Matter of Privilege

Premier's Remarks

The SPEAKER (14:00): I make this statement about the matter of privilege raised by the deputy leader in the house earlier today. However, before addressing that matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and its members. Privilege is not a device by which members or any other person can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by a vote of the house on a substantive motion.

McGee, in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, whichI think states the practice on this matter well, makes the test for whether or not a matter is a matter of privilege by defining it as a matter that can 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the House in the discharge of its duties'. Clearly, a minister giving a knowingly and deliberately false answer would have that effect. An essential aspect of privilege is to ensure that each member can speak without fear or favour but at the same time be able to rely on the accuracy of a statement made in the house by a member. It is not designed to punish poor wording or unintentionally inaccurate information.

I refer to the matter raised by the deputy leader, where she alleges that the Premier has knowingly and deliberately misled the house. The deputy leader says the Premier's answers to questions in the house yesterday about the government's position on the payment of legal advice for victims of the chemotherapy treatment errors directly contradict claims the deputy leader attributes to a member of the family of a deceased victim of the erroneous chemotherapy treatment.

More specifically, the deputy leader refers to this answer made by the Premier to a question in the house yesterday. It is on page 5,869 of Hansard. I quote:

So, we made a proper suggestion that people obtain legal advice. It was always our intention to pay for that legal advice. That would be part of the settlement that would be reached in relation to this matter, and that is certainty the approach we have taken.

I am quoting the Premier there. The deputy leader alleges that, and I quote:

…a member of the deceased's family claimed that, in the settlement they had received from the government, they had to pay their own legal costs.

The deputy leader says there is an inconsistency between, on the one hand, the Premier's stated belief that the payment for legal advice would form part of the settlement and, on the other hand, the claim that she attributes to a family member of a deceased victim that they were to pay their own legal costs. It is on that basis that the deputy leader alleges the Premier has misled the house.

On reading what little information I have before me, which includes the Premier's answers to questions in the house and the claim, albeit lacking in detail or authentication, relied upon by the deputy leader, there is nothing before me to suggest that an inconsistency exists between the two let alone a case for knowingly and deliberately misleading. The Premier has indicated that legal costs would form part of the settlement. Alternatively, the deputy leader is claiming that the Premier's answer yesterday means that the legal costs should be paid for in addition to any settlement. It is not unreasonable to presume that the payment for those legal costs would be made out of the settlement.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader and the deputy leader will both rise and apologise and withdraw their imputation forthwith.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise to withdraw and apologise for laughing.

Mr MARSHALL: I rise to withdraw and apologise.

The SPEAKER: As Speakers have stated in previous opinions, an inconsistency between the words used by a member in the house with those previously used in the house or elsewhere, or words spoken that are inconsistent with the text of any document, is not of itself deliberate and intentional misleading and therefore not a matter of privilege. As the information provided by the Premier to the house is, arguably, not inconsistent with the outcome being claimed by the family member of the victim of the chemotherapy treatment error, there is nothing to suggest that the Premier has misled the house in the relevant sense.

Accordingly, I do not propose to give precedence which would enable the member to pursue this matter forthwith as a matter of privilege, but this decision does not prevent the deputy leader or any other member, if the claim of breach of privilege is bona fide, from proceeding with a motion on the specific matter by giving notice in the normal way. I now invite the deputy leader to do so.

In calling on notices of motion by private members, this is an opportunity to agitate, if the matter is bona fide, the point forthwith and to place it on the Notice Paper. So, again I call for notices of motion by private members. There being none, I call on presentation of papers, notices of motion and ministerial statements.