Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Donna Awatere Huata 
Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:606;Page:3551] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Privilege—Donna Awatere Huata 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On 11 February 2003 the Hon Ken Shirley raised with me a matter of privilege involving Mrs Donna Awatere Huata. The allegation is that Mrs Awatere Huata has solicited a bribe in return for her vote. This form of contempt is specifically recognised in Standing Order 397(f). If established it is difficult to conceive of an action that would be more inimical to the parliamentary system. So far as I can discover such a charge has not been made in New Zealand since 1912. I may add that no evidence sufficient to support the charge could be found on that occasion.  
I have determined that no question of privilege does arise in this case and I have advised the members concerned accordingly. However the matter has had considerable publicity and is of such importance that I have decided to inform the House in outline of my reasons. Given the seriousness of the allegation it seems to me that the standard of proof needed to make it out must be at least as high as that required to demonstrate that a member has misled the House—that is proof of a very high order. For the Speaker the evidence on which the allegation is based must in itself be strong and convincing. Only if it compels one to a view that impropriety may have occurred—and of course the Privileges Committee would determine whether it had actually occurred—does a question of privilege arise.  
Mrs Awatere Huata’s action that has brought about this complaint is a letter that she wrote to the then Treasurer on 19 February 1999 in which she sought funding for a remedial reading programme run by the Pipi Foundation. I am not going to rehearse that letter in detail. Suffice it to say that if there is a possibility that a contempt has occurred it can only have occurred as a result of that letter.  
I can say at once that I find there is reasonable evidence that could establish that Mrs Awatere Huata solicited public funds for the remedial reading programme run by the Pipi Foundation as the price of her support for Government legislation in the House. The United States has a particular term for this. It is known as “pork-barrel politics”. Whatever one may think about pork-barrel politics it is not a contempt merely to engage in it.  
But it is a contempt to seek a benefit for oneself or for other persons close to oneself as the price of one’s vote. To do so is to seek a bribe. My consideration of this complaint has been largely concerned with whether or not there is reasonable evidence that Mrs Awatere Huata may have sought a bribe. For this reason I have examined the Pipi Foundation’s trust deed—though I note that this was executed after the letter of 19 February 1999 was written—and the solicitor’s advice on that deed. I have concluded that I can find no reasonable evidence that Mrs Awatere Huata solicited the funding—which I remind members was specifically for the delivery of a remedial reading programme—for the benefit of herself or for other persons close to her such as her children.  
I know that there have been suggestions that funds of the Pipi Foundation may have been misapplied or misappropriated. These are matters for investigation by other agencies outside this House. They are not relevant to the contempt allegation that is before me. That turns on whether or not there is evidence that could reasonably lead to a conclusion that Mrs Awatere Huata could benefit in a corrupt way from public funding provided for a remedial reading programme. It is on that point that the allegation that a bribe is involved stands or falls. As I have said I can see no such evidence. If this funding has 
been misapplied that falls to be dealt with by others not by the House.  
I may add however that this case does illustrate that members must be particularly careful in the letters that they write asking for public funding for organisations with which they have any association. They inevitably bring suspicion on themselves if they do not take steps to make it clear that they stand to make no personal gain from the funding.  
I will ensure that a copy of this ruling is made available to anyone who requests it.