12 December 1985, New Zealand Parliament.
Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER: I have the honour to present the report of the Privileges Committee on the matter of privilege concerning an article published in the New Zealand Truth on 8 October 1985. I move, That, (1), the report do lie upon the table; and, (2), that Mr Speaker do formally reprimand, in writing, Mr Alan Hitchens, editor of the New Zealand Truth, and Mr Chris Knight, the journalist who wrote the article, for their actions in the matter. On 9 October Mr Speaker ruled that a question of privilege was involved in respect of a complaint lodged with him by the member for Whangarei, the member for Invercargill, and the member for Hauraki. The complaint related to a newspaper article published in the New Zealand Truth magazine of 8 October 1985. The article was, in turn, based partly on an editorial and article published in Out magazine in the winter of 1985 and partly also on an interview with a spokesman for Out. The Speaker found that a question of privilege was involved in the statements or reports of statements contained in the article, and that those might constitute an attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats. The committee held an initial meeting, and then the editor of New Zealand Truth and the reporter, as well as their lawyer, appeared before the committee, and evidence was presented on 6 November. The New Zealand Truth article consists partly of material provided by a spokesman from Out and partly of material lifted directly from the magazine. The article consists of a number of assertions of the consequences that are likely to be visited on opponents of homosexual law reform should the Homosexual Law Reform Bill at present before the House not be passed. Alongside the article are photographs of the three members who raised the complaint of breach of privilege. It will be necessary in the judgment to refer in some detail to that portion of the article that was derived from the Out spokesman. The remainder of the article, which consists of material published in Out, it is unnecessary to refer to in detail because the committee concluded that, while strongly worded in robust journalism, it was not so worded as to constitute a contempt. After considerable analysis of what was said in the article the Privileges Committee considered the law relating to contempt. There is no doubt that under the authority of Erskine May attempted intimidation of members to try to influence them in their conduct by threats is a breach of privilege. There are several examples of that, one such case involving Mr Plimsoll of the Plimsoll line fame, who published statements impugning the conduct of members and threatening them with further exposure if they took part in debates of the House. The lawyers for the New Zealand Truth raised a number of defences before the committee. First, it was submitted on behalf of the New Zealand Truth that there was no intention to influence members in their parliamentary conduct by any means, whether proper or improper. The committee is not disposed to accept that that is indeed the case. If, as the New Zealand Truth asserted, it merely wished to reveal the tactics of groups in favour of homosexual law reform it could have relied solely on a factual report of the editorial and the article in Out magazine. Had it done so there would have been no breach of privilege, but it did not do so. It elicited comment from a spokesman, and that was more damaging to individuals by naming them than what had appeared in Out magazine itself. The New Zealand Truth also asserted that it had acted in the public interest in publishing the article in that it was revealing the limits to which certain groups would go in their fight for the Bill to pass. Once again the Privileges Committee does not accept the assertion of the New Zealand Truth in that respect. It does not believe that the article was written to advance the public interest. For instance, neither the issue nor the article contain any editorial comment for or against the tactics that those groups are said to be ready to employ. Had the New Zealand Truth been acting in what it saw as the public interest one would have expected it to include some such comment. It also seems unnecessary for the New Zealand Truth to have given such prominence to named members of Parliament of the public interest had been uppermost in the editor's mind. Let me summarise the committee's findings and its findings on penalties. It finds that the article in the New Zealand Truth of 8 October headed “Gay mag: M.P.s secrets out” was an attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats, and is thereby a breach of privilege. It finds the editor, Mr Hitchens, and the reporter, Mr Knight, to be in contempt. The committee wishes to emphasise here, however, that it does not believe that any of the three members concerned have anything disreputable to hide or that they would for one moment alter their parliamentary conduct as a result of the threat. Not one scintilla of evidence was presented to show that any of the members had acted dishonourably. Also, they are much too strong-willed to be intimidated by such journalism. The privilege exists to protect all members, including those who might not be strong enough to resist such pressure. It is absolutely essential for the House to assert its privilege in an appropriate case, and this is such a case. Mr Hitchens and Mr Knight readily indicated their willingness to apologise if they were found to have committed a breach of privilege. The committee was also told that settlements had been reached between the New Zealand Truth and the three members concerned in legal proceedings arising out of the publication of the article. The committee understands that those settlements involve the publication of an appropriate apology and the payment of damages. The decision of the aggrieved members to seek their own remedy in the courts does not affect the question of whether or not there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege is enjoyed by the whole House, and does not depend upon the actions of individual members. The committee therefore did not consider the legal proceedings relevant to its determination that a breach of privilege had occurred. It did, however, consider the proceedings and the settlement to be relevant factors when considering what penalties, if any, should be exacted. Because adequate redress had been obtained by the members elsewhere, the committee was not inclined to recommend as heavy a penalty as it might otherwise have thought appropriate in what is a serious case of breach of privilege. The committee therefore recommends that Mr Hitchens and Mr Knight should be formally reprimanded, in writing, by Mr Speaker for their actions in the matter.
