Privilege — Speaker’s Ruling—Allegation of a Breach of Suppression Order Imposed by a Court

Members, I have been considering how to respond to allegations that, during oral questions last week, Rawiri Waititi may have breached a suppression order imposed by a court.

In 2009, the Privileges Committee reported to the House on the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders. This led to Standing Order 116 being adopted in its current form in 2011. It balances the House’s privilege of free speech with the relationship between the House and the judiciary. Standing Order 116 gives the Speaker responsibility for balancing these important interests. To allow the Speaker to exercise discretion, it requires a member who intends to refer to a matter that is subject to a suppression order to give written notice to the Speaker. Mr Waititi did not give notice but then referred to a matter that apparently is suppressed by a court. I do not know whether his failure to give notice is because he chose not to or because there is no such order.

I do not intend to inquire further into matters that may be suppressed, as my doing so may itself be inconsistent with the principle of comity. Standing Order 418(y) is clear that it is a contempt of this House to knowingly make reference to a matter suppressed by an order of a court, contrary to the Standing Orders. In this case, the difficulty is that investigating whether Mr Waititi has done so risks compounding the harm caused by the original breach by confirming the existence of a suppression order and possibly identifying the subject of it.

So I have decided to deal with this matter in two ways. First, I will refer a general question of privilege to the Privileges Committee asking to consider how the House should deal with cases such as this, where a member may have made reference to a matter in breach of a suppression order but where investigating it could be inconsistent with the order if one exists.

Second, I intend to deal with Mr Waititi’s comments as a matter of order. The words Mr Waititi used in the House indicate that he believed that the matter concerned was subject to a suppression order, and, yet, he raised it without first notifying the Speaker. Parliament’s relationship with the courts is of utmost constitutional importance. Reckless use of the freedom of speech enjoyed by the House damages that relationship and undermines the standing of this Parliament and the privileges on which it depends.