Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:18003] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Let me be clear: nothing I am about to say is sub judice. I have the transcript of an interview by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) of Wayne Crapper one of Simunovich Fisheries’ former senior skippers. Reading from that transcript now I see that Wayne Crapper claims that his former boss Peter Simunovich told him to lie to the special select committee that had been set up to investigate Simunovich Fisheries’ scampi fishing practices. He says: “It was made quite clear to me that I had to lie otherwise I wouldn’t be doing”— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not have any particular knowledge of or interest in the substantive matters at stake here but what I do have is a very fresh recollection of the Speaker’s ruling that was handed down earlier today which made quite clear that under Standing Order 111 that kind of information does in the judgment of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the New Zealand Parliament pose a risk of prejudice of a matter that is sub judice. The member has just attempted to introduce more information than he introduced yesterday. Mr Assistant Speaker I ask you to reflect on the fact that if it was too much yesterday it must logically be too much today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It pays to know something about current cases before the courts in New Zealand. That is a current case I understand to have been brought against TVNZ by Simunovich Fisheries—and for a quantum sum seeing that it is a company. So it is sub judice. Mr Hide needs to do some homework for a change. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that all members are honourable members. Their word is unreservedly accepted in this House and all will get a fair and equitable opportunity to address the business of the House within the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings. I am informed by Mr Peters that the issue is sub judice so I have to take his word—I am bound by that— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No you don’t. You’ve got to take Rodney’s word as well. Why do you take one not the other? You’re supposed to be a fair and impartial chairman. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee please I have not finished. If anything by way of corruption is being alleged then I would refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 25/5 and I will quote from it: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Like members I am governed by Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders which have been part of our parliamentary practice for more than 100 years. I ask members to recognise that when they address this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During your ruling you were repeatedly interrupted by Mr Brownlee who I note has interrupted me three times now in my first sentence. After you warned him he interrupted you twice again. Can I ask whether you accept that is acceptable behaviour in the House or whether you are going to require him at least to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will run the House my way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let me withdraw and apologise for any offence you may have taken at my outburst but I am somewhat perplexed. We are going through a series of points of order simply because Mr Hide is choosing to read out a transcript from a television show that has been broadcast in New Zealand. Mr Cunliffe was so wide of the mark and obviously tuned up to be particularly sensitive to these matters today that it made him look rather silly. I think it would be rather silly if the Chair were to rule that someone cannot read in this House a transcript of a broadcast television programme. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the case is absolutely clear. We have received an indication that the particular transcript is the subject of a defamation action. An attempt by Mr Hide to avoid the defamation laws by repeating in this House allegations that are the subject of an action and—certainly in the view of counsel for Mr Peters—defamatory is the very thing that the Standing Orders are designed to prevent this House from doing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Standing Orders are extremely clear. Matters that cannot be raised are matters that are prejudicial to a particular person. No one could conclude that from anything Mr Hide has said today. Indeed Mr Peters has informed the House that the particular court case relates to a company not to an individual person. Even on that ground we would say that the Standing Orders make it absolutely clear that the reading of a transcript from a television programme that has been broadcast is surely within the bounds of this Parliament’s Standing Orders. If is not then we are surely an outfit that is a bit like the three blind mice—and completely deaf and dumb as well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The fact is that Mr Brownlee quite by accident has put his finger right on the nub of this matter. It is that transcript that is the subject of the defamation case and that case is alive as we speak. It is the very exact item that forms the nub of the matter on which the defamation case against TVNZ has been brought. I want to say this: there is no way that TVNZ or Radio New Zealand or anyone is going to lose inside the court and seek to win outside in public opinion by this most devious and obstructive device—namely to get a member of Parliament to run their case outside the court that they are not prepared to face inside the court. Those are the facts. [ 
Interruption 
] The Standing Orders relate to the constitution of this country I say for that member’s sake but of course he knows nothing about that being one of the only members to have infringed them. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: There are two points that arise from Mr Brownlee’s contribution. The first is his confusion that a company cannot be a legal person. Of course it can and therefore is covered by the sub judice rules just as any other legal person would be. 