DON MCKINNON (Rodney): The Opposition endorses the comments made by the Leader of the House and the findings of the Privileges Committee. It supports the finding that there was an attempt to influence members of Parliament by virtue of the publication in the New Zealand Truth; that there was contempt by both the editor and a reporter of the New Zealand Truth in the manner in which the article was presented; and that the hearing on the matter was adequate and just, and that was appreciated by the three members concerned. In relation to penalties, it is accepted that the willingness to apologise is appropriate in the circumstances, along with the settlements that I understand have been agreed upon between those found in contempt and those who brought the issue before the Privileges Committee. The Opposition supports the report as it stands.
GARY KNAPP (East Coast Bays): I do not want to take too long in speaking about the matter, but I do want to be associated with it. The charge that was dealt with was one that had some effect on me. I am not sure how many other members had been visited or threatened by elements on one particular side of the issue. I was pleased that someone acted on the matter that had been made public in the New Zealand Truth. I was disturbed because I wondered to what extent referral to the Privileges Committee was the correct way to deal with threats of that kind. I have some concern about the operation of that committee, in that it has been my impression in the past that on occasions the truth is no defence before that committee. If one, in holding an opinion that one believes to be the truth, criticises Parliament, for instance, that is unacceptable and is no defence before that committee. Accusations have been made that the committee has all the elements of a Star Chamber. There is a lack of confidence in some quarters as to whether one would receive a fair hearing before the committee. Notwithstanding those reservations, which I firmly hold—and which will be an ongoing matter from my point of view in trying to achieve an improvement in the operation of privilege and the way the committee carries out its work on behalf of the House—there is a need for some remedy. The debate involved was that concerning the Bill introduced by the member for Wellington Central—the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. It is a divisive issue, and one on which members on both sides have strong opinions. I do not support the Bill, and I find it despicable that people on one side of the argument, who had some compelling arguments to make, should visit some members of Parliament-as was my experience, which I ignored-and should publicly threaten other members. That did not serve their argument or their case well. When it became public it resulted only in ridicule and anger from those who might not have been ill disposed to their arguments. I do not feel that a public apology is appropriate. People who are prepared to go to those lengths should be dealt with properly in a court of law, not by the Privileges Committee. Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I know that the House has given leave for the report to be printed in Hansard, although it was not completely read to the House. As the chairman of the committee read most of the report, perhaps, after consideration, he might consider that as an adequate record, as the complete report will be entered on the Journals of the House.
Hon. GEOFFREY PALMER (Leader of the House): I am content with that.
GARY KNAPP (East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to clarify what you said, because I did not hear all of it. Were you saying that the contributions that have been made should go on the record? If so, I am happy with that.
Mr SPEAKER: A concession was sought for matter that had not been spoken in Parliament to be included in the Hansard record. Although that concession was given, that does not authorise the matter's being recorded in Hansard. I asked the chairman of the committee, who had sought leave, whether, considering how adequately the report had been presented, that course needed to be followed.