Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1938. PRIVILEGE AND JUSTICE.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 4 August 1938, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1938. PRIVILEGE AND JUSTICE.

♦ Apart entirely from the merits of a particular episode which has gained notoriety within the last few days, the question of the measure of freedom and protection enjoyed by members of Parliament in their utterances in either the House of Representatives or the Legislative Council evidently merits careful consideration. It should get that consideration, not only in Parliament, -but from the people, who are the makers and masters of Parliament. At a direct view it can be regarded as nothing else than outrageous that it should be ,open to a member -of . Parliament to make in the House attacks on outsiders against which those attacked are denied the legal redress it would be open to them to seek if the same statements < were made otherwise than under the shelter of Parliamentary privilege. The possibility of abuse in these conditions has been magnified by the recent innovation of the broadcasting of Parliamentary debates, but the really important historical boundary line where the aspect of Parliamentary privilege under review is concerned is perhaps the year 1771. It is since that year that the proceedings of both Houses of the British Parliament, on whose procedure and practice that, of our own Parliament is based, have been freely reported. Tn preceding centuries much that, still remains part of the structure of Parliamentary privilege was gained or established by our Mother of Parliaments in circumstances of constitutional conflict. Overran extended period, privileges that assured immunity to members of Parliament in the exercise of their representative duties were a necessary protection against tyranny. That protection is needed no longer, but it is still necessary that members of Parliament, in their capacity as legislators, should be entirely free and unfettered in dealing, with any aspect of public and national affairs. Hampering restrictions oh Parliament, are inconsistent with the constitutional principles and needs of a democracy, and indeed could not be applied, since Parliament is subject only to the people by whom it is elected. What may fairly be called an intolerable and abominable state of affairs would be created, however, if privileges which are essential to the efficient and unhampered discharge by Parliament of its duties were misused for petty and personal ends. Keeping in sight the greater as well as the smaller issues involved, it seems unlikely that a satisfactory remedy for abuses of this kind could be found in an express limitation of Parliamentary privilege—for instance, by making members of Parliament, in that capacity subject to legal proceedings for defamation. At the same time, it cannot be expected or desired that abuses , of Parliamentary privilege should stand unchallenged. A great deal obviously must depend upon the standards set by Parliament in the control of its own proceedings. The lowering of these standards would imperil or make impossible the continuance of privileges which serve, at a comprehensive view, a valid and necessary purpose—that of enabling Parliament to exercise in full freedom the supreme authority with which it is invested for the time being by the body of electors. It is only by maintaining high and worthy standards that Parliament can hope to maintain its privileges. The misuse of these privileges inevitably would lead to increasing demands for remedy and redress which could not indefinitely be resisted, but which could not be granted without lowering the standing and authority Parliament has hitherto enjoyed. The only complete solution of the problem raised is that Parliament should refuse to tolerate, in its sheltered but widelyreported deliberations, any abuse of the privileges with which it is clothed.