THE PRESS MONDAY, JULY 21, 1980. Misuse of privilege

Press, 21 July 1980, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, JULY 21, 1980. Misuse of privilege

Mr Frank O’Flynn,. the member of Parliament for Island Bay, last week made what appear to have been mistaken assertions about Mr J. R. Mills, who had been appointed as the one-man Commission of Inquiry into the Fitzgerald loan affair. In Parliament, and protected by Parliamentary' privilege, Mr O’Flynn asserted that Mr Mills was “known for a long time as a strong, active member of the National Party.” Mr Mills denies being a member of the party, and the party confirms this. Mr O’Flynn has produced no evidence to substantiate his claim. He said last week, outside Parliament: “I made inquiries that satisfied me. I believe what I was told.” Mr O’Flynn cannot expect the rest of the community to share his opinion without evidence and in the face of a flat denial from those who should know the facts. If Mr O’Flynn cannot produce evidence, he should apologise to Mr Mills. Mr O’Flynn and Mr Mills are both ■ ' 5 senior members of the legal profession. Mr Mills has been 30 years a lawyer and has- served as a temporary Supreme Court Judge. When his integrity was challenged in a manner which left him little opportunity to defend himself he had no alternative but to resign from his position on the commission of inquiry. The outcome is unfortunate. It delays the inquiry into a matter which has already caused sufficient uproar, and raises doubts about how suitably qualified people are to be found to conduct inquiries such as that into the Fitzgerald affair. Few people would want to accept a post' where their integrity could be challenged, on mistaken.

information, and without means of redress. . As a Queen’s Counsel Mr O’Flynn has a special obligation to uphold the law and to respect its procedures. He might have been expected to be one of the members of Parliament least ready to impugn a reputation on what appears to have been hearsay evidence, and evidence that was wrong. Mr Mills has the support of the New.' Zealand Law Society in his attempts to maintain his reputation after the slur cast by Mr O’Flynn. A Government member of Parliament pointed out, however, that Mr O’Flynn was protected by his Parliamentary privilege from disciplinary action by the society in respect of the statements he had made. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the sorry affair is the abuse by Mr O’Flynn of the protection which Parliament accords its members for statements they make inside the House. That protection is a valuable device to ensure that matters of public importance are not barred from discussion because members of Parliament must answer elsewhere for any statements they may make in the House. Such protection carries with it an equal obligation that Parliamentary privilege shall not be abused. It should not be used to protect errors or unsubstantiated personal attacks. The Opposition has been quick to insist on the responsible use of Parliamentary privilege when the integrity of its own members has been questioned. Mr Rowling and his colleagues should take responsibility now for ensuring that Mr O’Flynn, if he cannot make good his claim about Mr Mills’s membership of the National Party, makes an adequate and unqualified apology instead.