“Mr Court admitted to making the press release informing the media of the outcome of the vote taken during the committees consideration,” Rurawhe said.
He said that Court took the view that the vote could be disclosed under a change to Parliament’s standing orders made two decades ago that relaxed strict rules around select committee confidence, allowing the committee to discuss procedural matters in public.
Rurawhe disagreed that the relaxation encompassed what Court put in his press statement.
“I have considered the degree of importance of the matter,
“It is essential that committees are able to consider matters freely and deliberate on matters in confidence,” Rurawhe said.
The offending press statement was released on 29 May, and describes a vote to put a definition of Mātauranga Māori in the bill. Mātauranga Māori is in the bill, but it has no definition.
An Act party spokesman said, “the Speaker has referred a question to the Privileges Committee, being whether Simon Court was within the rules for releasing the result of a decision by the Environment Select Committee”
“The decision was not to include a definition of Mātauranga Māori in the Natural and Built Environments Bill. As the committee had voted against including a definition, Mr Court believed that specific matter was closed and was therefore able to be discussed publicly.”
“His only motivation in this case was to be transparent with voters about decisions made on their behalf in Parliament.”
“Mr Court respects the rules of Parliament and will fully cooperate with the Privileges Committee as it decides on the question referred to it”.
Court is the second MP to be referred this year, following the referral of Education Minister Jan Tinetti to the committee after she took too long to correct an answer in the House.
Suspended Transport Minister Michael Wood could also end up before the privileges committee if an inquiry into his much-delayed pecuniary interest declarations find he took too long to declare his Auckland Airport and Contact Energy shares.
The privileges committee in these cases, functions like Parliament’s court. It investigates complaints, hears evidence on them, and can make recommendations for punishment.
