Few people would believe that politicians never lie. But it is incredibly rare for an MP to be disciplined in the House for lying, or made to explain themselves before the Privileges Committee. Why? What exactly are Parliament’s rules around lying?
MPs refer to lying as deliberately misleading Parliament. They also have a related no-no referred to as misrepresenting, which is lying about what another MP has said or done.
These are topics that come up in Parliament frequently. Just this week an MP accused another of misrepresenting, more than one corrected a mistake that might come to be seen as a lie, and another was censured for responding badly to another MP’s claim.
David Wilson, Clerk of the House of Representatives, giving evidence to a select committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
To assist in traversing Parliament’s quirks I spoke with two experts: David Wilson and Duncan Webb.
David Wilson is the Clerk of House of Representatives. Parliament’s rules are his metier, and among his many roles, the Clerk advises Parliament’s Speakers on its rules. Labour MP Duncan Webb is deputy chair of the Privileges Committee, which investigates MP misbehaviour.
Free speech and honourable behaviour
Let’s start with an important fundamental about Parliament from Webb. “It's the freest place in terms of speech and expression in the country.” He’s talking about the fact that MPs are privileged – just not in the way you think.
“The absolute privilege that Members of Parliament have [is] to say anything. And that's part of the kind of values system, that means we don't intervene lightly. We let people say stuff, because that's the right they [fought] the English Civil War for.”
Under absolute privilege, parliamentary speech comes with no legal repercussions. Balancing that kind of power is a tricky thing. Webb says that this freedom is balanced by a social compact in which everyone agrees to abide by a set standard of behaviour. For historical reasons that standard is based on the conduct expected of a mid-sixteenth century Italian courtier. Anyone who thinks that Renaissance Italians were an ideal of good behaviour never met Lucrecia Borgia, or most renaissance popes.
Honourable = honest
“MPs are not allowed to lie in the House,” says Wilson. “It's called ‘deliberately misleading Parliament’, and it can be treated as a contempt of Parliament. Members are allowed to be wrong, …if they find out they were wrong about something they've said they're expected to come to the House and correct it. Because Parliament operates on a trust basis, and on the assumption that all members are honourable and tell the truth, it's seen as a cardinal sin not to – to deliberately mislead the House.”
Since every MP is honourable you can’t stand up in the House and claim another MP has lied as that would impugn their honour. Any self-respecting Italian noble would demand a duel for such a slight.
“We don't call each other names like racists and liars, even if what is being said is untrue. We assume that they have simply made a mistake, which is different from lying, and that it should be pointed out, and they should be given an opportunity to correct. If they choose not to, then there's a whole different process for that right, which is the privileges process.”
Webb notes that there is a gulf between the principle and the daily reality.
“Reality is a world away from that, because it is a pretty fast moving place.”
He thinks it is harder for government MPs to stay onside of the truth, “because in opposition, you tear things down, you're just saying ‘that's wrong’, rather than saying ‘this is right’. But in government, you've got to be good on your facts, because people are relying on you to get it right.”
He does think though that there are “shades of grey”. “There's some very loose language. There are some opinions dressed up as facts, and they're probably the most dangerous, right? …And then, of course, there's just genuinely making stuff up or making fundamental errors, saying 'the world is like A', [when] in fact, it's like B. That is misleading and should be corrected.”
Labour MP Duncan Webb in Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee Photo: ©VNP / Phil Smith
Responsible government demands honesty
Wilson points out that MPs lying obstructs the functioning of Parliament. “You can't scrutinise the government if ministers won't tell the truth. Equally, ministers can't fairly answer questions if the premise that the question is based on is also false, and knowingly false.”
Remember that knowingly false is not the same as ignorant or mistaken, so long as any mistakes are corrected promptly.
This may all sound silly, but consider this alternative. Imagine there was a low bar on what was considered misleading Parliament, and some sort of live fact-checking. An MP could stand up after another MP’s speech and say, ‘you made these ten mistakes’, and then the House would have to deal with those claims before it could move on... Nothing would ever get done.
I put this to Webb who said “it sometimes feels like we don't anyway”. He added an alternative problematic outcome of having a lower bar.
“If I had to be absolutely sure of every single thing I said in Parliament, to what extent would that edit me? To what extent would that have a chilling effect on the fierceness with which I did my job. Because we do want our MPs to be brave and fierce, and not be second guessing every single thing they say.”
A contentious bill before the House when we spoke is one aimed at gangs. Webb has strong opinions about it.
“I think it's despicable, and I made my views known using forceful language. I think respectful, but very forceful. Was every single assertion I made 100 percent correct, quite possibly not… It is difficult to know. It's unscripted, it's extemporaneous. But it's important that you have that in Parliament, because that is what debate is – it's an exchange in real time.”
I asked whether he means he caught himself giving out incorrect facts. Not the facts, he says, it was more the personal reflections.
“When you're getting so heated, you might use a personal reference that you think ‘that's probably not the best way to express my views of that member’s intelligence or qualities’. You know, you want to keep that stuff moderated.