Mr Assistant Speaker I draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 27/1 27/2 and 28/2. They are no doubt germane to the comprehensive ruling that was handed down by the Speaker earlier today. The first ruling makes clear that as Parliament often asks the courts to uphold its privileges it must be particularly vigilant in upholding the privileges of the courts. The judgment therefore is the Speaker’s not the member’s as to whether there is a threat to that. Speaker’s ruling 27/2 makes the point that we are held to a higher standard than the media are and Speaker’s ruling 28/2 makes the point that the application of the law to a particular case—or the facts of the case—is within the purview of the sub judice rule. That is what is important here. Again I have no view on the substantive facts of the case but as a matter of process I observe that a member of Parliament is using parliamentary privilege to elucidate in the public domain matters that are the subject or may be the subject of a matter that is sub judice. Whatever any of us might think I believe that this House is bound by the comprehensive ruling that Speaker Wilson handed down earlier today. Mr Assistant Speaker I would ask you to uphold that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I have not alleged any corruption in my speech. I took the precaution of seeking advice before giving this speech—given yesterday’s ruling—to see whether anything I was saying would be sub judice. The advice I received was that it was not. I think I should be allowed to continue my speech. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With the greatest of respect the transcript is to do with an eventual witness before a parliamentary inquiry but at that time the subject of a television documentary. It is that which the company has sued on. It is that allegation that the member seeks to repeat now in this House and it is the nub of the defamation suit by this company. Whatever advice he got it must have been from a plumber or a carpenter but it could not have been from a lawyer. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I—[ 
Interruption 
] I crave the members’ indulgence. I refer members to the ruling that was given earlier today. As I have already indicated the general application of the law may be discussed but matters that are material to a particular case currently before the courts may not. In this regard the House sets itself a high standard to protect the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. In relation to a particular case before the courts there can be no discussion of antecedent circumstances the nature of the action filed circumstances surrounding the action—in other words matters that may arise in evidence—the possible outcome of the case or the circumstances of the parties to the action. I have made the ruling and it is for the Speaker alone to decide. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was the ruling that you have just put the exact ruling that the Speaker gave the House today? None of us have had the time to consider it. If it is if that is to be a new Speaker’s ruling then it is a very very serious step indeed. It would seem to be quite counter to the Speakers’ rulings; indeed it is counter to even the ruling that Mr Cunliffe relied on moments ago and of course to 27/2 which states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general but a particular case before the court may not be referred to.” Mr Assistant Speaker if you take the full interpretation of what you have just said to us it would mean that we are totally gagged on any matters that relate to the law in New Zealand. That has to be an utter absurdity. This is Parliament and we are the place where laws are made. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Don’t be ridiculous. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Peters interjects as he often does when he has a bit of trouble on his side and says that I am being ridiculous. Well I tell him to read the Speaker’s ruling then read what the Speaker said. I tell you what: at any other time a parliamentarian with that member’s experience would be defending the right to speak freely. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I want to quote from the ruling that was given earlier today. “The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders and it is the Speaker who determines its application—Speaker’s ruling 29/3. It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. That is clear from Speaker’s ruling 27/2. However nothing said in the House should prejudice however slightly the decision of any court. That point is made in Speaker’s ruling 28/5.” That is as I have been advised. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure you that of the list you read out—of the Speaker’s ruling that you have just read—nothing I have said or am saying contradicts any of it. 
Dail Jones 
: I think there is some confusion here. The sub judice rule applies to every court case before the courts. I think Mr Hide is trying to say that because this court case—and I am saying it in general terms and on a hypothetical basis—does not involve Mr Peters he therefore can refer to the court case. Well that does not apply. Every court case in New Zealand is sub judice as far as this Parliament is concerned. Parliament cannot interfere in any court case whether or not a member of Parliament is involved in it. I think that is where the confusion may be arising on the part of some members. So if it is XYZ against ABC who are not members of this House we still cannot debate the pros and cons of that particular court case but we can— 
Phil Heatley 
: Read the Standing Orders. 
Dail Jones 
: I have and I am trying to explain them to the rather dense member from Whangarei. I am sure you understand the situation Mr Assistant Speaker and I would ask you to take that into account and explain it to those members who do not understand the situation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Jones. A number of Speakers’ rulings have been referred to today. Speaker’s ruling 27/2 is quite specific. It states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general but a particular case before the court may not be referred to.” It is quite specific. Mr Hide I am governed by Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I can assure Dail Jones that I understand perfectly what he said. I will continue my speech. 
