My Argument to Health Committee on Why I Believe They Have No Right to Reject my Submission Against the Therapeutic Products Bill.

 

[Note the below post is now uptated here.]

 

I received the below email yesterday from the Parliamentary Health Committee hearing submissions against the Therapeutic Products Bill:

 

Thank you for your submission on the Therapeutics Products Bill. The Health Committee has resolved to return your submission, under Standing Order 220, based on the grounds that it considers it to be possibly defamatory.

 Ngā mihi

Committee staff

Health Committee Secretariat

Given this I plan to publish my submission to this blog, soon, and you can decide for yourselves if it is defamatory or the committee rejected it for quite different and self-serving motives regarding the continuation of both the government's and the opposition's largely false narrative on Covid policy and the safety and effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine. Before that, however, I have sent the following back to the Committee to see if this one part of our broken democratic system, my right to be heard, can be repaired this once.

Dear Health Committee

Per your below email I don't accept the Health Committee sending my Therapeutic Products Bill submission back, meaning it won't be counted as opposition against this bill, on the grounds that it was, quote, 'possibly' defamatory.

Members of the committee do not know the governing legislation, and this has resulted in my democratic right to be heard against this bill being withheld unjustly.

Firstly, and sorry to insert a Twitter comment but it conveys the law well, you have rejected my submission under parliamentary standing orders, however, that is illegal in this case.

 

 As that twitter account says those standing orders are 'not intended to diminish or restrict the Houses's rights, privileges, immunities, and powers'. Among those immunities, or rather privileges, all publications of Parliament, including my submission as defined below - and before we even get to the nature of my 'possible' defamation - are within parliamentary privilege and not liable to defamation:

 

So, given that my submission before your Parliamentary committee is covered by privilege, including immunity from defamation, you have acted on your own volition to reject my submission on grounds that are not applicable.

I put it to you it is more important in a democracy that in this case by submission be heard, over your 'possibly' offended sensibilities, because I think there is no defamation in my submission, only vigorous criticism - okay very vigorous criticism albeit I explained why in the submission I no longer feel bound to be 'nice' in my interactions with this government. Indeed, I believe I know what really is the problem here, which is why I will soon be publishing my submission to my public blog.

However, before that, because my priority here is to be heard against this dreadful bill, it's important to me, I offer a compromise: which parts of my submission does the Health Committee consider defamation? I may well be prepared to blank those out, and blanked out as opposed to deleted in order to show there has been censorship here, so my submission can be counted against this bill.

I look forward to your reply in anticipation.

Regards Mark Hubbard