Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi faces possible censure for comment in Parliament on court case

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi is facing a possible censure from the Speaker or Parliament’s Privileges Committee after he appeared to refer to a case before the courts to which suppression orders apply.

Speaking in Parliament under the legal protection of Parliamentary privilege, Waititi made an apparent reference to the case on Wednesday.

After an objection about it, the Speaker Adrian Rurawhe told MPs he would review the comments.

Parliamentary privilege protects MPs from legal or court action for remarks made in Parliament’s debating chamber, including contempt of court.

However, it is against Parliament’s rules – the Standing Orders - for MPs to refer to matters that are before the courts or suppressed by court orders.

Breaching those rules could result in an MP being censured by the Speaker or being referred to the Privileges Committee, including a potential finding of contempt of Parliament.

The Speaker’s Office has been approached for comment. A spokesperson for Te Pāti Māori said they would not comment.

Speaking to the media outside the Debating Chamber afterwards, Act leader David Seymour said raising such matters was a “very serious offence,” whether an MP was protected by Parliamentary privilege or not.

“If I was aware of somebody facing criminal charges and it was suppressed, then I would not talk about it out here and I would not abuse my Parliamentary privilege to talk about it in there. It’s a very serious offence in both contexts.”

“If [Waititi] believes it is true and he has used his privilege – or abused his privilege – to do this then that has got very serious consequences for our Parliament.”

Under Parliament’s rules, whether an MP can comment on a matter that is before the courts is subject to the discretion of the Speaker. Any MP who wishes to refer to such an issue must give written notice of it to the Speaker in advance.

Parliament’s rules state that the Speaker has to balance the privilege of freedom of speech against the public interest in maintaining confidence in the judicial process, and take into account the constitutional relationship between the courts and Parliament, and the risk of prejudicing a matter before the courts.