National M.P. Lashes Out At Privileges Committee... (Press, 31 October 1986)

On 31 October 1986, John Banks, a member of the National Party, expressed his strong discontent with Parliament’s Privileges Committee, which had found him in contempt of the House for remarks made during a debate on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in March that year. Banks described the lengthy process, which spanned over seven months, as humiliating and likened it to being subjected to a "kangaroo court." He highlighted the unacceptable delays in the handling of his case, stating that if he had been treated similarly in a conventional court, it would warrant scrutiny by the Human Rights Commission. The Privileges Committee, consisting of five members, unanimously confirmed that Banks' comments constituted contempt but decided against taking further action, considering his prior 24-hour suspension from Parliament and his apology made at the time. Banks countered by asserting that he had already faced severe repercussions and had publicly apologised, questioning the validity of the committee's findings. In response, Mr Palmer, the committee's chairman, refuted Banks' claims and insisted that the committee's decision was fair and that the involvement of two National Party members ensured no bias. He advised Banks to show restraint and warned against attacking the committee that had adjudicated him. Mr Palmer asserted that any allegations of bias were unfounded, stating that the committee had acted in the interests of justice. The remarks that led to the contempt charge were made during a heated debate where Banks accused the presiding Labour MP, J. J. Terris, of collusion with another member, Fran Wilde, who was sponsoring the bill. Palmer categorised Banks’ remarks as seriously undermining the integrity of the presiding officer, which constituted a severe form of contempt. Despite the committee's leniency, it acknowledged the gravity of the situation, emphasising that impugning the integrity of a presiding officer is a serious matter. During the proceedings, Banks was represented by fellow MP Jim McLay, who argued against the committee's findings, claiming it violated the principle of double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being tried for the same offence multiple times. He viewed the committee’s decision as a setback for legal principles established for centuries. Palmer defended the committee’s stance by asserting the importance of maintaining parliamentary decorum and the necessity for parliamentarians to adhere to rules. He stressed the committee's responsibility to discipline members and safeguard the presiding officers from unwarranted attacks. Banks concluded his address by affirming the fragility of freedom of speech, even within a democratic system, while expressing a desire for swifter and fairer justice within Parliament. The session concluded with Banks and McLay shaking hands, signalling a moment of camaraderie despite the contentious circumstances.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand