New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Speaker's Rulings [4406]

privilege of being a member of Parliament, and it surely is part of the requirement of being a member of Parliament that a privilege like that is not abused.

The concern that we have is that this is a case where a large percentage of the public believe there is an element of corruption involved. In many ways that taints the whole of Parliament. So our disappointment is that Parliament, through its Privileges Committee, will not be able to protect itself from the allegation that Parliament is now complicit in the cover-up of that corruption. I would accordingly ask you, Madam Speaker, to reconsider Standing Order 400( h) on the basis of the testimony given by Mr O'Connor in Mr Ingram's report, which is testimony that I understand is backed by previous immigration Ministers and which makes it very clear that the opportunity to advocate very directly on the part of someone in an immigration matter is a privilege of this House.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN( Deputy Prime Minister):

I think the member quite simply confused two different meanings of the word privilege, and in one of those was extending the use of the word privilege to mean something rather more than it does in the circumstance. Clearly, people have an assumption that approaches from members of Parliament on immigration matters will be dealt with with some care by a Minister of Immigration. That is why the member's colleagues frequently make representation to the Minister of Immigration on immigration matters.

In that respect, however, a member does not have a specific parliamentary privilege in the sense that parliamentary privilege is covered by the Standing Orders. Parliamentary privilege covers a much narrower range of matters than matters that we might regard as privileges held by members of Parliament in the broad and common- language sense of that word. That includes, for example, a privilege in relation to parliamentary travel, in relation to telephones, and in relation to a whole number of matters that are themselves not necessarily matters of parliamentary privilege at all.

In relation, of course, to Standing Order 400( h), that merely relates quite specifically to the declaration of pecuniary interest. Nothing in the Ingram report comes anywhere close to that, nor, indeed, do the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, as I understand the letter he has sent from what I have heard about it within the House here and from statements made by members opposite about that particular complaint. The member is stretching the bow far too long in that regard.

For example, in your own statement, Madam Speaker, you refer to being found guilty of a contempt of court, which, of course, the Hon Dr Nick Smith was. When he entered this House he was applauded by his parliamentary colleagues for having received that conviction. One might well regard it as some form of breach of privilege that people could make such a public display of affirmation of support for breaking the law. But that, of course, is not in itself a breach of parliamentary privilege. It might be regarded as bad form, bad behaviour, or, indeed, even perhaps a contempt for the law, but not a breach of parliamentary privilege. Your order, Madam Speaker, quite properly, confines itself to matters of parliamentary privilege.

RODNEY HIDE( Leader-ACT):

I do not want to contest your ruling, Madam Speaker; it is not appropriate that this Parliament do that. You have received a complaint of breach of privilege and you have ruled accordingly. Of course, I accept that 100 percent. But perhaps I could be helpful to the National Party and, indeed, to this Parliament by pointing out, and asking through you, that it would be quite within the bounds of the appropriate select committee to undertake an inquiry into, say, the Minister of Immigration's discretions in granting permits and how that process might be done. I am thinking of the Commerce Committee or such a committee that would draft the terms of reference and undertake an inquiry. That inquiry would be quite within order. Indeed, you may recall that the Finance and Expenditure Committee with Mr