Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 354.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the House. In recent weeks a number of allegations have been made against Mr Horan, most of which arise from a family matter, and Mr Horan is an MP in New Zealand First. The allegations are of a nature that requires they should be treated seriously—

Order! I apologise for interrupting the right honourable member, but a personal explanation can be made only with regard to a matter relating to the member personally. If the matter that he is describing does impinge on the right honourable gentleman personally, then he is perfectly at liberty to make the personal explanation, but a member cannot make a personal explanation on matters relating to another member, and I am absolutely certain I am right in that matter. I do apologise for interrupting, but the member must relate the personal explanation to matters that affect him personally. Does the member wish to continue?

The fact is that a number of serious allegations have been made. I was required to conduct as full an inquiry as I could, and I want to report the results of my personal inquiry to the House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order.

Because I do not want to act unilaterally, I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard.

I think there was possibly an error on the House’s part at the beginning, because normally when people ask to make personal explanations, they are asked for an explanation, which then restricts the area on which they can comment. The problem that we have as a House is that we have granted leave—which you are now bound to protect, I think—without restricting the area in a way that we now appear to be retrospectively trying to do. I think if the honourable gentleman had explained it was about Mr Horan, the House would have said no. I think if he said it was about an investigation that he had undertaken, we would have said yes.

Mr Speaker, you are not in a difficult position. The member sought leave to make a personal explanation—that is all. If it is not a personal explanation, leave is not granted.

To go back to the point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard, he is correct, and I blame myself. I should have sought from the Rt Hon Winston Peters a brief indication of what the matter was that he wished to make a personal explanation about. I failed to do that, and I blame myself for that. However, a personal explanation is a personal explanation, and the issue around which the member wishes to make a personal explanation must relate to that member himself. A member cannot make a personal explanation about other matters, and an investigation into other matters does not constitute a personal explanation. The allegation that a member is responding to must relate to a matter affecting the member personally. Even though the House may have granted leave for a personal explanation to be made, if one is not forthcoming, then it is not in order to proceed. There are already Speakers’ rulings that cover that issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have plenty of precedent for what I am seeking to do. You will recall that in 1996 I sought leave to explain the future of one of the members of the New Zealand First caucus, and that was granted. It was seen as being personal enough, being the leader of a party, for it to be relevant and within the ambit of Standing Order 354. No one else has conducted the inquiry; I have. I am bound to report a most serious matter to this House.

Mr Speaker, I also invite you to balance the various Speakers’ rulings that there are as to what is a personal matter—and the leader of the New Zealand First Party has indicated that he is going to outline some work that he has personally been doing—with the longstanding and, I think, never tipped over Speaker’s ruling that leave, once given, cannot be withdrawn.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can I speak to that?

I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee because I accept that there is an important issue, and I certainly do not want to unreasonably constrain the rights of a member of this House.

Mr Speaker, I think I will just point you to Speaker’s ruling 134/5. It is very clear what a personal explanation is, and that is longstanding in the House. You are right to say that if someone proceeds to discuss something that is not personal to them and involving them personally, it is not provided for in this provision. However, the House is the master of its own destiny, and maybe a way through this would be for the member to seek leave to make a statement on a matter that relates to an investigation into another member of Parliament.

The House is certainly the master of its own destiny, and my concern about the personal explanation process is that although a Speaker in the past may have made an unusual ruling, the rulings are very clear. The Leader of the House has referred to 134/5. This is a longstanding, accepted requirement that a personal explanation must relate to an allegation made against the person seeking to make the explanation. I am prepared to rule that the personal explanation granted leave will not continue, because it is not a personal explanation. But I am perfectly happy for the member—I am not sure how best to handle this now, whether the member seeks the leave of the House. It is probably best for the member to seek the leave of the House to make a statement, and the House is at liberty to grant that leave, should the member wish to do that on that matter.

💬 Hon Members: Point of order.

I will hear first from the Hon John Banks, as I have not heard from him.

I would seek leave of the House for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to make a statement to the House.

Leave is—[Interruption] I think it is probably more appropriate for the member himself to seek leave to make a statement to the House.

I seek leave to make a serious statement to the House, and not a long one at that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Identifying the matter so the House knows exactly.

Identifying the substance and result of an inquiry into the allegations made about Brendan Horan MP.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

I thank the House. In recent weeks a number of allegations have been made against Mr Horan, most of which arise from a family matter. The allegations are of a nature that requires that they should be treated seriously. Accordingly, I requested from the original complainant and those associated with him evidence to support their allegations. I also instructed Mr Horan to give every priority to resolving this family matter, so that I could be assured that those allegations were without foundation. Until a few days ago, we had not been furnished with any evidentiary material from any of the parties in this dispute. However, substantive material has now come into my possession, some as recent as 2.15 p.m. this afternoon. The information we have received leaves me in a position where I have no confidence in Mr Horan’s ability to continue as a member of Parliament, and he will be expelled from the New Zealand First caucus forthwith. Mr Horan has a duty, I believe, to resign as a member of Parliament. Lastly, this is a bitterly regrettable situation, but we had to place our decision on the public record as soon as we were in a position to make it. The nature of this inquiry means that I am unable to make any further comment outside of Parliament. I seek leave to table this statement.

Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.