Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise this point of order at the first available opportunity, and I make it particularly under Standing Order 22, which relates to the privileges of the House. I was extremely disturbed to see on television last night pictures of police officers in this building interviewing members of Parliament. I was even more disturbed to discover that we are now having a member of Parliament being prosecuted, and I say to you that you should reflect on this matter. It is your job to stand up for the privileges of this House. I have no doubt at all that this prosecution has come about solely because of statements that you have made and that the Prime Minister has made, and other Ministers, inviting a member of Parliament to be prosecuted for a matter that has occurred within the precincts of this House.

We have our own disciplinary procedures. We have the absurd situation of a member of this House admitting to art fraud, a member of this House engaged in insider trading, with nothing happening about those, and now just a back-bench MP standing up for his own constituents on a matter that rural New Zealand feels very strongly about. I say to you that I believe it is your press statements that did that. You should consider that it is your position to stand up for the rights of MPs and not to invite police into this building to charge a member of this House. It creates an impression that we are becoming a police State.

I want to say that I did not invite any member of the police force to do anything. I made it perfectly clear that I was not going to interfere in this way at all, and that maintains my position on that subject.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to reinforce the concern that my colleague Richard Prebble has drawn to your attention. One of the difficulties here has been a failure on your part to explain your actions in respect of members of Parliament who find themselves, in one way or another, at odds with the law. You were offered an opportunity when Harry Duynhoven was in that situation to explain your actions to the Parliament. You failed to do so. Mr Prebble has offered you that same opportunity in respect of the Standing Order that he believes may not have been complied with. I want to reinforce the point and take it further by requesting you to explain, in both those cases, the reasons for the actions you took or for your lack of action. In the case of Harry Duynhoven, the concern of Parliament was the lack of action; in the case of Shane Ardern, as my colleague Roger Sowry pointed out yesterday, it was what we might call “most unbridled enthusiasm” on your part to take action and make public statements. We believe that Parliament is owed an explanation. It is critical to the credibility of the Speaker’s office that Parliament knows why you have acted as you have so that it can make a judgment on the credibility of those actions.

If members wish to raise a matter of privilege, there is a proper way to do it—and they know that. Prosecutions are a matter for the police, not the Speaker. I did give a detailed ruling on the Duynhoven case.