Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I must check whether you have received a breach of privilege complaint against me from the Government whip Mr David Benson-Pope.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If I had received it, you would have received it immediately.

Thank you. Last week I was accused in this House of making an appalling racial epithet. As you recall, Mr Speaker, you were in the House, and I denied using any unparliamentary language. You accepted my word, and we proceeded on. I was not aware of what I had been accused of saying until I was rung by a journalist, who said that Mr David Benson-Pope had made the claim in the House. I, of course, vigorously denied that I had made any such remark. I was then rung by the Christchurch Press on Friday and told that a complaint of breach of privilege was being taken against me by Mr Benson-Pope, who had said that he was very determined and that nothing would stop him from taking a complaint of breach of privilege.

There has been only one MP who has ever used that racial epithet in this House, and it is the chief Government whip. I have this morning had the benefit of listening to the Radio New Zealand digital tape of the interjection. What I said was “Don’t be negative.” That is what I called out. I have to say to you, Mr Speaker, that the Government whip is guilty of a very serious series of offences. The first one is that he has brought this Parliament into disrepute by suggesting that MPs would use such a racial slur in Parliament. That is bringing the House into disrepute, and could be reported around the world. The second thing is that it is an outrage to repeat the allegation outside this House, after the speaker’s word has been accepted, and to try to get some media coverage out of it as a political stunt by suggesting that there is a breach of privilege at stake. I was rung—you know the convention, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] I have not finished.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want the member to come very quickly to the point.

I am coming to the point. The convention, when one makes a complaint of breach of privilege, is to write to the Speaker as soon as possible. I knew nothing of that complaint until I heard about it through the media. I now know that David Benson-Pope not only was not telling the truth in his statement about my racial epithet, he was also not telling the truth when he said he would lay a complaint of breach of privilege. I do not have any confidence in the Government whip, he clearly does not have confidence in you, Mr Speaker, and I suggest to you that the Government whip be asked to apologise, not to me but to this House and to you for suggesting that a New Zealand MP would stoop to making such a vile allegation. It was a false allegation, it was a lie, and it was repeated outside the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That last sentence, in which the member said that another member had told a lie, will be withdrawn and apologised for.

I withdraw and apologise, and I look forward to the Government whip doing the same.

The member should just withdraw and apologise. If members say outside the House that they intend to raise a matter of privilege, that is up to them—I cannot stop them. In fact, provided that the breach of privilege complaint is lodged before the next sitting of Parliament, it is in order. The comments the member is referring to were made by a member outside the House. It is between the two members concerned as to how they deal with those matters. Last week’s point of order has gone, because, of course, I asked the member a question and he gave me an answer.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not my point, I am afraid. In the newspaper, the chief Government whip questioned your authority. That is what he was doing. He said that the Speaker was wrong to accept an MP’s word. That is openly defying you and openly defying this Parliament, and I suggest that David Benson-Pope be asked to withdraw and apologise.

If the member wants to write to me about the matter, he is entitled to do so, and he can. But, as far as I am concerned, the point of order went last week when I ruled that I accepted the member’s word.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is an interesting issue and I hope the member does write to you about it. The chief Government whip, Mr Benson-Pope, is required by the Standing Orders to accept Mr Hide’s word in this House, but he clearly did not. He clearly went out of the House, and anyone who read either the Dominion Post or the New Zealand Herald—not just the Christchurch Press—saw Mr Benson-Pope adamantly claiming that offensive language had been used by Mr Hide. That now appears to have been nothing more than a political stunt, but it does bring Parliament into disrepute, particularly, I have to say, when someone—who, as a whip, is the Prime Minister’s right-hand man—is prepared to use Parliament in that way.

There was no point of order in the original point of order, in any case, so this certainly is now becoming slightly farcical. The Standing Orders require us to accept the word of a member inside this Chamber. There are a number of words we are not allowed to use inside this Chamber that are used by the entire population outside this Chamber—indeed, frequently of all of us collectively, not just individually, as politicians. The fact that a certain comment was made inside the Chamber denying that a certain thing was said does not mean to say that a member does not have the right to go and check whether in fact it might have been said. Of course, if the member has reason to believe that it was said, then that is precisely a case for a breach of privilege. Those tapes have been listened to. I think it is useful that Mr Hide has clarified what was said, because I think he himself will admit that the words are somewhat indistinct on the tape. Indeed, it is perfectly possible that somebody did hear what they think they heard, in terms of the words they thought that member said. That is where the matter now must rest.

I do not believe that the matter should rest there, because there is an honourable course of action. Mr Speaker, you may not be able to order it, but the House knows that. What the chief Government whip should now do is not send in a breach of privilege, but rise, this time give a genuine apology, and say that he does accept that a racial slur was not made across this House. One of the reasons he should do it is that allowing it to stand gives the public the impression that we in this House have no standards. The racial slur did not happen, I think Mr Benson-Pope now knows that it did not happen, and the honourable thing for him to do is to get up and acknowledge that. Then perhaps we can proceed to the business in a more civilised way.

Well, that is up to Mr Benson-Pope. As the member rightly points out, it is not up to me to insist on that happening.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I can speak to the point of order raised by Mr Prebble—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, this has to be a new point of order.

I will raise a new point of order. I accept unreservedly the explanation of Mr Hide, and apologise for any hurt he has felt he suffered as a result.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it on behalf of Mr Hide. I think the Prime Minister has done the right thing, but it would be quite a good thing if Mr Benson-Pope were to rise and say that. We are now in the absurd situation that the whole House knows that the remark was not said, but the one person who has gone around the country, telling the media that that is how we in the New Zealand Parliament behave, is not prepared to get up, be a man, and say: “I accept he did not say it and I apologise.”

I am prepared to accept Mr Hide’s assurance as to the comment he made, and I apologise unreservedly for any offence he may have taken.