“You do want to be collegial. Having said that, it's, you know, it's hard, it's hard to be chummy with people who you think are doing genuinely vile things to the country. Honestly.”
Winston Peters during the first debate of the 54th Parliament. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Demanding satisfaction
If an MP in debate misquotes or misrepresents what you have said or done, or impugns your honour, you can correct them. Wilson outlines how MPs can correct such misrepresentations of character.
“There's often hyperbole in debate… And there are a couple of ways of putting that right. One is that, although members can generally only speak once in a debate, if they feel they've been misrepresented, they're actually allowed to get up and speak again – only to correct that misrepresentation. That almost never happens. …They can't attack the person who got things wrong, but they can put it right.
“There's [also] the option of making a ‘personal explanation’, to explain to the House what the situation is. It's a way that members correct statements they've made that are wrong, but also sort of a way of defending their honour. If they feel their reputation has been damaged in some way, they can speak to that.”
A version of this took place last week, when Winston Peters objected to a question from Chris Hipkins to the Prime Minister. Hipkins had drawn attention to Facebook posts from Mr Peters commenting on a sports/gender issue. He had asked the Prime Minister “is his Minister of Foreign Affairs providing a running commentary on the gender of international athletes consistent with the standard of behaviour that he expects of his Ministers?”
Peters complained that “I have the post. It says nothing of the sort, and I expect him to get up now and apologise.”
At times like this Parliament’s honour system takes things in an unexpected direction.
When Peters denied he had commented in such a way, you might expect that Hipkins would begin quoting from Peter’s posts. But he did not. Instead, the Speaker ruled “he has replied that it is not accurate, and, therefore, the member's word has to be accepted.”
Webb explains it like this.
“I guess, to put it in modern language, MPs are deemed trustworthy, and so if they say ‘that's not what I said’, that is a misrepresentation, then the House, every member and the Speaker, will assume that to be true and move on to the next thing.”
Screenshot of a Facebook post from Winston Peters in which he references (discredited) claims about the gender of an Olympic boxer. Photo: Facebook
Withdraw and apologise
There’s one more aspect to this. Speakers will often tell MPs to “withdraw” a statement, or even to “withdraw and apologise”. Wilson points out that this isn’t a value judgement; just an attempt to keep order in the chamber.
Withdrawing a statement does nothing, other than restoring the offended member’s honour. Which might once have prevented the prospect of a duel.
However, the insult stays written in the Hansard record of Parliament.
Why are so few MPs punished for lying?
Speakers judge whether a lie is worthy of further investigation. Across decades they have created a very high bar for what is considered misleading. Wilson says contraventions would require “that a member has personal knowledge of something, they know it to be untrue, and they go ahead and say it anyway.” Webb says “they certainly lean in favour of free debate.”
Not only is the bar high, but there is also an easy way out. Wilson explains.
“Often, they'll take the opportunity to come back into the House and correct something that they think has been misleading, because if they made a mistake, and they find out that they've made a mistake, the onus is on them to go back and correct it. If they do that, then they can't be accused of lying or deliberately misleading the House.”
MPs can make that correction after someone has complained to the Speaker. The MP would become aware of the complaint because the principles of open justice require the Speaker to inform the accused that a complaint has been laid.
Correcting a mistake to avoid trial and punishment is not a criminal justice policy many MPs would pass into law, but it’s their own practice.
Ministers are the most at risk of being punished. They are held to a higher standard, says Wilson.
“Because they're the ones who are questioned and have to give answers that are truthful and informative. And the government needs the confidence of the House in order to stay in government. The same isn't true of the rest of Parliament. So yeah, they are held to a higher standard.”
Ministers correcting answers after the fact is actually pretty common in the House. Not getting it right can lead to no end of political trouble, and with so much detail, and ministers often holding numerous portfolios, genuine mistakes are unavoidable.
File photo: Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, presents the 2024 budget. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Getting in early
Sometimes a canny Minister can see that something they’ve said is about to become a mistake and proactively corrects it. This week it felt like that occurred during Question Time when, halfway through a series of questions from Labour’s Barbara Edmonds about the cost of InterIsland ferry replacements it became clear that Edmonds had been leaked some inside information. The Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis was not pleased, but also prudently expanded on an earlier reply, in case it had seemed misleading.
“Two things. First, the member is making a series of assertions about a report that is not in the public domain, and I would suggest to her, she'd be very careful about whether or not the sources she's getting her information from are providing her with accurate, fully contextualised information, because it will eventually go to her credibility if she makes assertions in this House that are incorrect. Second, Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a point of clarification in regards to the previous comments that I made to be clear with the House when I said ‘zero’, what I meant was the potential cost to the Crown. It will, of course, cost something to upgrade port facilities. The point is what costs the Crown incurs.”
As the Clerk noted “If they [correct a mistake], then they can't be accused of lying or deliberately misleading the House.”
There are easy options for an MP to correct themselves and avoid consequences. Self-preservation requires sucking up their pride and getting in quickly. Occasionally someone misses all the exit signs and crashes right through to public embarrassment and eventual sanction, which, when it comes, is likely to be media attention, political embarrassment and an apology.
