Points of Order — Privilege—Heather Roy

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to raise a serious matter under Standing Order 395. Late yesterday afternoon I was rung by the New Zealand Herald’s Audrey Young and asked about an allegation of a breach of privilege being made against MP Heather Roy. I knew nothing of the matter. I asked Heather Roy about it and she knew nothing of it. We contacted our office and, I am sad to say, we had received no letter about a breach of privilege, and, in fact, we did not get the letter until this morning. What I am concerned about is that we have had a Minister of the Crown make a very serious allegation against a member of Parliament. There is a requirement under Standing Order 395 to make the member aware of the allegation “as soon as reasonably practicable”. What we have had is this Minister running around and telling the media about the breach of privilege but not actually telling the MP. I have looked at the alleged breach of privilege. The Minister did not even bother to explain what the breach is. He has made a very serious allegation against a member of this House. He has not made it, as required, to you and made it available to the member, but he has rushed off and politically made that allegation against the member in the media. I say that for a Minister of the Crown to be using such a tactic against an MP is disrespectful to you, because you are the sole arbiter; it is disrespectful to MP Heather Roy; and it is certainly disrespectful to this House. I suggest you say that you expect MPs and Ministers of the Crown to follow proper process.

There are two quite separate issues here. One is whether a member who is raising a breach of privilege matter may release that fact into the public arena. That—unfortunately, in my view—has been a longstanding practice of members in this House on all sides over a considerable number of years. The second matter is whether a breach of Standing Order 395 has occurred. It would appear from what has been said that, I think, it has to be accepted that a breach of that Standing Order has occurred, because, as a matter of courtesy, a member should really send a copy of the complaint—

Hon David Parker: It was sent.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It was sent? According to my colleague, the letter was, in fact, sent. If that is so, then the problem may lie in the office of the member who raised the allegation in Parliament.

The totality of Mr Hide’s complaint lies with a private communication to you, Madam Speaker, and that is how this kind of matter has always been handled. To come to this House and seek to litigate it in front of the public is simply wrong. The member should have been stopped in his tracks the moment he intimated to you that that was the cause of his complaint. The plain fact is that, as every member here knows, the Speaker would on such occasion write to whichever member is the subject of the complaint and ask that member what his or her side of the story is. A lack of notification is, of course, something that Mr Hide can raise with you then. But to get up, posture, and waste this House’s time should not be allowed.

I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters is making my point entirely. It should be—[Interruption] If the member wants to interrupt now—

Madam SPEAKER: Please continue with your point of order.

RODNEY HIDE: My point is precisely that it is a communication to you, Madam Speaker. I can assure you—

I understand the member’s point. Would the member please be seated. You are relitigating what you have already said. I thank the member. The member knows quite well what the process is. He has followed it himself on many occasions. He makes an allegation of privilege, he releases it to the media, then I send it to the member who is involved—or it has already gone to the member. There has been nothing improper, as far as I can see, in the process that has been pursued. I will look at the matter—as I always look at these matters—after receiving a reply from the member.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just on this matter, I wonder whether you might consider also giving the House a ruling on how the application of Standing Order 400(n) would play out in this case. It states that “reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House:” is a contempt of the House. That is exactly what David Parker has done.

I do not agree with that, but I am happy to look at it and to give it due consideration, for the member. But I think the member should be very careful if he wants a ruling on those sorts of matters. One would expect, presumably, a very narrow ruling.