Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Draft Report of Māori Affairs Committee

The Greens support the recommendations of the Privileges Committee in its report on an article in the Sunday Star-Times concerning a select committee inquiry into the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. Those recommendations are not particularly punitive. But none the less they give the select committees, members of Parliament, and the press gallery a timely reminder of the confidentiality of select committee draft reports. The Privileges Committee concludes that the Sunday Star-Times did breach the confidentiality rules of the House. As often happens in these matters, the source of the contents of the draft report apparently leaked could not be identified and therefore there was little punitive action that the committee could take against the reporter, the newspaper, or any of those identified in the newspaper story. This illustrates the point that the integrity of the select committee process is highly dependent on the integrity of those involved in it, and that this necessarily includes the media, and particularly the press gallery, which are instrumental in the exposure of our democratic processes.

The Privileges Committee did also look carefully at the information provided to Sir Graham Latimer and considered that the Māori Affairs Committee may have not been sufficiently clear that the information sent to him was strictly confidential. This has highlighted the need for select committees to be very clear about their own procedures in communicating with submitters and members of the public. In defence of the Māori Affairs Committee it must be said that both Sir Graham and Jonathan Milne, the reporter, are both experienced in the select committee process and know better than most how to best clarify any uncertainty they might have had over the confidentiality issues. Their choice not to take the utmost care reflects very badly on the integrity of both.

The Greens also support the comment of the Privileges Committee that members should be able to more openly discuss matters concerning select committee proceedings so that there is a better understanding of the vigour and variety of work done in select committee. There are many requests and letters and much information sent to select committees concerning important issues that cannot be publicly known or acknowledged unless taken up as an inquiry. This restricts the public’s knowledge of the breadth of issues select committees deal with. However, that said, the Greens agree with the Privileges Committee and will also draw a very clear, definite line at the release of draft reports before they are reported back to the House. So finally, the Greens commend this report to the House.

I want to look at this report from a couple of angles—firstly, from the perspective of what actually happened in terms of the release of the information, by whom, when, and how, and secondly, the issues that related to its subsequent publication.

I think it is clear from the report, and from the speeches that have already been given this afternoon, that an obvious breach occurred. The difficulty is pinning home the responsibility to any particular source, whether it be a leak inspired deliberately or accidently by Sir Graham Latimer, whether it be the proffering of the document by someone to Mr Milne, or whether it be simply good intelligence on his part. The reality is that between all of those possibilities the story got out and became clearly known. I do not think that the committee in its findings came to the judgment that there was no disclosure, or that there was no case to answer. I think it was more a case of the Scottish maxim of “not proven”. Those who would like to read the report as some sort of acquittal ought to be mindful that it was more a case of not proven than not guilty.

The first set of issues that arise relate to select committees themselves, and those people who choose, or are required, to appear before them. In that respect, the findings of the committee are timely—particularly with regard to the warning given in paragraph 3 on page 7 of the report that committees look closely at their responsibilities under Standing Order 223, and similarly under Standing Order 242 when adverse findings are required.

From just a cursory examination of a lot of the detail associated with this issue, it is arguable that the select committee itself was not scrupulous in the way it handled the material and the flow of that material back and forward. I suspect that what occurred there was as much a good-faith lapse as anything else. That matter was being dealt with allegedly in good faith. Sir Graham was provided with the material, answers were to come back, and in due course a report would be forthcoming. This is a timely reminder of what can happen when those sorts of informal practices break down, and as a consequence we get the situation we were exposed to in the Privileges Committee where the evidence was at best conflicting and confusing, and at worse, simply overlooked a number of key facts that were unable to be determined.

That leads to the second aspect of this issue, which is the question of the role of Mr Milne, and I think the same general provision applies. I do not know whether he had a copy of the report. I do not whether it was inspired speculation on his part in terms of the report he wrote that gave rise to this complaint. I do not know whether he had been tipped off by Sir Graham Latimer, or someone else, as to the likely content of the committee’s report, and that led him to draw the conclusions he did. However, whatever the reason, the action in reporting what occurred is not justified in terms of existing Standing Orders and practices. The excuses do not make it right for that to have occurred.

As the report points out, a draft select committee report was prematurely released. It was published, and as a committee, we were not satisfied with that course of events. Nor were we satisfied with the argument raised by Mr Milne that, because of the way the process was being conducted, essentially a lot of the material was either already in the public domain, or about to become in the public domain. It is a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

In that regard, I do not blame Mr Milne altogether. I do not think that the correspondence of 16 September that the acting editor of the Sunday Star-Times, Mr Curry, provided the select committee was particularly helpful. It is referred to in the appendix to the report, although it is not tabled as such. I thought the tone of that correspondence was extraordinarily belligerent, and implied a feeling on the part of the newspaper that, having got the story by whatever means, its absolutely legitimate right was to publish that story—regardless of what Parliament’s Standing Orders might state or any other conventions that might apply.

That really brings me to the heart of the issue, which I think goes beyond Mr Milne and Sir Graham Latimer. The sanctions, such as they are, that we have imposed in the recommendation deal with this particular case. However, a much bigger case is at issue, and that is the implicit contempt, as I regard it, in Mr Curry’s letter for due process. “We got the story, we can run it, who cares?” was essentially the argument that was being portrayed. I think that attitude will prevail as long as this Privileges Committee and this Parliament find themselves hamstrung in terms of any action they take on breaches of this nature.

This is not the first case of its type, and I see Mr Robson nodding. He will know that we have dealt with other cases already in this parliamentary term where a similar conclusion has been reached, with a similar feeling of frustration around the committee table that we have not been able to do more. Every time the all-powerful Privileges Committee, as it is called, demonstrates that it is somewhat less than all-powerful because of the facts that come before it, it creates another door that people feel they can go through in terms of how far they can then push the boundary on what they report next time. There will come a point where this committee will have to draw the line.

As I said, in this case it is all very well, and I support the recommendation in particular regard to Mr Milne that we draw his behaviour to the attention of the press gallery and ask it to act as it sees appropriate. But until the Privileges Committee feels capable of drawing a very firm line and saying that that behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated further, and the attitude of journalists like the acting editor remain, we will get those sorts of cases. We will always end up looking slightly silly, because we will be dealing with them after the event, when all the protagonists have run for cover and it is very difficult to get to the basis of what happened. We will have debates like this, saying that we think we know what happened, we think that was the evidence provided, but on the basis of what we are able to ascertain, we cannot draw any particular conclusion in defence of the ancient privileges of this House.

That is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory situation, and really what this case demonstrates is that for the Privileges Committee to continue to have relevance in the future, it will have to be in a position where it can do something to back up the conclusions it might reach. Otherwise, it essentially becomes little more than an effete disciplinary committee that has very limited powers and is disregarded accordingly.

Motion agreed to.