MP David Garrett accused of threat

ROSS GIBLIN/Dominion Post

WORDS: ACT MP David Garrett.

Relevant offers

Politics

Roading firm defends $500,000 donation $12 a week better off with tax changes More councils line up for gang bylaw Credit card spending details delayed Seabed law repeal set for August Hide protests over burden on Telecom Grilling due over cheap cigarettes Fit extractors now: Minister Police investigating after flag burnt at Parliament Stockbrokers face tougher rules

Prime Minister John Key says if allegations against ACT MP David Garrett are true, Parliament should take a hard line in disciplining him.

The firebrand MP is in hot water again after claims that he challenged a Labour MP to "take this outside" during heated exchanges in a select committee.

Mr Key said he had no briefings on the claim and did not want to prejudge the outcome.

If reports were true "then that would be a very unparliamentary conduct, but let's see. Sometimes fiction doesn't necessarily turn into fact".

"As a broader comment there's no place for violence in the New Zealand Parliament or even the suggestion of violence. I think if that was the case Parliament should take a pretty hard line

"The that way we are perceived by New Zealanders is important. We're the lawmakers and frankly we are meant to be role models to young New Zealanders who look at parliament and government and hopefully respect the process."

The exchange is understood to have taken place in a closed session of the law and order committee on Wednesday, and has prompted a privileges complaint from Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni.

It is understood her complaint relates to an exchange between Mr Garrett and another Labour MP, believed to be law and order spokesman Clayton Cosgrove.

The complaint is thought to centre on claims that Mr Garrett used a phrase along the lines of "let's take this outside" during his discussion with Mr Cosgrove.

Ms Sepuloni tried to table the complaint, which she made to Speaker Lockwood Smith, in Parliament yesterday but was blocked by National MP Sandra Goudie, who chairs the committee.

Labour MP Chris Hipkins later claimed in the House that Mr Garrett had threatened another MP. "I understand that he's taken to threatening other members of Parliament at select committees when he disagrees with them."

Mr Garrett said through a party spokeswoman that he could not comment on the allegations as they related to a closed session of a select committee and discussing them publicly was in itself a breach of privilege.

Mrs Goudie refused to say what had happened in the committee, as it was a closed session.

Mr Key said the management of ACT MPs was a matter for Rodney Hide and in the past he had taken that role seriously and acted promptly.

ACT leader Rodney Hide said he was not aware of the complaint, but dismissed the claims. "When the Labour Party says things, my experience is they're not true."

The complaint against Mr Garrett could prove embarrassing for ACT, which has hardline law and order policies and is aligned with the Sensible Sentencing Trust, an advocate of tougher and longer sentences.

Mr Garrett is the only one of ACT's five MPs from the Sensible Sentencing wing of the party. The alliance is known to have caused concern among more liberal ACT purists who fear the free-market economic policies on which the party was founded are being overshadowed.

Yesterday's complaint is the second privileges allegation Mr Garrett has faced in a week. The first, laid by Mr Cosgrove, also related to an incident in the law and order committee after Mr Garrett told prison officers who spoke out against plans for privately run jails that they had hurt their job prospects.

Mr Garrett said he had simply pointed out that the officers were not likely to be employed by a firm about which they had made negative statements.

In June, Mr Hide publicly berated Mr Garrett, a former lawyer, for sexually inappropriate remarks about a female party staff member.

Mr Garrett said he was sorry, and pleaded that he had yet to make the transition between what was acceptable in his Tongan law firm and what was acceptable in Parliament.