Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation

I had hoped to wait until the end of question time, but because of the time questions are taking I seek leave now to make a personal explanation about a matter David Bennett raised in the House on 22 March. I have just had my first chance to read the Hansard of his speech. On 22 March David Bennett, the National Party MP for Hamilton East, claimed that during the wine-box inquiry I personally received money from legal aid paid for by the taxpayer. That statement is demonstrably, totally false, as every member of the National Party who was there at the time knows full well. On the contrary, I myself financed substantial parts of that court case and cases preliminary to it. The member also knows that. I seek to put that correction on the record, in case some other idiot decides to make that sort of statement in the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The personal explanation is a privilege made available to members of Parliament that we use only occasionally, and it is a privilege given by leave. That leave is given because of the convention that such statements are non-controversial, in the sense that they are not partisan or do not attack members of the House. The member who just made a personal explanation is a senior member of the House and knows that convention well. I ask you to point out that the last sentence of his statement was out of order. If you do not do so, then the Opposition, at least, will not be able to give leave for personal explanations, if the privilege is to be abused in that manner.

With respect, the National Party knows full well the history of that long-running saga—that it took 7 years and a significant number of court cases going all the way to the Privy Council. For that member to be allowed to get away with saying what he did with not so much as a by your leave or an apology would be an absolute affront to the House. That is why I said what I said.

The member was entitled to make his personal explanation, and the Hon Bill English was correct in saying that a personal explanation is a privilege of the House, given by leave. But it is, of course, the convention that members do not make personal attacks or reflections in such statements, and the term “idiot” was entirely unacceptable.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the back of the point of order raised by Mr English, could you then advise the House whether, if this is considered by some to be an inappropriate means of putting the record straight when another member of the House has deliberately said something to the House that is clearly untrue, I would be right in concluding that the only other method of recourse we would have for correcting this is to lodge a privileges case against the member for deliberately and maliciously misleading the House. Is that the other course of action we could take?

The member took the proper course of action in seeking the leave of the House to make a personal statement to be able to correct the statement. There was nothing wrong with that. The problem was the use of language in the last sentence; that was the difficulty we had with that bit of the personal statement. The rest of it was perfectly in order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just for clarification, would it have been permissible for New Zealand First, instead of taking this course, to take a more extreme course and lodge a privileges case?

You know that it is not for the Speaker to give advisory opinions like that. I have ruled on what was the appropriate action and what was not appropriate. That is what I have ruled on.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should the Rt Hon Winston Peters now be required to withdraw and apologise?

If that is what the member seeks. Does the member who was called an idiot ask for that to be withdrawn? [Interruption] Would members please be quiet, or there will be no one left in the House. I was looking at the member, and I understand that he is new, but he has asked for that statement to be withdrawn and for an apology.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What did the member say? I could not hear it.

The member asked for the reference that was made to him by you to be withdrawn and for an apology to be given. That is what is sought.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said “some other idiot”, and I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, that’s all—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have just found out who he is.

All members do is withdraw and apologise. They make no other statement.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member just apologised, then qualified that by saying he now knows who the idiot is. That is completely unacceptable.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: It is unacceptable. I agree with Mr Tisch. The rules are that when members are asked for a withdrawal and an apology, they give it without any other statement. The member is coming close to trifling with the House.

I did not say that the member was an idiot, I said: “in case some other idiot”—that is the point. Members cannot just get up and make any allegation they like. The Hansard—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, would the member—

I withdraw and apologise if the member is offended.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, that is all we need to make progress.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have to register our disappointment that, having picked up Mr Peters for the inappropriate use of language, the allegation made by Mr Peters was then repeated by the Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I agree.

I appreciate that the circumstances probably led to that.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. I accept that and I apologise.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have put my reputation on the line and made a statement to this House today. The least I could expect is for that member to withdraw and apologise for what he said and to not sit there mute and silent.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

I seek leave to table a document showing exactly how much the taxpayer did pay for Winston Peters’ legal expenses in the wine-box inquiry.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has just repeated the same statement, which if it were said outside of here would be defamatory. He knows full well where the money went. Not one cent went to me.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I’m not saying that.

Yes, the member did. He asked how much Winston Peters got.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave was denied. That is the end of the matter, please.

Question time resumed.