The question of privilege arose from a contribution Ferris made during a general debate session in September last year. He was explaining at the time that “knowledge gaps” were a “dangerous thing” and “allow lies to be presented as truths”.
“Politicians call this obfuscation. The art of making something unclear, intentionally vague, ambiguous, to conceal or obscure the truth, to confuse others. Lies, in other words. Many in this House are masters of it and it is a disservice to those who voted you in to your positions.”
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said at the time Ferris was claiming members were “masters” of lying. MPs are not allowed to call others liars under House rules.
Ferris replied by saying he had not made that statement. The Speaker later ruled there was an “apparent inconsistency” between Ferris’ speech and his subsequent statement, leading to the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee.
The report outlines the committee’s process in investigating the matter. It shows the MPs on the committee reviewed the Hansard transcript and considered the facts of the matter are “clear”.
However, it wanted to hear more from Ferris. The MP provided the committee with a written comment, but declined an invitation to appear before the committee.
In his letter, Ferris denied calling MPs liars and “utterly reject[ed]” that he had misled the House.
“Mr Ferris noted that the topic of his speech during the general debate was obfuscation. He argued that any ‘average, normal person’ after listening to the dictionary definition of the word obfuscation would agree with also defining obfuscation as ‘lies, in other words’. He explained that this does not mean that ‘lies, lying, or liars’ were the topics being presented in his general debate speech. Mr Ferris reiterated that he described many members of the House as “masters of [obfuscation]”.
“Mr Ferris told us that unless the Speaker has come to the conclusion that obfuscation ‘actually’ means lying, then there is no ‘quote, statement or inference’ of members of Parliament being called liars.”
The committee said making an inaccurate statement in the House was “likely to involve a single temporal moment in the charged atmosphere of the debating chamber and it is appropriate that inadvertent misleading without intent should not be judged too harshly”.
“Denying that a misleading statement was made may be quite different — it may involve a sustained course of action and judgment, rather than a single moment.”
It said that Ferris’ written response “confirms he stated that many members of the House are masters of obfuscation, and that obfuscation is commonly understood to mean lying”.
“We find the content of his letter contradictory and his argument confusing. Mr Ferris’ response ultimately suggests that he is aware that the ordinary meaning of his statement can be understood to mean that many members of the House are masters of lying.”
In conclusion, the committee said it found “Mr Ferris deliberately misled the House”.
“It is evident to us that Mr Ferris believes that obfuscation is synonymous with the act of lying. We agree. To call Members of Parliament masters of obfuscation is an allegation that members of Parliament are liars.
“We reiterate that the House operates on the basis that members are assumed to behave truthfully and honourably. The House must be able to rely on the truthfulness of its members in order to operate. In deliberately misleading the House, Mr Ferris has impeded the House in its ability to do so. For this reason, we find that Mr Ferris committed a contempt.”
New Zealand First MP Shane Jones told the Herald last year that Ferris had been given “every chance” to “show humility”.
“He not only offended Parliament, but he lied to Parliament,” Jones said.
“There’s been lots of Māori who have tried and failed to come to Parliament, and I, personally, haven’t struck his level of arrogance in Parliament before,” he said.
The NZ First MP believed Ferris had done a “disservice” to those who elected him and believed he would be a “one-term wonder”.
“For Tākuta, his conduct is ngutu pī, talking gibberish. Sadly, his unwillingness to set the record straight casts him in a bad light.”
The Privileges Committee, which acts as Parliament’s court, has been busy over the past year or so. It has considered several matters, such as Julie-Anne Genter’s outburst at Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey and claims about National MP Tim van de Molen’s behaviour at a select committee.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.
