New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Speaker's Rulings [4407]

Clayton Cosgrove, who has some responsibility now for immigration matters, I think spent two parliamentary terms trying to undertake an inquiry into my good self as a way of getting around the question of privilege.

So it is quite possible for Parliament to make an inquiry into what has gone on here, through a wider inquiry within the terms of a select committee. We could indeed achieve the aims that we seek to achieve.

Madam SPEAKER

: I thank members for their contributions, and I suggest that a copy of the statement is available in members' boxes, if they wish to consider it. I make the point that once members read it I hope they will appreciate that there is a difference between parliamentary privilege as such, which is quite a technical area, and the member's standards or conduct. That is why I took the unusual course of making the statement to the House today.

Hon BILL ENGLISH( National-Clutha-Southland):

It is a question of clarification. In the course of this discussion, reference has been made to Standing Order 400. Standing Order 400( h) states: as a member, knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests:. My question for you, Madam Speaker, is should further investigation of matters raised in the Ingram report give rise to the possibility that the member did make a false and misleading return of pecuniary interests, is it possible for you then to reconsider the matter of privilege? The Ingram report lays out circumstances in which the member received what amounts to a gift-that is, in the terms of the Members of Parliament( Pecuniary Interests) Bill, there was something of benefit to him for which he did not pay. In the same way as we have to declare free plane trips offered by a lobbyist, the member had his house painted at rates well below the market rates, or for which he did not pay at all, and the scope of the pecuniary interests legislation is such that he should have declared that as a gift. It is not clear whether that is exactly the case-it would take some investigation to establish it. You have dealt with the application that was put to you, Madam Speaker, but in the interests of demonstrating to the public that Parliament does have an interest in the standards of conduct of an MP, and in enforcing its own rules, would you consider a privilege application based on that Standing Order?

Madam SPEAKER

: As the member said, that was not a matter raised with me in the original application. Of course, any matter that is put to me will be considered seriously. But as the member was seeking clarification, I also point out that he should note the date upon which the pecuniary interests register did come into force, which was 17 September.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY( National-East Coast Bays):

I do not rise to contest your ruling. There is a proper process by which members can do that, and that will, obviously, lead members on this side of the House to reflect on the written version of your ruling over the next day or so. But, as we do so, I ask whether you will give some further thought to elaborating on the ruling you have made.

What you have done, Madam Speaker, if I might say, is take a narrow view of Standing Orders 399 and 400. The provision in Standing Order 399 that refers to obstructing or impeding the House in the performance of its functions is a very general one, and some members certainly put the Ingram report in that context and regard it as having very considerable application. Standing Order 400 contains some very narrow examples of the types of contempt that might be held to exist by the Speaker. It does not seek in any way to clarify the very general terms of Standing Order 399.

Madam Speaker, if your ruling is to stand as the standard for the House, then I am sure that members on this side will at least want to consider making some changes to the Standing Orders. In order that we might have a strong base for doing so, I invite you to be a little more definitive as to why the behaviour outlined in the Ingram report