Wayne Crapper says he lied to the select committee about not misreporting— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect this transcript is the core of the case brought by Simunovich Fisheries—as I understand it and have read it—against Television New Zealand. Television New Zealand should not be allowed to not front up at court and instead try to run its case outside the court. Mr Dail Jones has outlined why Parliament has respected this sub judice rule—and for centuries now. It goes to the core of justice in our country. Mr Hide may be unaware of its ramifications or its reasons but he should not be allowed to go on offending it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Again I can only refer to the ruling that was given previously. “The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. The rationale behind the rule is important. This is the implicit acknowledgment by the legislature above all other institutions that it should take extreme care not to undermine confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes by intruding its views in individual cases. The House applies a more rigorous inhibitory standard on itself than applies to the media in reporting judicial proceedings. That is not anomalous given the constitutional relationship between the House and the courts. The House and the news media are not in the same situation.” That is McGee on page 192. Mr Hide all I can say is that if you refer to something that is sub judice then that is not in order. It is not in order; you cannot refer to that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have said—I think half a dozen times—that it is not sub judice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Hide I can only accept the word—will the member please be seated—of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who tells me that the issue is sub judice. I am only the referee; I have no other course of action left. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You had better now explain to the House why you are prepared to take Mr Peters’ word but not Mr Hide’s. Mr Hide has said that it is not sub judice—he has taken advice. Mr Peters stands up and says: “Oh no sorry it is sub judice. You have to stop it.” Well Mr Assistant Speaker you are the Speaker and there is an obligation to make a decision here. But to stand up and say that you have to take the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters ahead of the word of Mr Hide is unacceptable. There has to be some reason for it. Is Mr Hide less honest— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. You have made your point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yesterday in this House I was challenged on the question of whether a case was sub judice. Today I provided the Speaker with both the evidence of the case and the court receipts of its filing. Mr Hide was wrong yesterday. He gets up in the House today and says he has taken advice on the sub judice rule. He did not even know whether the case was current—on the very transcript that is the critical evidence on which this case is being brought! That is why Mr Assistant Speaker you should not take Mr Hide’s word or Mr Brownlee’s—because it is a pathetic repetition of a total lack of understanding of the laws of this country. Mr Finlayson over there knows what I am saying; he is a senior lawyer. Dr Mapp knows as well that what they are hearing here is political posturing of the worst sort that has no relationship whatsoever with the law. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have again been informed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the issue is sub judice. I have no other course of action left to me. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I did actually call before the member; sit down you buffoon! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Both members will be seated! Mr Brownlee I heard Mr Mallard call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The one additional point to your ruling that I think should be made is that in the earlier ruling by the Speaker this case was accepted as being sub judice after discussions yesterday. Any reversal of that position would be I think very very serious. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker you are getting us to a situation where you are saying you are prepared to take the word of a Government Minister over any other member in this House. What evidence do you have to say that Mr Hide is wrong? No one has heard him. There has been just an indication of what he is talking about and Mr Peters has gone off the deep end and so have a number of other Government members and Ministers. So what is the Chair basing the decision on? Is it that the member is the Rt Hon Winston Peters and therefore above question; is it that he is a Government Minister and therefore has to be listened to; or is it that you just do not like Mr Hide and have a fear of what he is going to say? 
