New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Speaker's Rulings [4410]

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON

: It is a very, very new point and it is on a very different aspect. I would like some clarification on this matter. My view of the parliamentary Standing Orders is that some of them cover privilege, but Standing Orders 399 and 400 cover issues called contempt. The one part of Standing Order 400 that you did not refer to-you talked about paragraphs( g),( h),( i),( j), and( k)- paragraph( f), has something that certainly for myself as a member of Parliament needs to be considered very carefully. Standing Order 400 states: Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 399, the House may treat as a contempt any of the following:...( f) as a member, failing to declare, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, any financial interest that the member has in that business:.

I am happy to admit to this House that as a member of Parliament I often take up issues of immigration with Ministers and seek them to make a favourable ruling on behalf of a constituent; I openly declare that. But I have always thought that if I were to be in any way a recipient of some sort of gain, be it financial, special treatment, or anything else, then because of Standing Order 400( f) I would make it very clear in my applications to the Minister that I am seeking a favourable response because this bloke is going to cut my lawns in return for this. I would have felt that I had to say that, as part of it.

Madam Speaker, Standing Order 400( f) is very clear, and you have not raised it. Taito Phillip Field did not raise these matters with the Minister of Immigration, as Minister to Minister. He raised them as a member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents. He had constituents seeking some help. I think part of the business we get involved in as members of Parliament, as well as asking written and oral questions and as well as taking part in debate, is pursuing issues with Ministers.

It is a parliamentary duty that we take part in. We actually engage in that by way of correspondence and try to put the very best and most favourable case for the people we represent. I think if you take careful consideration, Madam Speaker-and I ask you to do this-you will find that Standing Order 400( f) would, at the bare minimum, require Mr Field to explain, on the number of cases he was taking, that those people were, in return for that, taking part in some activities for which he would be getting a benefit.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN( Deputy Prime Minister):

Putting aside the consideration of whether there was any financial interest-I make no comment on that-the key point, of course, is: before participating in the consideration of any item of business,. That refers to the consideration of any item of business in Parliament, not outside Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER

: Exactly. I again ask members perhaps to take the time to consider the ruling and also, perhaps more generally, the distinctions between the general use of privilege and parliamentary privilege.

GERRY BROWNLEE( Deputy Leader-National):

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson may have been a little hard on Mr Field in this circumstance. I think Mr Field probably did think he had made it clear that he was getting a pecuniary interest, because he actually conducted a field trip of Ministers to his house in Samoa. The Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Paul Swain went there and met the painter-the Hon Paul Swain was the Minister of Immigration at the time. So I think Mr Field did, in fact, think he had told his ministerial colleagues that he had all these Thai people working for him on his properties throughout the country and that he was putting pecuniary gain directly into his pocket. However, if that is not a breach of this House, then what is?

Madam SPEAKER

: I think we could save that for the general debate.