Speaker’s Rulings — Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule

Yesterday Mr Hide refused to reframe a supplementary question in order to make it comply with the Standing Orders. Mr Hide persisted with his supplementary question, and, in doing so, defied the Chair and was asked to withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr Hide’s supplementary question was out of order on a number of counts. The question addressed the abolition of the Serious Fraud Office and sought assurances from the Prime Minister that the office will continue to be able to investigate claims of corruption. There is ministerial responsibility for those matters, and Mr Hide’s question would have been in order if it had been so confined. However, he sought to include in his question particular assertions alleging corruption. The inclusion of such assertions was out of order on a number of counts.

First, the purpose of supplementary questions is to elucidate or clarify answers. They are not an opportunity to inject information or propaganda that a member wishes to be heard—see Speaker’s ruling 151/5. Second, allegations of corruption against a member must be raised in the proper manner—Speaker’s ruling 25/5—that is, with the Speaker or by way of giving notice of a motion. Members must not make such assertions by way of veiled suggestions. Third, the House was informed that the assertions referred to matters that are the subject of a defamation action currently before the courts. On that I took the word of the member at the time, as is the convention of this House. Not to do so would put the Speaker in an impossible position. To mislead the Speaker in such a circumstance would be a very serious breach of a longstanding convention that a member’s word is accepted, and would no doubt provoke serious consequences.

Members argued that I should use my discretion under Standing Order 111 and allow the references. Having had the opportunity to reflect, I stand by my ruling. Mr Hide was not questioning the general application of the law; he was simply seeking to insert assertions into the record—assertions that are material to an action currently before the courts. The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders, and it is the Speaker who determines its application—Speaker’s ruling 29/3. It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. That is clear from Speaker’s ruling 27/2. However, nothing said in the House should prejudice, however slightly, the decision of any court. That point is made in Speaker’s ruling 28/5.

The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. The rationale behind the rule is important. This is the implicit acknowledgment by the legislature, above all other institutions, that it should take extreme care not to undermine confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes by intruding its views in individual cases. The House applies a more rigorous inhibitory standard on itself than applies to the media in reporting judicial proceedings. That is not anomalous, given the constitutional relationship between the House and the courts. The House and the news media are not in the same situation. I suggest that interested members refer to page 192 of David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand.

I have been aware for some time now that some members wish to change the sub judice rule. That is why I referred a question of privilege to the Privileges Committee on 3 July 2008. I await the Privileges Committee’s report. Until the committee reports and any changes to the Standing Orders are made, I am obliged to apply them as they currently stand.

If members want to have a copy of this ruling, it is now available.