John Key might be a victim of his and Lockwood Smiths higher standards of integrity than exhibited the previous administration. Interesting post on Field over Kiwiblog:

21 Jul 06 – Margaret Wilson refuses to refer report to the Privileges Committee despite the massive amount of issues in the report that could be a matter of privilege…

No. That was absolutely the right call. National’s proposed motion to remove her over that made them look like idiots to anyone with any understanding of matters of privilege. Even Richard Prebble was publicly stating at the time that the Speaker had made the right call. Our MPs do not have a general code of Code of Conduct (contrast with the UK). It would have been far more offensive were the Speaker to invent one on the spot, ignoring the decision of Parliament to reject the idea on a number of occasions, than to apply the actual rules.

When MP Nick Smith invoked Parliament as the “Highest Court in the Land” to place pressure on a witness in a family court proceeding, I suppose it could have been argued his doing so potentially brought Parliament into disrepute. Indeed, maybe his actions did bring Parliament into disrepute, but even if they did his actions would not/did not give rise to a question of privilege.

For one astoundingly simple reason, really: Nick Smith did not abuse one of the privileges of the House (like the privilege of free speech in Parliament). His actions weren’t protected from the scrutiny of the Courts by the Bill of Rights 1688, and Court was the right place to have the complaints surrounding his behaviour determined.

So too with Taito Phillip Field. The Courts were the place to deal with such corruption charges, and they have appropriately done so. National MPs laid complaints against Taito Phillip Field with the Department of Labour (over alleged breaches of minimum wage rules), and looked at laying complaints with the IRD over various property transactions. In all these matters the investigating bodies had the same powers in investigating Taito Phillip Field as they would over you or me. If they thought he was guilty of an offence and believe they can prove it, they can charge him, and the broad privileges all MPs receive in Parliament would have been of zero assistance to him.

We have a Privileges Committee because we need somewhere to hold those to account whose actions are protected by the privileges of Parliament. We gave Parliamentarians extensive rights with the privileges of the House – guaranteed in the Bill of Rights 1688, the right to speech, free from the possibility of civil or criminal sanction, amongst the most important. Such a broad right carries with it a danger of grave abuse – MPs could defame people, or threaten to kill them without fear. We have the Privileges Committee to guard against such abuse, and it has substantial powers to be able to do that job (including recommending the removal of an MP from Parliament or sentencing to prison for a term up to and including life, or unlimited fines).

If an MP were to corruptly accepts payment to ask a written question of a Minister on behalf of a constituent the story would be different. Written questions of Ministers are protected by Parliamentary privilege, and cannot be impeached in court; the likelihood of proving corruption if a prosecution cannot rely on the Parliamentary record is diminished; moreover, the Courts really have no place in a country governed by the rule of law and the separation of powers, in determining whether the actions of an MP, protected by Parliamentary privilege, are actually corrupt. But there is a question of privilege: in this latter example, the MP has abused one of the privileges of Parliament (that of free speech) to corrupt advantage.

Anyone – Bryan, DPF, anyone – what was the question of privilege involved with Taito Phillip Field? Because I can’t see one.

That is not to say Margaret Wilson was a great Speaker. Merely that your suggestion that she got this one wrong is misplaced.

For one thing, the question is half the point; for another, the purpose is not (usually) to generate short, pithy replies – the more verbose the replies, the better, since Ministers frequently just make things up on the spot and the more they talk, the easier it is to catch them out; finally, and most critically, questions are very limited, and are linked. Each one needs to fulfill several different functions, only one of which is extracting an answer from the Minister.

L

Why are questions always so longwinded?