New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Ministerial Statements [4404]

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK( Prime Minister):

I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition and all those party spokespersons who have supported the statement made on behalf of the Government in the House today. I want to say that New Zealand, under many Governments over a long period of time, has taken an even-handed position on the Middle East crisis. The position is that which the Hon Peter Dunne referred to: we are looking for an outcome in the Middle East based on two States, each recognising the other, with secure boundaries. That is the only basis on which a durable peace settlement can be founded.

I say to the spokesperson from the Green Party that the Government's statements have been very carefully balanced to condemn violence on both sides. Two wrongs do not ever make a right, and we would like a ceasefire now. I am sure all members would want the thoughts of this Parliament to be conveyed to the Parliaments of those countries from which the four deceased peacekeepers come. Those names and countries have not been revealed at this point by the United Nations, while they contact the families and countries concerned, but in due course they will be made public.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

Privilege-Taito Phillip Field

Madam SPEAKER

: Last week I received letters from the Leader of the Opposition raising a matter of privilege arising out of a report to the Prime Minister on matters relating to Taito Phillip Field. I have found that no question of privilege is involved. Normally in these circumstances the Speaker does not give reasons for such a finding. But the Speaker does have authority to make a statement to the House if the Speaker considers that circumstances warrant this-see Speaker's ruling 171/ 2. Because of the widespread interest in this matter, this is a case in which I have decided to explain the basis for my decision to the House.

One aspect of parliamentary privilege is the power of the House to punish conduct that it considers to be a contempt of the House. Before 1996 the circumstances in which the House might invoke this power were ill-defined and were the subject of justifiable criticism on this ground. In an attempt to meet this criticism, the House adopted what are now Standing Orders 399 and 400, defining the circumstances in which the House might use its power. Standing Order 399 makes a general statement about contempt being an act or omission that:( a) obstructs or impedes the House in the performance of its functions, or( b) obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of the member's or officer's duty, or( c) has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result. Standing Order 400 then gives a number of specific instances of specific actions or omissions that may treated as contempt. These are not exhaustive and any other conduct that falls within Standing Order 399 can be treated as a contempt if the House decides that it is worthy of censure.

The Leader of the Opposition does not allege that any conduct revealed in the report falls specifically within Standing Order 400. He alleges that Mr Field has used his position as a member to secure a financial benefit and that this has brought the House into disrepute, thus constituting a contempt under the general provisions of Standing Order 399. The particular conduct that it is alleged Mr Field has engaged in is in receiving services on his properties in Auckland and Samoa in return for assistance Mr Field provided for immigration applications. This assistance took the form of submissions to Ministers considering those applications.

Standing Order 399 and parliamentary privilege generally are designed to protect the integrity of the parliamentary process. Actions that obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions may be a contempt. If a member of Parliament accepts a benefit for actions that a member has taken, or is to take, in respect of proceedings in