Dail Jones 
: The reason we have this rule is to ensure that no miscarriage of justice takes place because it would be quite easy for any member of Parliament to stand up and reveal matters relating to a court case the member’s word that it was not part of a court case to be accepted and the very next day the case could be totally damaged. The case has been mentioned to Mr Hide:  
Simunovich Fisheries Ltd and others v Television New Zealand Ltd and others 
. That authority has been given; you have been given that information as well Mr Assistant Speaker. It is obvious you have evidence on which to base your decision and obviously you are trying to avoid a miscarriage of justice. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Much has been made of the sub judice rule. There is a principle that is equally as powerful and important for this Parliament and that is the right of free speech. What we are seeing attempted is the use of a very broad interpretation of the sub judice rule to disallow any debate around any matter that is across any court case. If that ruling is to hold what we will do in this Parliament is create a perverse incentive for anybody who has been up to no good and does not want it debated in Parliament to simply file very broad proceedings that can potentially withdraw a matter from political debate for 5 or 10 years. These are matters that relate to a time more than 5 years ago. I urge you Mr Assistant Speaker to take extreme caution in taking a very broad interpretation of the sub judice rule—far broader than any I have heard in my 18 years in this place—and shutting down Rodney Hide from being able to express freely in this Parliament his right of free speech. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am going to give a ruling Mr Hide. I agree with the member that freedom of speech is important; indeed it is vital to a functioning legislature. But we also have the sub judice rule for the reasons outlined. I invite members to comply with the rules and to proceed with the debate. I am guided by the Speaker’s ruling on this and by the fact that Mr Peters has indicated to the House that the issue is sub judice. His word is his bond. If it is found to be anything else then there are consequences that follow from that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure you that nothing I am saying here today bears any relationship to the questions I was asking yesterday to which the Speaker’s ruling applies. This is new material. I have not mentioned any of the things that you discussed. I have sought advice: the case is not sub judice. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised by the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the issue is sub judice and I invite members to comply with the rules and to proceed with the debate. The issue is sub judice. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Wayne Crapper told Television New Zealand he was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —instructed by lawyers— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. There is a point of order. Mr Hide your microphone has been turned off. I have advised the member that the issue is sub judice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just witnessed an absolute contempt for your office as Speaker in this House; Mr Hide kept on reading out his speech regardless. What is happening here of course is that this case is sub judice on two levels. It is the nub of my case against TVNZ Radio New Zealand and others. Mr Hide knows that the people who have given him this information know that but of course he has not told us who gave him the advice that this issue was not sub judice. He has not told anybody today who told him that what he is about to do is not sub judice. The essence of the matter is that it is the key core heart of the case being brought against TVNZ by two complainants and I am one. So Mr Assistant Speaker if he seeks to carry on in this deliberately obtuse way I think you should sit him down and curtail his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. I just ask Mr Hide to give an assurance that he is talking about a different case from the one that is sub judice. If he cannot give me an assurance on that then I am going to apply the sub judice rule and that means the issue cannot be discussed. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can give you that assurance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So the member has given me an assurance that he is talking about a different case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the question needs to be something a little more direct—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. This is a rather serious situation and I ask members to take it seriously. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is not a question of whether the member is referring to a case but whether he is referring to material that is material to a case. I think that is the key point and should probably have been the question that you asked him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am asking Mr Hide to give me an assurance that he is talking about a different case and not the case that is before the courts at the present stage. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it would be helpful if you were to tell us which case you understand to be the sub judice case. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think that is a matter for Mr Peters to— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it is not. You have ruled from the Chair today Mr Assistant Speaker that a case is sub judice. We are simply asking you which one. To say that it is whatever one that Mr Peters says leaves the Chair out of control in this House and Mr Peters in control of this House. That is unacceptable. Maybe we should take a short break while you find out for the assistance of the House which case is sub judice. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that they all are. That is the point. All cases are sub judice and I am giving you an assurance that what I am saying today is not sub judice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have to take the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who has said that the issue is sub judice. This House needs to recognise the constitutional arrangements under which we operate. We could not operate otherwise. I am guided by the Speakers’ rulings the Standing Orders and the ruling that was given by the Speaker today. The issue is sub judice and cannot be debated in the House and there the matter ends. We will carry on with the debate.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two things. Firstly can you explain to the House why Mr Peters’ word is taken ahead of that of another honourable member? That is simple. Secondly what is it about the Speaker’s ruling that refers to a specific case? The ruling does not; it refers to speaking about matters that are sub judice. Mr Hide as an honourable member has said that what he is about to say is not sub judice. So the position that you are in is saying you believe Mr Hide or saying you believe Mr Peters. What are the criteria for deciding that Mr Peters is somehow more elected and more honourable than Mr Hide is? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I understand that the— 
Dail Jones 
: Mr Hide is right and Mr Brownlee is wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please sit down. I understand that Mr Hide has given an assurance that it is a different case—that it is not the defamation case. Is that correct Mr Hide? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yeah. Exactly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is not the defamation case. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Then I call the honourable member. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have missed the point. As Mr Hide has acknowledged every case is sub judice. It does not matter who the parties are; every case is sub judice. So if you have asked Mr Hide whether it is the case involving so-and-so well that is irrelevant. Every court case in the New Zealand courts is sub judice. So no one in this House can refer to any court case I say to Mr Brownlee. That is the point. It does not matter whether it was the case yesterday or another case whatsoever; if it is a case before the courts Mr Assistant Speaker—and you have read out the rulings—no member of the House can refer to it. No member can refer to any case at all before the courts. So what Mr Hide has to indicate is that the evidence he is using is not involved in a court case. But if Mr Peters can recognise the evidence as being involved in a court case then you have to accept what Mr Peters has said because clearly his knowledge of the matter exceeds that of Mr Hide. It is simple as that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I again advise the House that as I understand it Mr Hide has given me an assurance that it is not the defamation case. If it is not the defamation case then he can proceed. However I caution the member that if he raises issues that are sub judice he cannot do that; otherwise this House will not function. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you for that Mr Assistant Speaker. I very much appreciate your ruling. 
