Hide Rodney: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
[Volume:626;Page:20897] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 People who listened to the Rt Hon Winston Peters might have assumed that this report is not unanimous. In fact it is unanimous. The Rt Hon Winston Peters sits on the Privileges Committee— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it very clear that if a member was not there silence is not consent in any part of the law as I understand it so you should stop the member right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that that is a debatable matter. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a unanimous report— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a unanimous report. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it’s not. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is very interesting is it not that New Zealand First wants to call out that somehow it is Rodney Hide’s report. No it is a report of the Privileges Committee which the Rt Hon Winston Peters sits on. I think we met about 10 times on this matter and I think that Mr Peters turned up twice.He had plenty of weeks— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Wrong. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is a debatable point. I tell Winston Peters to sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yeah yeah the member should give up. Mr Peters had every opportunity to object to this report. We had several weeks in which to get back to the chairman on it. The Privileges Committee met several times. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Peters’ brother calls out saying that Mr Peters has objected to the report. I have been across the Chamber and spoken to the chairman of the Privileges Committee Matt Robson who says that not once did Mr Peters object to the chair about this report. Mr Robson is over there nodding his head and saying that that is right. It is quite a surprise to us having had Mr Peters on that committee that he has come down to the House—[ 
Interruption 
] No he is not right because he is saying that it is not a unanimous report when it is. His name is on it. Mr Peters is on the Privileges Committee he did not object to the report and he did not write a minority report. 
I have to correct quite a few things that Mr Peters had to say about this issue. The committee took its work very seriously and that is why we got the help of Professor Burrows—[ 
Interruption 
] If the New Zealand First member wants to sit beside me in order to try to chip in and say that Professor Burrows has got matters wrong I suggest he stand up and take a call. Any honourable member would do that rather than sitting on one side and chipping in. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a public debate that Mr Hide is making that statement in. I would ask him to withdraw now and I will then continue my speech and enliven this debate again. What we are hearing now is just total drivel and rubbish. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I do not think Mr Hide was offering to yield. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No I was not offering to yield. I was suggesting that Mr Jim Peters take a call to speak rather than sit to my right and chip in. Professor Burrows Professor Joseph and Mr Geddis came to the committee. They had prepared reports for the committee which are appended to its report. 
Professor Burrows made this point—and I will accept from the history professor that the year is 1689 and that there is a principle—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I have never had to apologise to TV3 for 2 hours and offer a correction as the Acting Prime Minister has had to—not once. I accept that the year is 1689 and the principle is that the courts cannot look into Parliament. That is the principle that has been overridden here. Although Mr Peters may say he can go out and say: “Oh well it is true that I said that in Parliament.” I do not believe that Mr Peters would actually be safe if he said that. I do not think he would be safe if that went out on the media. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Of course I would be. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He may be but the court case would be very interesting because the advice we had is that if Mr Peters said that he would not be safe at all. We have a very interesting situation. When someone says as Mr Jennings said: “I don’t resile from what I said in Parliament.” none of those words are defamatory. Not one of those words is defamatory. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes it is. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No it is not. Not one of those words taken on its own is defamatory. What we then have to do is to get the  
Hansard 
 and find the bit that is defamatory and when someone goes out and says: “I don’t resile from that.” the decision states that he or she is actually repeating the whole speech. That cannot be right because it is not a repetition and we can see that in the language used. The decision states that it is an “effective repetition”. An “effective repetition” is not a repetition in the way that I understand the English language. 
The decision has an immediate impact as John Carter pointed out. If a member of the public comes along and makes representations to a select committee and if that person is then called out of the meeting and asked about them that person can be pinged immediately for what he or she says outside the select committee and be up on a defamation charge. Interestingly I remember going on  
Morning Report 
 with Mr Peters. He would not stand by what he had said nor say that what he had said was untrue or anything like that on  
Morning Report 
. Sean Plunket put this question to Mr Peters several times: “Do you stand by what you said in Parliament?”. Mr Peters dodged all over the place and said he would not answer it. The interesting thing is that if Mr Peters had said: “Yes I do.” Radio New Zealand would have been in the cart as well as Mr Peters. Radio New Zealand could have been subject to a defamation proceedings. If someone stands up and says: “I don’t resile from what I said in Parliament.” and a newspaper prints that under this ruling that is defamation by the newspaper. There is no parliamentary protection applying. 
We can imagine the impact of that. The impact is that politicians who get up and exercise the privilege of this House cannot then go out and talk to journalists and journalists cannot report what politicians were talking about afterwards. It is not because what they are saying outside the House is in any way defamatory; it is because if they say anything outside the House that has any possible link back to Parliament then they can be pinged. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is not in his rightful seat. He cannot interject from there. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That has a huge impact on the conduct and business of this House. It is interesting that this ruling will have a potential impact we heard on our courts. This report does not address that issue but if someone is appearing in a court and he or she makes representations in the court sure that person is protected by privilege. But what happens when that person goes outside the court and is interviewed? What happens when a judge says something outside a court? In fact the understanding we have of the law is that judges too could be in trouble following the principle that was established in this court case. 
This is not an easy case to deal with. The committee took its duties very very seriously. I think it is a shame that Mr Peters did not turn up and hear the various arguments and the debate that took place in that committee. I certainly appreciated the efforts that Professor Burrows Professor Joseph and Mr Geddis went to and I certainly appreciate the efforts that the chairman Matt Robson went to in giving the opportunity for all members of the committee to have a say and giving extra time for them to take this report back to their caucuses for their opinion to feed back into the committee. I am just very very sorry that Mr Peters did not avail himself of that opportunity. This is a difficult issue. I think the report is a good one. We support it.