Editorial: Rules must control abuse of privilege

Opinion

Not for the first time in his long career under parliamentary protection Winston Peters has used his privilege in a way that must be of concern to anyone with a sense of fairness and decency. Last week in Parliament Mr Peters took it upon himself to accuse a man of paedophilia on what turned out to be the flimsiest of connections. The man, Jim Peron, who owns a bookshop in Auckland, had previously owned one in San Francisco where a group calling itself the "North American Man Boy Love Association" used to hold its meetings. Mr Peron says the group was using the shop when he bought it but he soon became "uncomfortable" about the arrangement and asked them to move on. But by the time he put that explanation into the public arena, the airwaves were alive with his character assassination.

Is this fair? Parliament's immunity to its own laws of defamation is a privilege that almost all other MPs use with responsibility and restraint. It would be wrong to curb their freedom of speech because one unscrupulous member is ready to abuse it. But ordinary natural justice suggests that certain checks be written into Parliament's rules. To that end, the rules were amended some years ago to give individuals who are maligned in the House a right of reply for the record. That is of dubious value. As a received document it will not have the impact of the original accusations and, as Mr Peron has said, it merely gives the accuser another chance to grandstand in response. Something fairer ought to be found.

What would be the harm, perhaps, in requiring MPs to give people fair notice before they are to be maligned under privilege and, further, requiring the MP to face questions on the spot from a lawyer for the accused? That, of course, would mean giving leave for a "stranger" to speak in the chamber, which goes against long tradition, but it would hardly rattle the ramparts of democracy. It would give the accused's representative a chance to test the factual basis of the allegation and offer an explanation on the spot. The MP, of course, would probably then want a right of reply, which would have to be denied if proceedings were not to become mired in the sort of argument better conducted in a court of law.

When an MP decides to level personal accusations under privilege he is taking upon himself a prosecutorial function better handled by the courts. Often he does so precisely because the evidence he possesses would not be sufficient to prove a criminal or civil offence in court. And it is often in the public interest that Parliament provides a forum where behaviour that is not unlawful but nevertheless is contrary to the public good can be exposed. Mr Peters' "winebox" revelations turned out to be in that category. A pity he is not always as well briefed or even, perhaps, well intentioned.

His attack on Mr Peron appeared to be intended mainly to embarrass a rival, Rodney Hide, though he did not initially name the Act leader as the MP who has helped Mr Peron, a United States citizen, to apply for residency here. Mr Hide, wise no doubt to Mr Peters' drip-feed tactics, promptly identified himself and accused the New Zealand First leader of making the vilest of allegations simply because Mr Peron is gay and happens to be a friend of Mr Hide. That was a brave endorsement in the circumstances of the moment and the Act leader deserves the utmost credit for it.

Undeterred, Mr Peters in Parliament the next day said Mr Peron's San Francisco shop had been raided by the police because he employed a sex offender. Mr Peron replied that a part-time employee had been arrested for a breach of California's age of consent (18) and that the man's place of employment was searched for evidence. How much better it would be if that sort of explanation could be given on the spot when ordinary, unprivileged people are smeared for a dishonourable purpose.