Parliamentary privilege might be affected by ruling

Press, 22 April 1986, Page 11

Parliamentary privilege might be affected by ruling

PA Wellington An Australian Court judgment interpreting an article in the Bill of Rights, 1688, may have challenged the New Zealand Parliament’s traditional freedom of speech privileges. The Speaker, Dr Wall, told the House he had been advised by the Australian Senate of a judgment by the New South Wales Supreme Court on article nine of the Bill of Rights. : Article nine reads: “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament.” The Bill of Rights applies to New Zealand and Australia’s Parliaments. In the New South Wales case, the judge had ruled that in the course of a trial it may be suggested to witnesses and to the jury that evidence given before a Senate select committee was untrue, that statements made to the Senate committee might be commented on, used to draw inferences or conclusions, made the basis of cross-examination and submission, and that comparisons might be made between those statements and statements

made other than before the committees. “In the judge’s opinion, Parliamentary privilege extends only to cases where what was said in Parliament is the actual subject of criminal or civil action,” Dr Wall told the House. What was said in Parliament might, according to the judgment, be used as evidence of an offence or to establish motive or intention in relation to what had been said or done outside Parliament. Dr Wall said the ruling would appear to apply equally to the questioning in Court of members and officers of Parliament in respect of statements they had made in Parliamentary proceedings. “Because of the farreaching implications of this judgment, which is contrary to previous British and Australian authorities, the president of the Senate made a statement to the Senate about it on April 9. “The implications for our Parliament of the judgment are as serious for, of course, article nine of the Bill of Rights applies in relation to this House as it does to the Australian Parliament.” Dr Wall/said he felt it his duty to bring the judgment to Parliament’s at-

tention. He said Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee would give detailed consideration to the implications “of such limited interpretation of what has hitherto been regarded as the privileges of this House”. “Until this matter is resolved so as to establish with certainty the extent of these privileges, this matter will be of concern to all members of Parliament and in particular to chairmen of select committees,” Dr Wall said. Later, the Clerk of the House, Mr David McGee, told NZPA that the connection between Australian and New Zealand law on this matter was “very strong.” Until the matter was resolved, people might be inhibited in what they said to select committees. Members of Parliament might could also be concerned about the ruling’s impact on the privilege afforded what they could say within the debating chamber, he said. Previously statements made in the House or to select committees could not be brought into question in any way, he said.