said in Parliament and that when we are outside Parliament all we should be able to say is: “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” The other parties in this Parliament want to go further than that. They want to go into greater detail about how they can extend that right of parliamentary privilege to outside Parliament. But that would not be free speech; that would be an abuse of free speech. Those members who support the Privileges Committee report want to extend the right that exists in Parliament to abuse people—if I can put it like that—to include the ability to abuse them outside Parliament without being sued. That is what this report is all about. 
There was a member of Parliament who made a defamatory statement inside Parliament. He went outside Parliament but he did not just say: “It’s true that I said that in Parliament.” He threw on a bit of salt and pepper and a bit of garnish. He built it all up and said: “I—big man; macho man—don’t resile from any of that.” It was real macho stuff. But he did not realise that he could not do that because it was an abuse of his position as a member of Parliament. 
I am in New Zealand First and we do not want to be able to do that but other members and parties—Rodney Hide Metiria Turei of the Greens Labour and National—want to be able to go outside Parliament and repeat in a broader way the defamatory abusive statements they make in Parliament. That is what this is all about. That is what Mr Jennings did—big-noting—and he got caught up in it. Those Labour members and the Greens want to keep on big-noting outside the House. 
Well New Zealand First says no. We as members of Parliament have the privilege to be able to make those statements in the House. Our judgment day comes on election day. If we abuse those rights we are out on the street. We will be turfed out. That is when our judgment day is. If members want to make those statements outside the House their judgment day should be in court. That is where their judgment day should be. They cannot have it both ways. United Future ACT National and Labour members want to have it both ways. They want to be able to say defamatory things in Parliament and be able to repeat them in a way outside Parliament. Well they are two different arenas. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Not true. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is absolutely true because Dr Mapp said that Mr Jennings should have been entitled to say what he said and not be sued. Well Mr Jennings should have been sued. The Privy Council said he was defamatory. It does not matter what Dr Mapp says about what the Privy Council said; he should read the judgment. What the Privy Council said is correct. It is as if someone were bowling to Geoffrey Boycott and say Mr Peters were the umpire. Someone comes in and bowls to Geoffrey Boycott and hits him on the pads. Winston Peters says: “You’re out Geoffrey.” and Geoffrey Boycott says: “No I’m not out. You can’t give me out.” We would tell him to look at the scoreboard and if it said he was out he was out. When the Privy Council says that one is defamatory one is defamatory. That is all there is to it. The Privy Council is the referee and the umpire. 
The other parties in this House want to be able to be defamatory inside the House and outside the House but we in New Zealand First do not support that. Listening to the Green member was quite amusing. We have just heard her repeat words about New Zealand First. But effectively what she is doing is allowing members of Parliament to repeat statements outside the House. In supporting this report that is what she is doing. To take up the Green member’s comment the Privileges Committee’s decision will effectively enable any member of Parliament to make unjust intolerant extreme or racist statements outside Parliament. A member can be asked outside Parliament whether he or she stands by the racist intolerant xenophobic etc. etc. statements the member has made and the member can say: “Yes I do and I don’t resile from them.” We should not be allowing that to happen. That is quite wrong. 
New Zealand First is opposed to the committee’s recommendation: “… to provide that no person may incur criminal or civil liability for making any oral or written statement that affirms adopts or endorses words written or spoken in proceedings in Parliament where the oral or written statement would not but for the proceedings in Parliament give rise to criminal or civil liability.” MPs should not be allowed to big-note outside the House without paying the penalty in the courts. If members big-note in the House and make a defamatory statement or even a not so defamatory statement their public—the voters—will decide the matter for them. 
Dr Mapp was saying how grateful the media will be for the Privileges Committee’s decision. Of course the media will be grateful because it will extend their right to be more and more defamatory. At times there is nothing so unctuous as newspaper reporters. They say how dreadful the behaviour in Parliament is and how members of Parliament should not say this that or the other thing but they splash it all over the newspapers. They love dwelling on it while at the same time saying how bad it is. The committee’s decision will enable the media to get a member outside the House and put him or her on radio or TV in order to relive the whole experience all over again without the media being liable in any way for the consequences of the statement given. 
I say to members of the House that it will be very very dangerous to try to live within that new rule. We know what the present rule is. It is very clear. As a lawyer I would advise a member of Parliament who may have gone over the edge in a debate one night or day and said something that perhaps was defamatory and who was then held up by a reporter outside and asked whether he or she would repeat what was said inside the House not to say a thing—not one thing at all. This particular decision if it is given effect will encourage some members to try to say something and that would be an absolutely tremendous trap. There would be an awful lot of litigation to decide what Parliament meant by allowing parliamentarians to say some sort of thing outside the House. It is best to say nothing at all. This particular provision if it is ever given legislative effect in any particular way will be an absolute trap for members of Parliament. We will create a real problem for ourselves if we adopt this provision. 
The situation is quite simple as it stands at the moment. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in his speech—and the point was confirmed by Dr Mapp—the simplest thing to do currently if one is asked about what one has said in the House is to say: “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” That is fine. However if one says: “What I said in Parliament is true.” then one is in trouble. That is exactly what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said at the opening of his speech and the point was confirmed by Dr Mapp. But my advice to any parliamentarian is just to not say anything at all because otherwise one starts to get too subtle. In the heat of the moment with the microphone under the nose and some TV interviewer having a go one is never quite sure of what one is saying let alone of remembering what one has said afterwards. I cannot really understand why parliamentarians would want this amendment but they think it will help them. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s also for the public. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is not there for the public. It is there only so that those members of Parliament who make a mistake outside the House have a better chance of not being sued for damages. That is all it gets down to. The Labour National ACT United Future and Green members of Parliament just want another safety net in case they get into trouble by saying too much on the radio or the TV. New Zealand First does not want a bar of it. 
This Chamber is where we speak. If we say something here the electors will decide for us—we should just keep our mouths shut outside the House. Those are the simple rules. We do not want to go outside the House and start abusing people. That is quite the simplest way of it even though Ms Turei said that we should be able to go outside and do that. She made an extraordinary speech; she did not really understand what she was saying. 
When the  
Independent 
 says “Parliament strikes a blow for free speech” it is not striking a blow for free speech; it is striking a blow to save millions of dollars in legal fees and damages for the newspapers and the backsides of those members of Parliament who just have not been able to control themselves when they have walked outside this Chamber.