Kedgley Sue: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Action Taken Against Chief Executive Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Action Taken Against Chief Executive Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5955] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party wishes to support the report of the Privileges Committee. It is an excellent report it is thoughtful and well-considered and it deals with extremely important issues. Those issues really boil down to freedom of speech in this Parliament and that is obviously something we believe we must jealously protect. 
We support the recommendations of the committee about amending Standing Order 399 and revising the guidelines to make it absolutely clear that witnesses who appear before select committees must not be subject to any pressure that would deter them from giving evidence or to action taken against them as a direct consequence of their giving evidence to a select committee. These principles are so fundamental that it might be useful that the guidelines once written up be given out widely perhaps even to witnesses when select committees have inquiries before them. The guidelines should be given maximum publicity so that not just people in the State Services Commission but also people in New Zealand are aware of the consequences that would occur if they tried to interfere with the giving of evidence or deter a witness from giving evidence. 
I have one concern. Often it is very difficult to establish that pressure has been brought to bear on a witness who has presented evidence in a parliamentary select committee. Even though the pressure that is brought to bear may have been quite intense it may not be so direct or obvious that a person can make a case to the Privileges Committee. It was very clear-cut in the case of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) because that company was foolish enough to write a letter spelling out that it was effectively punishing the previous chief executive because of remarks he had made in a select committee. So that was very clear. TVNZ made the mistake. It committed its intention to paper and we were able to make quite a clear-cut ruling in that case. 
I am aware of a situation where an employee approached a parliamentary committee and the employer sought to prevent that person from coming to that committee. It is quite possible that intense pressures were put on the employee but it would have been very difficult to sheet that home in a Privileges Committee action. There are very many ways that someone—particularly someone in a position of power such as an employer—can put pressure on or punish an employee who has approached a select committee and presented evidence that for example an employer was unhappy about. There are many ways of doing that without it being so obvious that the employee could take a case before the Privileges Committee. I am aware of specific examples where this may have happened. I am not quite certain how one gets around this situation but I hope the guidelines will be quite fulsome and try to cover cases where the pressure is intense but not overt as it was with TVNZ. 
The other principles and themes that have been highlighted here—such as the freedom of witnesses to give evidence the necessity that that freedom be absolute and that the protection of witnesses from intimidation must be absolute—are tremendously important and we strongly support them. We very much welcome this report and look forward to the guidelines and the amendments to Standing Order 399. 
One other aspect I would like to remark on is that at some point we need to consider the issue of Ministers who refuse to appear before select committees. This happened recently in the Health Committee where a Minister said she would attend the committee hearing. Basically a select committee is powerless in that situation. All other witnesses can be compelled to come before a select committee but Ministers cannot be. So that perhaps is something we need to look at in future. 
In summary the Green Party strongly supports this report. We think it is very thoughtful and well-written. We have concerns however that individuals can be subject—or may in the future still be subject—to intense pressure that is exercised by people in ways that are insufficiently direct or overt to allow for a case to be brought against them. We are still concerned about that.