Mr Crapper says on the tape that he lied to the select committee about not misreporting fish caught about the dumping of quota species and about throwing overboard 12 years of his personal diaries. He was told to get rid of the diaries by Simunovich— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry Mr Hide. The issue has been raised again by Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Hide is now treating you with contempt—and this House as well. He is reading from key critical information that was the subject of the complaint and remains the core issue in the complaint before the courts of this country. It is also a key issue in respect of the case that I have brought against TVNZ Radio New Zealand and a few others as well. The reality is that your having warned him thus far I think you should tell Mr Hide that he is on his last warning or the speech will be stopped. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think there is only one way that we can sort this out and that is to find out exactly what everyone is talking about. It would seem to me that if you just rule Mr Hide out then given his assurances you are in fact favouring Mr Peters’ view of things ahead of that of Mr Hide and indeed a number of other people in the House and that would be quite unfair. I seek leave for the House to take a 5-minute adjournment to give you time to sort out exactly what the parties here think is being talked about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes there is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I objected to leave being given because Mr Brownlee has clearly shown by his demonstration today that he knows nothing of these cases or the facts around them. What I would like to tell you is this: there was a television documentary on Simunovich Fisheries; the transcript that we are hearing from Mr Hide is regarding the TVNZ documentary— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The evidence that Mr Hide is reading from and repeating in this House is the critical part of that case. It also forms of course part of my case and I was challenged in the House yesterday by these same people in the same arrogant and outrageous way to prove that I had a case before the courts of this country. Today I did. I provided the Clerk of the House—and your adviser can confirm this—with the filing date documents and the court receipt. Those members have never apologised for the allegation yesterday that I was somehow misleading the House. Those are my bona fides. Perhaps they can show theirs now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I say again Mr Assistant Speaker that perhaps Mr Peters is right. But it would be nice for us all to know whether he is right or wrong and if we did adjourn for 5 minutes that could be sorted out. I do not know what the Government is so worried about and I do not know what Mr Peters is so worried about but if it is so easy to sort out if he is going to be exonerated and if everyone else is going to be proved wrong why would we not pursue that course of action? So I seek leave again for the House to adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The member has a point of order. Gee; we’re not that much like the Wild West are we? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order Mr Brownlee! 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I draw your attention directly to Standing Order 111. The sub judice rule is not so broad that we can make absolutely no reference whatsoever to cases before the courts. The rule is more limited than that. The reference has to be “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Merely repeating for instance a matter that is on the public record—a television documentary for instance—or referring to a statement of claim or a statement of defence or anything of that nature does not amount to real or prejudicial danger to the case. Mr Assistant Speaker I refer you to the Standing Order which states that it has to appear to the Speaker that there is “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Referring to something that has been in a television documentary could not possibly be any level of prejudice. Mr Assistant Speaker I ask you to apply the ruling as it is written; otherwise you simply will restrict all reference to any case whatsoever. That cannot be the effect of the sub judice rule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have to come back again to what Mr Peters has said. He has indicated to the House that the evidence that Mr Hide is talking about is a critical part of the case. I can only take the honourable member’s word for that. That is how this place operates. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it’s not. Point of order— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Maybe I can help Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am on my feet. Both of you will be seated please. I will ask again for an absolute assurance that the issue and the wording the member is using are not sub judice. If they are sub judice Mr Hide then you will not be able to continue along that line. It is as simple as that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I give my absolute assurance that it is not sub judice. 
Dail Jones 
: How does he know? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I think we have a problem here. I am bound by conventions to accept the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who has indicated to the House that the issue that is being discussed is critical to the case. I have no other course of action available to me. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure you that this material forms no part of the case of TVNZ and Simunovich Fisheries or Winston Peters and it could not possibly do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I invite the member to continue his speech but if it is sub judice Mr Hide you know what the consequences are. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. Wayne Crapper told TVNZ he was instructed by lawyers acting for Simunovich Fisheries on how to prepare his affidavits and how to answer any questions put to him by the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We are going round in circles. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No we are not; we are going straight to the nub of the matter: “Wayne Crapper told TVNZ …”. That is what TVNZ repeated in its documentary and that is what it is being sued for. I am asked by members over there how I know; well because I have put enough time into it enough effort into it and a lot of money into it as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. This is a point of order; this is not a general debate. At the moment a point of order is on the floor. My patience is running out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I have acknowledged— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not finished. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. If you have not finished then please do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There were affidavits referred to in this matter. These are court documents. Those are the facts. The opening case has been published in the newspapers of this country as to the existence of these matters. To sit here now and claim some ignorance because you do not know then take my word for it is just not acceptable. Worse than that it is a contempt for this Parliament and I ask Mr Finlayson who would know these matters to give his colleagues some advice. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There is exactly the problem. Mr Assistant Speaker Mr Peters is saying that you cannot be moved by the plea from Mr Hide to take his word. But Mr Peters on the other hand is making exactly that plea—for you to take his word. It goes back to what I said before: what are the rules and what are the motivations for the Chair—the Speaker of the House—to accept the word of one member over the word of another? That would be a very interesting ruling for us to have. In fact it would be a disastrous ruling at the same time. The clearest way round this is for the House to take a short adjournment while you are given the opportunity to check the veracity of the claims made by both members. Either that or we could have someone else take the Chair for a short period of time while another member gave a general debate speech and you could come back— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have sought some advice. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker if you look at Standing Order 48 you will see that it is within your power to “suspend a sitting or adjourn the House if the Speaker thinks it is necessary to do so to maintain order.” I would suggest that we are at a very very critical point in proceedings and that course of action might be the best. If that is not acceptable then it would not be impossible for you to consider having Mr Hide suspend his speech for now to allow some inquiry to be made about the two positions being advanced by the two particular individuals and then at some later time perhaps in 20 minutes when someone else has concluded his or her general debate speech having Mr Hide resume his speech safe in the knowledge that his right to free speech will not be impeded by the misuse of Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The fact is—and the Clerk of the House can verify this because they went through the Clerk’s Office—the filings at the court amount to 28 pages. But what was relevant for the Clerk was to file the critical pages of those 28 pages plus a receipt from the court. That is what I am relying upon as being trusted by this House; it is not just my word but the fact that I provided the Clerk with the evidence of that and of the date it was filed which brings it inside the sub judice rule. All we are hearing from other people is their total misapprehension; they do not know what they are talking about and are trying to explain it away. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have sought advice honourable members and I will share it with the House. Both cases if there are two are sub judice; they are both currently before the courts. The Speaker is in a difficult situation. The Speaker cannot know every case before the courts. The House sets itself a high standard in this respect and as Speaker I have to have regard to the relationship between the House and the courts. If it appears that evidence relevant to a case is being read then that is not in order. In this regard I have to take Mr Peters’ word but I warn the member that there are serious consequences for misleading the Speaker in such a circumstance. The media may discuss the issue but the House does not. I ask Mr Hide to address the application of the law in general rather than the specifics of a case. If he cannot I will have to terminate his speech. I ask Mr Peters to allow Mr Hide to continue. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let me make it quite clear that what I am reading is not sub judice and is not evidence in any case. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say again that if it appears that evidence relevant to a case is being read then that is not in order and it would mean that I would have to terminate the member’s speech. I now ask Mr Peters to allow Mr Hide to continue. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: And I assure you I am following the rules. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It must be in a general sense. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He says: “He had no qualms about you lying to the select committee?”. Mr Crapper says: “None whatsoever.” “So let me get it straight. You lied to the select committee about your diaries.” “Yes.” “You’d thrown those overboard.” “Yes.” “Misappropriation.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is outrageous. I recall this documentary very very well. I recall also the inquiry very very well and I know what was filed at the court in both cases. I think it is an absolute outrage that this information which any reasonable person could understand would be contested by someone if that person was in disagreement with it because it is so serious is now being regarded in this frivolous way in this House. Mr Hide’s assurances to you are not worth the air they pass on. Ask yourself which company if it took its business seriously would not be suing on this issue if it objected to the truth of it. That is why this matter is before the court. To have him and others here despite the fact that the Clerk knows I filed today the critical evidence that was part of yesterday’s challenge by all these members—and when they have nothing left to do today they do not demur now that I did file the case on time—come up with this sort of argument is I think disgraceful and his speech should be curtailed now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind Mr Hide to address the application of the law in general. He cannot refer to specifics. If he does I will have to terminate his speech. He cannot refer to specifics; otherwise his speech will be terminated. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The transcript continues: “So you’re saying when it came time to give evidence to the select committee he told you you had to lie to cover up what they had been doing?”. “He told me I had to cover up the answers of what they and more what I was doing on those affidavits—what I’d been accused of. He wanted to make sure that they were his way not the truth.” I know that this matter is not before the courts and I know that it is not part of the evidence; it was an interview conducted in December 2004 well after the time these cases were filed. Indeed it is an interview that was never broadcast. It is an interview that I have copies of and I know that Mr Peters is nutty— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We’ve got a point of order! You can’t take another one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That was not a point of order; Mr Hide was continuing his speech. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is outrageous. Mr Hide was allowed by me and others to continue his speech and then he says that he was reading from a transcript that was never published. Could anyone imagine why not? It was because the lawyers behind this transcript knew full well what it meant; they knew that it was subject to a court case at that time that it would offend the sub judice rule and that if they published they would be joined in the action. That is what Mr Hide is trying to do today subtly through this House: to get publication; to get the sanctity of the House and parliamentary privilege around this information which the very people who gave it to him would not themselves publish back then. He does not understand just what he is asking this House to do and with what contempt he is now treating this institution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well Mr Hide has given the House an assurance; I have accepted it and I have allowed the member to continue. If Mr Hide has misled the House there are serious consequences for that action as well. So I ask Mr Hide to confirm that he is not addressing the particulars of a case that is before the court. I need that assurance because if it is Mr Hide and you are addressing this House then there are serious consequences for that action as well. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can give you that assurance Mr Assistant Speaker. This has never been injuncted; it has not been any problem whatsoever. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Mr Peters can complain because he is running scared from what is coming out here. We find in this tape that Mr Crapper said he lied to the select committee about— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think I should have to repeat this but it will be obvious to Mr Finlayson over there to Wayne Mapp and to anybody else over there who has any interest in the law of this country and this institution that the reason why they would not have published that transcript—but they seek to publish it now via this House and gain the sanctuary of parliamentary privilege and therefore free themselves to release it—was that it was to do with the central part of a case then current. I know how old this case is; I know how old my case is. The transcript is the key part of the case. But here we are with Mr Hide saying that because it was never published in 2004 it is not part of the sub judice rule. Frankly that is just nonsense as Mr Finlayson who is the senior lawyer in the National Party well knows. And I am asking him now to get up and tell his colleagues what the truth of this matter is on the fact of the sub judice rule as it applies to this case. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I do not wish to comment directly on the matter that Mr Hide and Mr Peters are arguing about at some considerable length but in the context of what Mr Hide has just said I would raise with you Mr Assistant Speaker—and further to what Mr Peters has said—another quite different point. One cannot bring inside the Standing Orders of the House something that is outside it by simply quoting what somebody outside the House said. A member cannot call someone a liar inside the House and a member cannot make something that someone outside the House be within order by quoting it inside the House. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings from the past to that effect and Mr Hide is trying to do precisely that. That is out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot get round the Standing Orders by quoting from documents. