Points of Order — Privilege—Referral to Privileges Committee

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You suggested at the beginning of question time that this was the more appropriate time.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, sure. I know, and I apologise that I’d forgotten.

My point of order is with respect to Speaker’s ruling 206/2 and relates to the privileges complaint that last evening you ruled on. Now, I wish to get clarification as to whether that Speaker’s ruling stands. What that Speaker’s ruling by Speaker Harrison said was that it was for the Speaker to determine whether there was a matter of privilege, but it was a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine on the evidence. Now, the substantive issue is that there is contradictory evidence as to whether New Zealand First MPs have signed a bonding contract for $300,000 or not. A number of New Zealand First MPs said they had; some said they had not. Mr Peters, at the time, said they all had.

Order! The member will resume his seat. The Speaker’s ruling stands. It is my role, effectively, on the evidence before me, to establish whether there’s a prima facie case to be referred to the Privileges Committee. On considering the evidence before me, it became clear that there was not—on, I think, at least three grounds.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

We’re not going to continue to litigate a referral to the Privileges Committee here. This is not the place to do it.

I seek leave of the House for the matter in respect of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the issue of privilege in respect of the financial interest raised in my letter to be referred to the Privileges Committee, to establish the truth as to whether New Zealand First MPs had signed or not.

Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.