Broader privilege mooted for MPs

MPs will be able to confirm outside the House defamatory statements they have made under parliamentary privilege without fear of being sued under a proposed law.

They will not be able to repeat the actual statements outside the House but if they say something like "I stand by what I said", they will be protected.

It is Parliament's way of reclaiming power it lost as a result of recent court decisions, which it believes breached the age-old tradition of the courts not questioning Parliament's proceedings.

Former Act MP Owen Jennings was successfully sued for $50,000 for saying he would not back down from what he said in the House. The successful defamation lawsuit depended on the courts judging what was said in Parliament.

The privileges committee, which is proposing the change, said there was a long-standing principle of mutual restraint between Parliament and the courts "whereby one does not interfere in the work of the other".

"There is a grave danger of this principle breaking down in a case of 'effective repetition'."

And it argued there were "major implications for the relationship between the legislature and the courts".

Attorney-General and Acting Prime Minister Michael Cullen said yesterday the move was not a matter of extending parliamentary privilege to outside the House but of restoring the status quo before the decisions.

The proposed law change has been recommended after Mr Jennings and another politician were sued for comments made outside Parliament linked to accusations they had made inside.

The other MP who was successfully sued, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, does not support the move, arguing that it gives MPs rights outside Parliament that other citizens do not have.

Mr Jennings was successfully sued after he told a newspaper he would not back down from what he had said in the House about a relationship.

In the House, he had accused a Wool Board official of pursing a rugby sponsorship deal in order to indulge in a relationship with a rugby official.

The case was upheld all the way to the Privy Council.

The privileges committee believes the decision impinges on rights under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights which says the courts cannot question the proceedings of Parliament.

In an "effective repetition" case, the report said, the parliamentary statements were being put directly to the court because they were the only or the main evidence of the defamation.

"In these circumstances, the principle of mutual restraint breaks down completely, as the court directly judges the quality of the parliamentary proceedings," the report says.

The proposed protection will extend not just to MPs but to the news media reporting and any person who "affirms, adopts or endorses" the words through effective repetition.

The protection will extend to criminal liability as well as civil liability, such as defamation.

Mr Peters was successfully sued for $50,000 damages by businessman Sir Selwyn Cushing for saying on television: "You've seen Selwyn Cushing on TV, as have the public of this country. They can take his word or they can take mine. They can believe me or believe him."

Mr Peters had made allegations outside Parliament that a Business Roundtable member had tried to buy his support with up to $50,000 before the 1990 election, then in Parliament claimed it was Sir Selwyn.

Mr Peters said the proposed law changed went too far and went beyond maintaining the rights under the Bill of Rights.

"If this goes ahead, 120 members of Parliament will not just have the privilege with respect to what they say in Parliament but uniquely in the whole of society they are going to have special privilege over what they say out of it."