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not trying to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I find myself in a rather difficult situation. I am between Scylla and Charybdis. I have both members giving me assurances about their positions. If it is found that the case is other than the assurances that both members have given to the House both will face serious consequences arising from those assurances. I again warn Mr Hide that he has to confirm that he is not addressing the particulars of a case that is before the courts. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No Mr Assistant Speaker I am not. Happy? We have millions of dollars of— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are in a very difficult position. I think the vast majority of members of the House know that you are in a very difficult position here ruling on these matters. That kind of sarcastic comment made in front of the House by one of the two protagonists is not actually helpful. I think most people are hoping to get on with these matters and to get on to the next business which a lot of members are interested in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Hide your behaviour is coming to the stage where I will have to take action. I caution the member again that if he brings the House into disrepute and the issue is seen to be sub judice then I will terminate his speech. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. What went on here as evidenced in this interview was that millions of dollars’ worth of fish quota was stolen from New Zealanders by the misreporting of catch. We also know that our Parliament was lied to repeatedly— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was the very nub of this case. That a company had done what Mr Hide is now alleging was the subject of the documentary and Crapper was one of the key witnesses in that documentary. Mr Hide has carried on regardless of what you have told him a number of times now and has put right at issue what he was seeking to say from the very start. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. Mr Hide is entitled to address the House in general and he is doing that at this stage—in general. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. Our Parliament was lied to repeatedly at the select committee in a conspiracy to cover up the lying. It is also clear that Mr Winston Peters knew that millions of dollars’ worth of fish quota had been stolen— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not going to sit here and have Mr Hide treat this House with utter contempt saying anything he likes to try to blackguard me under the cover of this House. He can walk outside and I will take him on in the court any day starting right now but he comes inside here—big bold man—and makes his stand in front of you and I am not going to allow him to get away with it. If he wants to say that he should go outside and join TVNZ Radio New Zealand and everybody else who is being sued in this case. But he will not get the sanctuary of this House while I am sitting here when he is repeating comments that are key to the court case in which I am involved and others are involved. Also he is now accusing me inside this House of being in some way corrupt. He is not going to get away with it. I might say this though: Mr David Carter in court at every point of this case said that at no time did he ever seek to impugn the honour and integrity of Winston Peters. Is it not a strange thing what those members are prepared to do in here but when they get outside what they will say when— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All of us know because we have been dealing with this issue for some time now that allegations of corruption are not permitted. That is Speaker’s ruling 25/5. I will read it for the member’s benefit: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Making allegations of corruption is not in order. The member was running very close to doing so and he should desist. There is a proper way to raise such matters and it is not to raise them in the House—not in the House; not allegations of corruption Mr Hide. I terminated your speech last week because of a similar sort of thing. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but the transcript will show that he has already done that. He thinks stage by stage by your leniency and your fairness—in my view it is undue—he will get the story out somehow and then the media can print it. I know that strategy. It is an underhand strategy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a point of order on the floor. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and it is totally despicable but he seeks to do it. He should now be stopped; otherwise there will be uproar in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have cautioned the member about corruption. I have also told him that he was running very close to making corruption allegations and that he should desist. If Mr Peters has taken offence then I will ask Mr Hide to withdraw and apologise. Has the member taken offence? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I take offence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask Mr Hide to withdraw and apologise. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What is shocking about this case is not actually Mr Peters’ behaviour because we have come sadly to expect no less of him—sadly. He is a man who once stood for something for some principle and integrity. What is sad about this case is that a Government and a Prime Minister have been dragged into defending this fishy tale have been dragged into covering up what has gone on here with Simunovich Fisheries and these donations and Parliament is trying to shut down debate discussion and questions so that right across New Zealand anyone who expresses a contrary view to that of Helen Clark and her Government or anyone who questions criticises or wants to debate or discuss the shocking slip in standards in our democracy and in our Government as evidenced by Mr Winston Peters and his appalling behaviour— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —gets shut down outside this House and inside this House.