New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Speaker's Rulings [4409]

Hon BILL ENGLISH( National-Clutha-Southland):

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If we are going to have to listen to Dr Cullen's version of privilege, then he needs to think more broadly. The reason Parliament has privileges of the nature that Dr Cullen refers to is that the public believe that that is the best way to expedite democracy and public affairs to create a privileged environment in which some things can be done that cannot be done outside. But those privileges are earned; they are not written in the constitution. They are a convention, and they are earned by members of Parliament acting in a way that is consistent with the public interest.

That is why it is such a regret to the National Party that the Speaker has taken a narrow procedural view of this matter. The privilege of Parliament is earned; it is not written in concrete or handed down from above. It is a function of the behaviour of the people who inhabit Parliament. As long as we behave ourselves consistent with the public interest, then this institution will be accorded those privileges. When a member behaves in a way that is totally inconsistent with the public interest, and entirely in his private interest, he is undermining absolutely the reason why Parliament has privileges. That is why we take such exception to the ruling and the behaviour.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN( Deputy Prime Minister):

It is quite right to take a narrow view. Indeed, the member is completely mistaken in his view of the origins of parliamentary privilege. I saw two of his legal colleagues in the second row looking somewhat askance when those claims were made. They, of course, arise out of the assertion of our privileges vis-a-vis the king, the role of Government, and our ability to speak freely and to raise matters without let or hindrance than to be dealt with in the king's courts in punishment for matters raised within this House. The member, unfortunately, by going into that further area really does cast aspersions upon his colleague Dr Nick Smith. If being found guilty of a contempt of court and having one's colleagues clap in this House in support of that conviction is not exactly the kind of matter he has just raised, then I have failed to understand what possibly was.

Madam SPEAKER

: I think I have heard enough, if Mr Brownlee does not mind. I have appreciated the points that all members have made. May I suggest to members that they do look at the ruling and look perhaps a little more generally at the difference between the way in which the word privilege is used in a general sense and parliamentary privilege as it is defined within our Standing Orders. I would also suggest to members, and in fact they have suggested it themselves, that this matter is the responsibility of members, and that is why I took the opportunity to make that distinction and perhaps suggest a way forward for members, because it is a serious matter.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH( National-Nelson):

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice in the debate on this point of order Dr Cullen has chosen to make mention of the issues involving myself with regard to some constituents, which led to contempt of court charges being laid-in fact, when you were Attorney-General. There is a world of difference between a member of Parliament going the extra mile for constituents who wanted to see their child-in which there was absolutely no personal interest or gain for myself; in fact, exactly the opposite-and the actions that were taken by Phillip Field that were to benefit him privately. I think that needs to be put on the public record.

Madam SPEAKER

: I thank the member for that but I just remind members there is a general debate coming up later.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON( National-Pakuranga):

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER

: Is it a new point of order?