Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to raise a very serious point for you to consider. I have in my hand your letter that you wrote to me today, saying that you believed that on the basis of evidence put forward to you there was no case to answer by David Benson-Pope on the matter of privilege. Of course, I have no option but to accept your ruling, but it does put me in this House, and I think other MPs, in something of a quandary.

The quandary is that David Benson-Pope stood in this House and emphatically denied that he had done anything wrong. In particular, he denied that he had ever tied up a pupil’s hands and stuck a tennis ball in his mouth. Under the rules of Parliament I have no option, nor does any other member, but to accept the Minister’s word, which I immediately did. However, the following week the man who was the former pupil came forward, and so did two witnesses, and said that indeed this had happened. Specifically, they said that the Minister had lied here in Parliament. That puts us in a difficult situation, because a citizen outside this House is saying that in this House a Minister lied.

Madam Speaker, as you know, I wrote to you and pointed out that this was very, very serious, and that there had to be a question of privilege, because either Mr Benson-Pope was telling the truth, and therefore there was a case against those men who were saying that he was lying in this Parliament, or Mr Benson-Pope was not telling the truth. I have done some research on this, and I favour the pupils’ story; I do not accept the word of Mr Benson-Pope. But I want some guidance from you as to how I can proceed on that basis in this House. Also, how can we have any standard in this Parliament if it is the case that citizens can say on TV that that Minister over there lied? That is intolerable for this House, and I think it is fair to say that a fair few in this House feel there is a case to answer. I would like you to explain to this House how a person such as myself is to proceed, and how this House can hold its head up when members of the public can say that—and, indeed, have it accepted by members of Parliament—everywhere in this country, except in this House.

Madam Speaker, it is actually a very simple matter. You are the sole judge of whether a matter is a matter involving privilege. You have just ruled, so it is out of order for a member to try to contest that ruling in any shape or form by way of a point of order. There is only one procedure by which a member may properly engage in such a challenge, and that is by written notice of motion. That is well established.

I turn to what appears to be Mr Hide’s substantial point—that is, every time somebody outside this House accuses somebody inside this House of lying, we should become engaged in some kind of Privileges Committee case as a consequence. I suspect that would involve pretty much everybody who has ever called a talkback radio station. It would involve a very large number of members of Parliament—not least, including Mr Hide; I say that from my personal experience of hearing people outside the House making claims—and it would turn the whole process into a farce. Many people say many things about members of Parliament outside this House, which many of us find quite outrageous. That does not affect what can be said inside this House about each other. Indeed, it is out of order to quote what somebody outside the House said about somebody inside the House, if it would have been out of order to say the same thing inside the House directly.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not need any more assistance, but I thank members for their comments. As members know, matters of privilege are not matters for debate on the floor of this House, and there is a process and a procedure to be followed. As the member knows, he may follow the process of lodging a notice of motion, and if he wishes assistance in doing this, I suggest he ask the Clerk. If he wants any further consideration of the matter, I suggest he sees me outside the House. But that is my ruling on this matter, and unless the member was trying to raise a new point of order, and I mean a really new point of order, the matter is closed.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a new point. While you were considering the breach of privilege complaint, the Acting Prime Minister went on the front foot and publicly said that Mr David Benson-Pope had a good story to tell. He then went on the attack against the ex-pupils and said they were distasteful. He then went on the attack against TV3, and I note that subsequently he had to correct himself and apologise for saying that TV3 had obtained the information through using false pretences. My concern, which I put to you, is that this seemed an outrageous abuse. You were considering the case, and the Acting Prime Minister was essentially directing you not to find in favour of my claim that there was a breach of privilege. How else could any Speaker interpret what the Acting Prime Minister was saying, other than in that way? My question is whether you advised the Acting Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, that the proper procedure, when a breach of privilege case is under way, was to keep quiet.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comment, but it is not a point of order. Members are not obliged to refrain from any comment while the matter is being considered by the Speaker. In fact, I was not influenced by that action or by Mr Hide’s continuing comments in the media.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would be very grateful if you could, although not right now, give guidance to the House on exactly what the Speaker’s role is in the preliminary examination of these complaints. I have studied the rulings, and I see a note that says that until 1979 the Speaker ruled on whether there was a prima facie case to be answered. It does not say what the Speaker’s role is now, but the rulings are still there that state that the Speaker does not decide on the evidence. But when I look at the advice that you gave Mr Hide, it does appear that you have at least considered the evidence. I believe that this is a matter of general application, unrelated to the particular case. ACT had a similar experience a year ago when we sought a privileges inquiry into the conduct of Donna Awatere and some of her votes. In that case, too, the Speaker made a decision that it did not satisfy the requirements needed for it to be sent for the consideration of the Privileges Committee or the House.

