Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising BreachesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising Breaches[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20327. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think your office has been given notice of my intention to raise a point of order as to the decision of the Table Office not to accept a notice of motion from Clare Curran relating to a breach of privilege which she attempted to lay yesterday and was rejected by the Table Office. The grounds that were used for that—and I will go back to them—were the feeling that such a notice of motion breached Speakers’ rulings 180/2 and 180/5.I draw your attention toMcGee page 665 where he makes it absolutely clear that a member can raise a matter of privilege by way of notice of motion in the House and that that can be done whether or not it has been lodged with the Speaker. This is the latest edition—the third edition—ofMcGee which postdates the Speakers’ rulings on the matter. He refers to cases inErskine May where in fact the House of Commons has found a breach of privilege without having a hearing and he draws attention to the case in 2000 inHansard Volume 585 at page 3457 where the House of Representatives censured a member for remarks that he offered—both cases not having hearings of the Privileges Committee.What is well established is that there is an ability for members by way of motion to move such a motion in the House and in the unusual event that the business gets to members’ motions—and I accept that that would be unusual—to have it referred. The Wall ruling 180/5 says: “Once a matter of privilege has been raised with the Speaker it is out of order to refer to it in debate in the House.” My submission to you Mr Speaker is that that is a matter of general or other debate and if we came to a debate on that particular issue it would be then be in order. I think all of us know that one should not casually refer to matters that are before you Mr Speaker but if one goes back toMcGeeand looks at previous cases in New Zealand and previous cases in the United Kingdom one will see that it is clear that there is an ability to do a parallel process both through reference to you and also directly through the House.My submission is notwithstanding the comments of the Office of the Clerk. Speaker’s ruling 180/2 is entirely irrelevant. There is no doubt from my perspective that if we apply this ruling and Speaker’s ruling 180/5 the matter cannot be brought on for debate. But we have a number of places where for example reports of select committees and bills are introduced that are below the line so we have items that are on the Order Paper but not available for debate. My submission is that having a motion on the Order Paper does not necessarily involve debate. In fact I think we would agree that where it is a members’ notice of motion it is most unlikely.My colleague feels there has been a breach; I think it is fair to say that she is pretty motivated about the 2-year breach—I know because I have seen a copy of the letter—that she has written to you about in the Telecom structural separation case.Mr Speaker I do not think I am asking you to rule immediately on this question but I ask you to go away and consider whether in fact when you look carefully at Speakers’ rulings 180/2 and 180/5;McGee page 665;Hansard Volume 585 at page 3457; andErskine May page 132 there is an ability for a member to take what has been regarded as a right and that is to set down a notice of motion—not to have it debated—on matters of privilege.