Dalziel Lianne: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Action Taken Against Chief Executive Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Action Taken Against Chief Executive Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5953] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on the final report of the Privileges Committee on the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As the chair of the Privileges Committee has already stated despite what the title of the final report indicates that issue was essentially dealt with in the interim report. The final report deals with a proposed amendment to the Standing Order that gave rise to the contempt and recommends that the Finance and Expenditure Committee review the guidance that is given by the State Services Commission to the boards of Crown entities and State enterprises on their responsibilities in relationships within Parliament. Finally it recommends that the Government revise its own guidelines regarding witnesses who appear before select committees. 
Certainly I agree with the comments that the member who has just resumed his seat has made in respect of the advice we received and the evidence we considered—that there does appear to be a considerable gap in the provision of information to board chairs in that important regard. I think that that is unfortunate because it leads to results such as the one we have had in this particular case which I am sure was not the intention of anyone involved. That being said the committee did not at the time believe that it was realistic for witnesses to assume that there would be no consequences to relationships arising from prejudicial or critical evidence and this report reinforces our view in that regard. 
This report sets out some common themes that have been derived from overseas cases regarding the disadvantaging of witnesses in the UK Canada and Australia and it would appear that inadequate guidance on parliamentary privilege is not a uniquely New Zealand problem. The reality is that the relevant Standing Orders 399 and 400 state what the House may treat as contempt. It is a discretion; it is not absolute. The recommendation we have made to amend the Standing Order would add a reference to the factors the House will consider in determining whether conduct constitutes a content. Two such factors are the conduct of any person in parliamentary proceedings and the nature of the action taken against any person on account of that person’s parliamentary action. In fact the example that the chair of the committee used is exactly the example I was going to refer to—that is where evidence is given in a select committee that could not of itself form the sole basis for an action against the person who gave it but could prompt the employer to establish a separate inquiry. If that separate inquiry in itself led to cause for action to be taken against the employee then it would not offend against the principles that we have discussed in this report. 
The State Services Commissioner gave a very helpful submission saying that parties in a parliamentary process need an appreciation for each other’s positions and he highlighted the fact that Parliament has the ultimate overriding oversight of the State sector. But he pointed out that it is equally important to protect the standards of good faith loyalty political neutrality and independence of public servants and officials in New Zealand. He felt that in his view forbearance by both sides from actions that might unnecessarily undermine the positions of those involved may prevent difficulties arising and I think that that was very helpful advice indeed. The State Services Commissioner has also advised that he will be considering this report in terms of any revising of State Services Commission guidelines that may be necessary. 
In terms of the Finance and Expenditure Committee review that we have recommended take place in 12 months’ time we have suggested also that training and guidance provided to those we have described as gatekeepers within those organisations be a matter for consideration. 
The final point I make is to highlight the suggested wording that we have worked on for an amendment to Government guidelines. I think that this wording is extremely helpful in terms of laying out very clearly what we are proposing: “Parliamentary proceedings are subject to absolute privilege to ensure that those participating in them including witnesses before select committees can do so without fear of external consequences. This protection enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1688 is an essential element in ensuring that Parliament can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors. There must be no pressure placed on individuals to deter them or action taken against them as a direct consequence of their giving evidence to a select committee. Any such action might be regarded as contempt of the House with potentially serious consequences for those involved.” I think that if those words had been available to Television New Zealand prior to the appearance at the Finance and Expenditure Committee then perhaps this report would not have been necessary. But in many respects this has produced a good report which will be useful for all agencies and all individuals appearing before select committees in the future. I recommend this report to the House.