Privilege — Committee of the Whole House—Conduct of Hon Julie Anne Genter

I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning the conduct of a member during the committee of the whole House be noted.

The Privileges Committee report on this issue has been presented to the House and is on the floor for members to see, and the member in question has offered her apology.

On 7 May 2024, the Speaker ruled that concerns raised by the Hon Scott Simpson and Todd Stephenson about the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s conduct toward the Hon Matt Doocey in the debating chamber on 1 May 2024 gave rise to a question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that the behaviour in question could amount to threatening or intimidating a member acting in the discharge of their duty or threatening a member on account of their conduct in Parliament, contrary to the Standing Orders. Noting that it is the role of this committee to conduct an inquiry into such allegations, the Speaker referred the question of privilege to us for consideration.

The incident in which this question of privilege relates occurred in the debating chamber during the committee stage of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill on 1 May 2024. During the debate, the Hon Julie Anne Genter crossed the Chamber floor with a copy of a report. She approached Mr Doocey, who was sitting behind a desk, and spoke to him in a raised manner. Ms Genter leant over Mr Doocey’s desk and showed him the contents of the report, which he then placed on his desk. Ms Genter moved to the side, to stand at the side of Mr Doocey, who was still seated, and raised her hands while continuing to speak in a raised voice. During the exchange, the debate was interrupted while the Chairperson of the committee sought Ms Genter’s attention and asked her to resume her seat. Ms Genter subsequently returned to her seat with the report.

As the exchange happened in the debating chamber, it was broadcast live. Footage of the incident is available, which we reviewed. We requested that a verbatim transcript of the exchange be produced, and we also requested that audio from different microphones in the Chamber be provided so that we could examine the incident and determine what exactly had happened. Based on our review of the video and audio footage, and the transcripts of the debate on 1 May 2024, we consider that the facts of the matter are clear. We asked Ms Genter to provide written comment about the question of privilege, which she has done. Ms Genter wrote to us on 16 May 2024, apologising for her actions in the Chamber. She acknowledged that the behaviour was unparliamentary and disruptive to proceedings in the House and has advised she takes full responsibility for the situation.

As a committee, we have been tasked with determining whether the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s behaviour in the Chamber on 1 May 2024 amounts to a contempt of the House. We find that Ms Genter’s behaviour in the Chamber on 1 May 2024 was such that it could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House acting in the discharge of their duty. We find that, in acting in this way, Ms Genter committed a contempt of the House. Members must be free to participate in debate freely, in line with the rules of debate and established practices of the House. It is not acceptable to physically approach another member in order to engage them in a separate debate on the floor of the debating chamber. It is particularly unacceptable to do so while leaning over another member in a way that could intimidate that member, regardless of whether or not that is the intention.

We consider that it is important for Parliament to be aware of how the public expects elected members to behave and to uphold generally accepted standards of behaviour. We also consider it important for all members to recognise that the behaviour discussed in our report is not acceptable and that this is a serious matter. We therefore recommend that Ms Genter be censured by the House for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House acting in the discharge of their duty. We therefore also recommend that Ms Genter apologise to the House unreservedly and without qualification, an action that she has now taken. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The chair of the Privileges Committee and the Attorney-General have traversed the conduct of the committee and its considerations well, and I don’t propose to repeat those, other than to say that I thought the committee process in this instance was very appropriate. Given the evidence that we had, we didn’t need to call any oral evidence, and I thought that that actually assisted in reaching a conclusion and upholding the dignity of this House.

I do note that in terms of the finding of the committee of a contempt, fundamentally that is a decision of the committee comprised of members of Parliament, with the guidance of Standing Orders but reaching its own assessment as to whether the conduct fell above or below what’s fundamentally acceptable in this House. We all concur, I think. Indeed, the member subject to the report has accepted that the conduct in that instance did fall below and was a contempt, but I think it’s important to recognise that it’s not a strict application of a list or a rule, but of the values and ethos of this House to that conduct.

I think it’s important to recognise that there was discussion around what’s sometimes called the robustness of this House and the acceptance that conduct that happens in these four walls might be quite extraordinary outside of these four walls, but there is still a very clear understanding that there is a minimum standard of conduct to which we must adhere, so I don’t propose to really explore the report any further. As I’ve said, the Attorney-General has done that in a fulsome way. The process was a good one, and I must comment, finally, that the member who is the subject of the report responded appropriately at all times and has done the right thing in apologising to this House. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Ms Genter, the House has resolved that you be censured by the House for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House acting in the discharge of their duty. Your conduct is unacceptable in Parliament, which is a place of debate and not threatening behaviour.