Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10355] 
Points of Order 
Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise with you at the first available opportunity something that has occurred overnight. It relates to documents that I had tabled here yesterday afternoon following the general debate in the House. I am reading from an article that states: “Mr Peters tabled legal submissions on the BNZ deal but these were not released to the Herald because they are considered legally sensitive by the Clerk of the House David McGee.” 
This is the second time I think in this Parliament’s history that an attempt has been made not to print documents that have been tabled in this House. We had all these arguments the last time you will recall when I tabled the wine-box documents in the House and the very same parties sought to preclude the printing of them by the Office of the Clerk and the release of them to the media for the very same reasons that they have no doubt put up now. 
 This is a deadly serious matter and I have raised it at the first opportunity. The public has been denied information that was submitted at a commission of inquiry so it gets worse in that context. I do not know what has gone on behind closed doors or who has made submissions to the Clerk’s Office but I would be astonished if those submissions were made on any basis other than that which was raised last time in respect of a much wider set of documents that at that time had not been published anywhere at all. The matters I put to Parliament yesterday were all matters that have been published in one form or another—and in the case of the newspaper article obviously published. But in the case of the submissions I point out that they were made before a commission of inquiry. 
This matter is so urgent Mr Deputy Speaker that I demand the Speaker of the House come back here so that the Clerk of the House through her can tell us what is going on. It is simply not something we can abide and I think it is a denial of public access to knowledge. I do not believe there is any constitutional meritorious or legal reason for this to have happened that was not traversed or overcome the last time such challenges were made. That may have been the first time in my memory that any parties outside this House having seen documents tabled sought to use the Clerk’s Office to stop wider publication beyond this House. It is an outrage that the commission could know what is in those submissions that those who are party to the submissions could know what is in them and that parliamentarians may know what is in them yet the public and the media cannot. I think that calls for the Speaker’s return to the House and I seek leave for that to happen now to tell us why on earth that decision has been made. I so move. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that issue. You have correctly raised it at the first available opportunity. I shall seek a way forward for you not necessarily as you require but I shall seek a way forward. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification as to how soon you expect me to have an answer. If it will be the case that we will not have any chance to dispute this matter over the next 2 weeks of the adjournment then I think that is a grave travesty of the simple rules and protocols of this Parliament and indeed of Western democracy itself. I think therefore that this matter requires the urgent consideration of this House now. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will make two points. The first is that as the House is not in Committee one cannot actually move to recall the Speaker because the Speaker is in the Chair. It is a different procedure from when we are in Committee and indeed I do not think Madam Speaker will be available later on today if I can put it in that way. Secondly I think the member has raised a very important matter that I think the Clerk’s Office needs to take a little time to think through before you respond Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder perhaps whether we could resume the debate on the motion with an understanding that you will come back to the House before it rises at 6 o’clock to give a considered response to the member. This is a very important matter and it is one that probably should not have an immediate response. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I agree that this is a very important matter. I refer whoever is looking into it to Speakers’ ruling 134/1 in order to see whether perhaps there is a way through it that would result in a further request for leave relating to publication. In essence the ruling states: “… the mere tabling of a document in the House does not mean that the House has ordered or authorised the publication of that document. Where the House does order or authorise the publication of a document the House makes the document its own and any subsequent publication of it is absolutely privileged … Where as in this case”—and I am not sure which case it was—“the document is merely tabled no legal protection in respect of any subsequent publication outside the House arises by virtue of that tabling.” It could be that there is quite a significant issue here for the member who wants to table the documents. It may be worth considering whether a leave application around their publication is a way through that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the member for his comments. This situation is extraordinary on two counts. The first thing is that I would have thought a courtesy was owed to the member of this Parliament who had tabled the document if such a ruling or finding were being pursued by the Clerk of the House. That is number one—a simple courtesy to that member would surely have been required in any sense of fair play. The second thing is that members here table document after document every darned day all of which are printed. But all of a sudden someone comes along with documents—in this case the subject of a commission of inquiry hearing—and they have some sort of legal sanctity against publication on the pretence that they do not carry any legal protection. Well that is with the greatest of respect to the Clerk David McGee absolute bunkum. Members will recall that I went through those arguments last time and I will not face 2½ weeks of not having an answer now. That is the least I could expect from my colleagues many of whom have already heard these arguments when legal efforts were last made by certain parties outside this Parliament to stop publication. I seek leave for the documents tabled yesterday in my name to be printed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed and you are quite entitled to do that of course. I just mention that documents are tabled for the purpose of informing the House; they are not automatically published. But you have sought leave for that to happen. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the leave is simply for the documents to be published not printed because of the nature of the documents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes leave has been— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just to get it correct I am seeking leave for the documents to be printed published and distributed to all who request them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is the subject of the leave that is being sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I just want to apologise to the House for the interruption. I do thank my colleagues for seeing the wisdom of that procedure. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is all right. When I mentioned a way forward that is exactly what I was about to seek and we have found a way forward as you can see. Thank you.