Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This relates to a decision of yours on 3 July, where you ruled that there was a general question of privilege relating to the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by my colleague Heather Roy. Six days later Justice Simon France published his determination on the suppression order, where he found, at paragraph 27, the following: “the Judge who is said to have made the suppression order says he didn’t; the actual text of the suppression ruling does not contain any such suppression. … There is no order suppressing Mr Barclay’s involvement in the Witness Protection Programme.” Therefore, the complaint that Mr Parker made was factually incorrect, and the basis on which you sent this matter to the Privileges Committee was legally and factually incorrect. There was no suppression order. Heather Roy was entitled to say exactly what she said in Parliament; in fact, she is entitled to say it on the steps of Parliament. I ask you to consider this matter, because some very serious allegations were made against my colleague Heather Roy. She now finds herself with an issue before the Privileges Committee, when the judge himself has said that there was no suppression order relating to what my colleague Heather Roy said.

My understanding of your ruling, Madam Speaker, was that there was no breach of privilege by Heather Roy, because we have absolute privilege in this House, but, none the less, the question of the wisdom of people abusing that privilege and naming people when they ought not to be named was something that did need to be considered in a general sense by the Privileges Committee.

Madam SPEAKER: Points of order will be heard in silence.

A matter still remains for the Minister of State Services. He said to the House, in answer to a question, that he could not answer Heather Roy’s questions, and he accused her of breaching suppression orders, when that was factually incorrect. Furthermore, he laid a complaint with the Privileges Committee. I think the honourable thing for the Minister of State Services to do is to apologise to Heather Roy, because Justice France has said that the Minister was incorrect, and also to withdraw his privilege complaint, because he said that Heather Roy had shown “disgraceful conduct bringing the House into disrepute”. Heather Roy did no such thing, as has been reinforced by Justice France’s decision where he refused to make any change to the suppression orders, because nothing that was said by Heather Roy or others could be prevented.

Rodney Hide: Speaking to the point of order—

No, Mr Hide, you have had your say and I think we have understood your point quite clearly, thank you. And it is probably questionable whether the matter is a question of order, but I was quite happy to hear you explain it. I reiterate that the matter of Heather Roy’s raising the matter was not sent to the Privileges Committee. That was quite clear. I made it quite clear at the time. Mr Hide, you questioned me, to make sure that you had understood it, and you said it was clear. Nothing has changed between now and then. However, the general issue has been raised from time to time, and it seemed appropriate that there was some clarification of the general issue between this House and the courts.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: If it is a different point of order, that is fine.

RODNEY HIDE: Just to be clear now, that means that a member could raise a matter of privilege about a specific case—say, someone not correctly declaring his or her pecuniary interests—and although the specific case might not be referred to the Privileges Committee, the fact that the issue has been raised once or twice before might mean that the matter generally is sent to the Privileges Committee.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is talking to the same point of order. Please be seated.