Privilege — Final Report of the Privileges Committee—Question of Privilege on Conduct of Members Causing Disruption During a Vote

Members, the final report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning the conduct of four members during proceedings of the House has been presented. The report is set down for consideration on the next sitting day, which will be Tuesday. I’m highlighting this for the House now because this is an important debate, and one that I’m sure members will want to prepare for.

In this report, the committee’s recommendation is that three members are punished for contempt. In each case, the recommended punishment is that the member be suspended from the service of the House, one for a period of seven days, and the other two for a period of 21 days. It might be interesting for some of the media who have reported to understand that it’s a recommendation at this point as the House hasn’t yet dealt with it.

These punishments recommended by the committee are very severe and are unprecedented in this Parliament. As far as I’m aware, since the House first met in 1854, no member who has been found guilty of contempt has been suspended for more than three days. I’m also conscious that, unlike in previous such cases, suspension from the service of the House now carries a substantial financial penalty. The committee’s recommendation therefore represents a significant development in the practice of the House. A proper opportunity for debate must be provided before the House arrives at a decision.

I also note that the committee’s recommendation was adopted by a narrow majority. That is an important point when the effect of the recommendation would be to deprive members of a minority party of their ability to sit and vote in this House for several days.

As the committee’s report states, the Speaker has a duty to protect the rights of members of all sides of the House. In particular, there’s a longstanding convention for Speakers to safeguard the fair treatment of the minority. I intend to honour that convention by ensuring the House does not take a decision next week without due consideration. In my view, these severe recommended penalties placed before the House for consideration mean it would be unreasonable to accept a closure motion until all perspectives and views had been very fully expressed.

I would next like to set out how I intend to apply Standing Order 255(2), which deals with the consideration of a report of the Privileges Committee. It provides that the chairperson, or a member of the committee, may move a motion that reflects the committee’s recommendation. The motion may be amended, and an amendment is not required to reflect the recommendation, as long as the amendment is relevant and otherwise in order.

As with many other situations when proposals are made to this House, it is not an all-or-nothing decision. I also note Standing Order 129, which provides that when an amendment has been moved, a member who spoke before the amendment was moved may speak again.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. You outlined in your consideration that one of the matters that influenced you was the inability for those members to not be part of the Budget presentation.

SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, you did.

SPEAKER: I didn’t mention that. I simply said—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it’d be part of the debate.

SPEAKER: Well, just so you’re clear, I said that the recommended penalties, if adopted by the House, would see the members suspended from the service of the House for several days.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But the point is, if you go back to last year, they weren’t in the House for the Budget then.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s not the issue that I’m dealing with. Point of order, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Mr Speaker, thank you for those remarks. Is it the case that it is your intention that the question that the report be adopted in relation to the Privileges Committee report into this matter will be put on Tuesday, because, just from a timetabling point of view, Wednesday is set down to be a members’ day and, of course, Thursday is Budget day.

Yes, I’m well aware of that, but the Standing Orders are that the report of a Privileges Committee is dealt with at the first opportunity, which is going to be some time just after 3 p.m. on Tuesday.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity in terms of the House and those listening and watching, you are expecting a wide-ranging debate, potentially, involving the three people who did not turn up to the Privileges Committee but who may very well be in the House, and you are anticipating that they will put forward their perspectives as to why this punishment is unnecessary or severe?

Well, we are—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just let me just respond to that. Firstly, there is a motion before the House which is debatable, so any member who is legitimately in the House may speak to it. I’m making it clear to the House that it is an amendable motion, and it always has been under the Standing Orders. We’ll go to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I’ll come to the member.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that we’re going to have a debate, and anybody can move an amendment if they wish to, but, at the end, are you going to put the motion?

SPEAKER: Yeah, that always happens.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Good—thank you.

SPEAKER: Well, hang on: whatever the motion is left on the floor of the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the point of order from Shane Jones, I just wanted to clarify with you that, when the point was made about the three members not attending the select committee, that was the statement that was made by Shane Jones, and, if that was the case, I didn’t realise that they were required to attend the select committee.

No, no, they’re not—no one is ever required to attend at the Privileges Committee, but they leave the result of that exercise in the hands of the committee. However, I’ll make the point that no one at this point, despite what the media have been reporting, is suspended from this House, and will not be until there is a vote from the House indicating that that is to happen. So all members in this House can speak in this debate.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. As you’ve pointed out, sir, this is, in terms of the recommendation, unprecedented and the House has not considered a proposal from the Privileges Committee of this ilk before, and, unlike other debates, every member has the right to speak. It is unusual in the sense that we are debating something that has not come from any particular caucus in this House, but from a committee, and it is a split recommendation. Given the significance, in order to get a true reflection of the House’s views, would you consider a personal vote on the question being put, after that debate?

No.