Madam SPEAKERI have received a letter from the Hon David Parker raising as a matter of privilege statements made in the House by Heather Roy on Thursday, 26 June 2008 that may be in breach of a suppression order made in the High Court at Nelson on 4 December 2007. Such actions may bring the House into disrepute and may indirectly impede the House in its performance of its functions, and thus constitute a contempt, but I am not convinced that the immediate matter complained of can genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the House in the discharge of its functions. However, serious issues regarding the privilege of freedom of speech, one of the House’s most fundamental privileges, have been raised that I consider do warrant the attention of the House. Consequently, I have determined that a general question of privilege does arise in terms of the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders, the implications for the relationship of mutual respect and restraint between the House and the courts, and the publishing of the House’s proceedings. The question, therefore, stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask, just to clarify, whether my colleague Heather Roy will be required to appear before the Privileges Committee. It seems to me that the case will revolve round Heather Roy’s statements, and it would be unfortunate if she were somehow convicted without the ability to appear.
That is, obviously, a matter for the committee itself to determine, not the Speaker. As I have made clear, the matter specifically relating to Heather Roy has not been referred to the Privileges Committee. But I think members are aware that, particularly in recent times, there have been several instances where members themselves have sought advice and guidance on where exactly the line is drawn in terms of matters relating to the courts and matters before the courts. I think this matter is yet another instance of that type of issue. It seemed appropriate, as it does involve a privilege of the House, that the Privileges Committee should not look at it in the context of one specific case, but should look at the general issues I have set out.