Speaker rejects privilege bid

Press, 17 June 1988, Page 4

Speaker rejects privilege bid

Political reporter An attempt by the member of Parliament for Wairarapa, Mr Reg Boorman, to have a breach of privilege raised against an Opposition member has been rejected by the Speaker, Mr Kerry Burke. Mr Boorman is at present facing an electoral petition seeking to overturn his one-vote majority.

He raised the breach of privilege about a conversation that the member of Parliament for Tauranga, Mr Winston Peters, was alleged to have had with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, and the Leader of the House, Mr Hunt.

In a letter to the Speaker, Mr Boorman raised allegations of be-hind-the-scenes negotiations to cut short the petition hearing. Mr Boorman had alleged that these discussions concerned the possibility of his withdrawing from the petition hearing. However, the Speaker ruled yesterday that no question of privilege was involved. He said that he was

concerned that the letter raising the alleged breach of privilege was circulated to the news media at the same time as he received it. Nothing in Standing Orders prevented this, but until the Speaker’s consideration of it, such matters ought to be removed from the public domain, he said. He quite accepted that a threat to make allegations of corrupt practices unless a member resigned would be a breach of privilege. “Had such a threat

been made to the member for Wairarapa before the electoral petition had been brought, there would undoubtedly have been a question of privilege to answer.” The corrupt practice allegation had already been made in the course of the petition hearing, and there was no threat to make a further allegation of infamous conduct against him, the Speaker said. The matter, therefore should be left to the High Court hearing the petition to deal with. The Speaker noted that the leave of the Court would be required for the petition to be withdrawn. He said that no proceedings of Parliament could be called into question by any other court. He doubted whether the conversation in question was part of the proceedings of Parliament This meant there was no reason why the subject of the conversation could not be raised with the High Court, if the Court considered it relevant.