Privilege — Provision of Advice to Members—Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Decision

I wish to advise the House that, on my own initiative earlier this year, counsel was instructed to address the Supreme Court on any aspects of parliamentary privilege that might arise in an appeal arising from a defamation action between Miss Erin Leigh and the Ministry for the Environment. My intention in instructing counsel was so that a full submission could be provided on the law of parliamentary privilege relevant to the provision of advice by officials and parliamentary staff to members, for the purpose of supporting the effective conduct of the business of the House. The court gave its decision in the case on Friday, 16 September 2011. The court has held that statements made by an official to a Minister for the purpose of replying to questions for oral answer are not themselves parliamentary proceedings. Such statements can, therefore, be the subject of court proceedings as they are not protected by absolute privilege.

I consider that the court’s decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh [2011] NZSC 106 raises serious issues concerning the privileges of the House. Consequently, I have determined that a question of privilege is involved, and therefore the question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.