Mr Prebble sent to Privileges Committee

Press, 25 November 1982, Page 3

Mr Prebble sent to Privileges Committee

PA Wellington Mr R. W. Prebble (Lab.. Auckland Central) was yesterday sent to Parliament’s Privileges Committee for allegedly misleading the House during a fiery row on Tuesday evening. The Speaker, Sir Richard Harrison, ruled that a prima facie case existed against Mr Prebble on an allegation that he had repeatedly denied making a statement that caused an uproar. During Tuesday evening's debate Mr Prebble had asked: “How much does the member for North Shore (the Minister of Transport, Mr Gair) get?” when he was attacking the sale of Waiheke Island land to an Auckland businessman, Mr John Spencer. The Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, said Mr Prebble was intending the House and listeners to believe that Mr Gair had been bribed. Opposition members argued that Mr Prebble was not implying that a payment had changed hands.

After the Speaker left the House on Tuesday evening to check tapes of the debate, Mr Prebble followed suit and later returned to say he wanted to withdraw the remark and apologise. Mr Gair contended when the House sat yesterday that

Mr Prebble had breached privilege With his original remark and. misled the House with his denials. Sir Richard ruled that Mr Prebble had been guilty of highly disorderly conduct in raising an allegation of bribery in the way he had but was not in breach of privilege. On the charge of misleading the House, Sir Richard said the facts before him “lead me to that possibility.”

“I determine on that issue a question of privilege is involved.” The debate that ensued after Mr Prebble’s remark on Tuesday evening lasted more than an hour and yesterday’s motion of committal to the Privileges Committee — put by the Leader of the House, Mr Thomson, after Sir Richard’s ruling — resulted in another long exchange. Mr Thomson’s motion led to the immediate retort by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rowling: “Where does the seeking of redress become one of vendetta?”

Mr Rowling said the case clearly hung on whether Mr Prebble had deliberately misled the House. “It was the member for Auckland Central, on his own initiative, before anyone else had been able to do anything similar, who decided probably the best way to get the accuracy of what was said determined, went and sought the assistance of the broadcasting journalists to hear their tapes, so that the matter could be resolved beyond doubt.”

Mr Rowling said there had been considerable doubt on Tuesday evening about what Mr Prebble had said. Mr Prebble had taken the “shortest possible route to ascertain exactly what the truth of . the situation was” and had then taken the first available opportunity in the House to set the record straight, making an immediate apology and withdrawal of the words. Mr Muldoon said it was only when the Speaker left to listen to the Hansard tapes that Mr Prebble had decided to do likewise. “Until then he denied what he had said in this House.” Mr Prebble said he was “in the dark” about how he was supposed to have misled the House. Demanding to know the exact words he used, Mr Prebble said: “I am in the very strange situation of finding I have been sent to the Privileges Committee in what amounts to a quasi trial and yet I do not know

what it is I am supposed to have done that misled the House. “For the last 20 minutes I have looked through my Hansard to see if there is anything I could see that amounted to a breach of privilege and I could not see any such statement.” Mr Prebble said he had tried to hear a tape-record-ing of the debate on Tuesday evening long before the Speaker’s ruling, but the Opposition research unit’s machine had not been workFurther denying/ that he

had tried to mislead the House, Mr Prebble said he had followed the rulings of the Chairman of Committees, Mr J. F. Luxton (Nat., Matamata) during the debate. Mr Luxton did not order Mr Prebble to apologise on Tuesday evening and eventually Mr Muldoon had asked for the return to the House of Sir Richard, removing Mr Luxton from the chair. Mr Prebble also told the House yesterday that he had sought to make'his apology as soon as possible because he knew television was planning a news broadcast that would have damaged Mr Gair.

Mr Gair said Mr Prebble had on Tuesday evening “declined repeatedly my requests to clear the matter up. “He persisted in a presentation of argument to the House that was clearly misrepresenting the situation. He could have offered at any stage during those points of or.der to say,’ ‘Let us go and hear the tapes.’ ” Mr Gair spoke of “wanton damage being recklessly done” to other people’s character, and said that when one was deeply hurt by such comment there was no other course to follow but to go to the Privileges Committee. Labour’s spokesman on constitutional affairs, Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Christchurch Central), said that just because a member was aggrieved about something another member , said it was no reason for the matter to go to the committee.

In this case nobody seemed to have a precise recollection of what' Mr Prebble had said and thereMr Prebble’s word had to be taken as to whether he had intended to mislead the House.

Mr Prebble had assured the House there was no intention to do so, and there was therefore no case. The standard of proof in the matter would have to be very high, Mr Palmer said. In a division to have the case referred to the Privileges Committee, the Government won, 38-35. The two Social Credit members abstained. . Mr Prebble further objected, saying that he had no idea of the charge, and asked the Speaker how he would know it so that he could prepare his defence. The Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, who is also chairman of the Privileges Committee, said it was the practice of the committee at the earliest possible time