I think we need guidance on just what is left for the Privileges Committee and for this House, if Speakers in fact decide, it appears, on the balance of the evidence that is presented to them.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point of order. I have followed existing Speakers’ rulings on this matter, and, as members will note, there is a high standard for a prima facie case to be made. I have not departed from the previous rulings, and all the advice I got and I took was on that basis.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Without wanting to debate further the matters that you have already ruled on, I would draw your attention to your final comment that you had discovered, or had studied, previous cases on this matter. There will be a few members in this House who can recall one other case—and I can recall only one other case—where a member of Parliament was accused by an outsider of lying, when that person had taken a particular statement in the House, which is the situation we have here. That one other case was when the Hon Richard Prebble was accused of reading the newspaper while driving. That matter was referred to the Privileges Committee, which adjudicated on it and decided that there was no case to answer. But that is the only precedent that I am aware of—certainly, over the last 20 to 30 years. With respect, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to reconsider your saying you have studied the precedent cases, because that is the only one that I can recall.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. We are now starting to debate the matter. I do not think that that will further the consideration or the ruling that has been given at this stage. I thank the members for their contributions, but now I call on question No. 1, Dr Don Brash.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: We are getting to the stage where I think that while these are—I am on my feet, Mr Hide. We are getting to a stage close to challenging the Speaker’s ruling on this. I had, in fact, set out what options, in terms of the Standing Orders, are available to the member. I suggest that he avail himself of them if he so wishes.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a quick one. Your letter to me did state—and I am asking you, when you consider my colleague Mr Franks’ point of order—that you were prepared to look at any material that may be put before you in future in regard to that matter, and I suspect that that means further evidence. You will appreciate that I thought my evidence was all right, but I accept your ruling that it was not. I do know that the gentlemen concerned are making statements to the police. Would those statements to the police be of interest to you, or is there a problem because they are statements for the court?

As I said to the member, this is not a matter for debate. If he wishes to have further discussion on it, this is not the appropriate place to do it. I am very happy to talk to him about it. As I said in my letter, if anyone lays a privileges complaint to the Speaker—even if a determination has been made on the matter—of course the Speaker must consider it on the basis of the evidence that is available.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not clear whether you had decided that you had answered my request in your extempore ruling.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I have. I followed existing rulings. I was very careful to do that. I am sorry but I have answered the member’s question.

Madam Speaker, you referred, in fact, to having to meet a very high standard for a prima facie case. My question was because the rulings appear to state that that is not the test. The statement following Speaker’s ruling 160/4 states: “Until 1979 the Speaker was required to determine whether a prima facie breach of privilege had been made out”. It appears to me, from your letter, that you have assumed that that is still the function. I may be incorrect in that, but I believe we need to know whether that is the role you think you are performing. Your answer to me earlier suggested that you think you are still performing that role; if so, what is the meaning of the ruling that states that that role appears to have stopped in 1979?

The member is now debating the ruling that I have given. As I have indicated, I have given a ruling that is consistent with previous Speakers’ rulings. The fact that members may not agree with that ruling does not change the fact that the Speaker—me—has given a ruling consistent, as I believe, with the other rulings. [Interruption] I am sorry but I will take no more. I am sorry but we are starting to debate this matter. I have made options available to Mr Franks, if he wishes to pursue the matter. It will not be done in this Chamber at this time.