|
|
The |
|
Politicians can say what they like in Parliament, but those on the
receiving end also have rights. Matthew Brockett reports
Politicians love to make
extravagant accusations. Not surprisingly, they make most
of them in Parliament, where parliamentary privilege protects them from being
sued. But a little-known parliamentary rule
gives those on the receiving end an opportunity to reply, and it appears to
be gaining popularity. Under standing orders anyone who
feels aggrieved by comments made about them in the House has three months to
apply to the Speaker for approval to respond. Their response is unlikely to be
read aloud in Parliament, but it can be incorporated into the parliamentary
record. Applicants must make a written
submission claiming that a reference to them has adversely affected them or
damaged their reputation. They must provide a succinct
response for the Speaker's consideration, though "it must not contain
anything offensive in character". If the Speaker decides in an
applicant's favour, his or her response is incorporated into the Journals of
the House of Representatives. The new rules came into effect in
1996 -- perhaps not coincidentally after Winston Peters blatantly used
parliamentary privilege to launch a series of savage attacks in Parliament on
high-profile businessmen. The first response to be entered
into the parliamentary record was made in July 1996, when Christchurch
company Apple Fields claimed that National MP Nick Smith had damaged its
reputation during a speech in Parliament. "In particular, Mr Smith
directly accused our company of lying on at least three occasions, and
implied the same on several other occasions during his speech," the
company said in its response. Further, Dr Smith, who was
commenting on a row between the company and the Apple and Pear Marketing
Board, described Apple Fields as "corporate cowboys". "We believe," the
company said, "that this sort of remark, when taken in context, is
damaging to the reputation of our company and an unbecoming way for a member
of Parliament to refer to a publicly listed company." In April 1997 the Tobacco
Institute took offence to remarks made by the then associate health minister
Neil Kirton, who was debating smokefree legislation. Institute executive director
Michael Thompson said: "To describe the Tobacco Institute as a `brood of
vipers', as the minister did, is a statement that denigrates the institute
and me and my fellow directors. The institute engages only in lawful
activity". Mr Thompson said the attack by Mr
Kirton, then a New Zealand First MP, was "unwarranted and unfair".
(Mr Thompson's view was probably shared by NZ First leader Mr Peters, who
regularly pops out of the chamber for a smoke.) In March last year Mr Goff had questioned the police
minister about the objectivity and reliability of the police investigation. In his response Mr Eade said:
"At no time during the inquiry was I involved in a relationship with
anybody associated with the case. During the four years that followed I had
relationships with two single mothers who had children at the Civic Creche.
One parent had been part of the prosecution case but didn't live in Standing orders were most recently
employed by Roger Estall, the controversial chairman of the Fire Service
Commission who was accused in Parliament of all manner of impropriety after
his appointment last year. Mr Estall's response addressed
allegations of conflict of interest, fraudulent practices, improper conduct
and the suggestion that he didn't have any fire engineering qualifications.
His rebuttals are now on the parliamentary record. Only five responses have been
logged under the new standing orders in the three years since they took
effect. But that may change. Parliamentary officer Fay Paterson
says it has taken a while for people to realise that the facility exists. But
she expects more inquiries from people who feel they've been maligned or
unjustly attacked in Parliament. And as politicians throttle into a
frenzy for the election, there should be no shortage of malignant attacks in
Parliament this year. |
