Madam SPEAKERI have received a letter from Gordon Copeland raising as a matter of privilege the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ failure to disclose a gift. I have also received a letter from Rodney Hide raising as a matter of privilege the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ failure to disclose a debt and the name of the person who discharged it.
These are the first matters of privilege raised with the Speaker relating to compliance with a member’s obligations under Appendix B of the Standing Orders dealing with pecuniary interests. Standing Order 400(g) and (h) establishes that the House may treat as a contempt a member knowingly failing to make a return of pecuniary interests by a due date, or providing false or misleading information in a return.
In considering a matter of privilege, the Speaker is required to determine whether the facts alleged could, if true, amount to a contempt of the House. The Speaker does not inquire into the validity of the evidence presented, and does not hold a full inquiry to establish the facts. The Speaker examines the facts presented by the member raising the matter of privilege, and must determine whether the allegation, as explained by the member who is the subject of the complaint, might reasonably lead to the inference that a contempt has occurred.
The allegations are serious ones and the standard of proof required reflects this. Knowingly providing false or misleading information is a significant test. A member’s return must be inaccurate in a material matter that the member knew to be incorrect at the time, or at least ought to have known.
The Speaker, in considering a matter of privilege, is also required under Standing Order 394(2) to judge the degree of importance of the matter raised, whether it is technical or trivial, and whether it warrants the full attention of the House.
The facts presented in the two matters raised are similar, but two different allegations have been made. It is not disputed that legal fees were incurred and defrayed. Firstly, what is in question is whether a debtor-creditor relationship actually existed. If it did, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the member knew, or ought to have known, and should have disclosed the debt and the name of any other person who may have discharged it. Secondly, if a debtor-creditor relationship did not exist, was a gift received and was the name of the donor known or reasonably discernable, or was a donation made that covered expenses in an election campaign?
These matters are technical, but of vital importance to a proper understanding of the rules for the disclosure of pecuniary interests. They require investigation. It is not the Speaker’s role to investigate. That is the role of the Privileges Committee. Accordingly, I have determined that a question of privilege is involved. Consequently, the question of privilege stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
In doing so, I inform members that Mr Peters provided me with a very full and compelling explanation of his position. I was persuaded to determine that a question of privilege was involved because of the high public interest and the implications for the reputation of members and of the institution of Parliament. The issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters; they have the potential to affect members generally. The rules need to be clarified to assist members in making judgments about what is required to be disclosed as a pecuniary interest, and what is not.
The House has the exclusive right to control its own proceedings. The Standing Orders are a matter for the House alone to determine. Members themselves must take responsibility for the rules for the disclosure of pecuniary interests. In determining this question of privilege, I trust that the Privileges Committee will examine the rules, and make recommendations for the future that will ensure that the House is not brought into disrepute and thereby impeded in the performance of its functions.
Copies of my ruling are available in the Bills Office.