Power Simon: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Action Taken Against Chief Executive Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Power Simon: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Action Taken Against Chief Executive Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5952] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 16 February 2006 on the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
 The Privileges Committee has now reported back to the House on the question of the action taken by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Members will recall that this report is the second report. It follows an interim report presented to the House on 5 April 2006 in which the Privileges Committee found and the House agreed that TVNZ had committed a contempt. We recommended and the House agreed that a written apology be made by TVNZ and that for the first time in well over a hundred years a fine be imposed on the company. As I said the House adopted both those recommendations. 
There were however some remaining issues as a matter of principle and direction that the Privileges Committee has sought to clarify for the House. For example in the interim report the Privileges Committee questioned whether it was realistic for the House or for a select committee witness to assume that no consequences to a relationship would arise from a witness appearing before a select committee particularly if that witness was giving prejudicial or critical evidence. We suggested that it was a matter of balance and that it would be necessary for the House to develop some principles and guidance for use in those situations. 
Accordingly the Privileges Committee recommends to the House that Standing Order 399 be amended to include the following in the considerations that are relevant in deciding whether to invoke the power to punish for contempt: firstly the conduct of any person taking part in parliamentary proceedings; and secondly the nature of any action taken against any person on account of that person’s parliamentary actions—in particular whether that individual was disadvantaged or dealt with otherwise than he or she would be in accordance with the privilege that accrued to him or her at the time the evidence was given to a select committee. Further the Privileges Committee recommends to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that in 12 months’ time it review progress made by the State Services Commissioner in providing guidance to the boards of Crown entities and State-owned enterprises on their responsibilities in their relationships with Parliament. 
Before I deal with the last recommendation I will just pause and say that the Privileges Committee’s strong view was that people taking up appointments with Crown entities and State-owned enterprises did not have sufficient training or guidance in how to deal with institutions of Parliament. In particular there was insufficient training in giving evidence before select committees and in issues relating to contempt privilege and the like that could arise by way of that evidence being tendered. In fact as the Privileges Committee report tabled yesterday shows many of those matters are not covered in any detail at all at the time those appointments are made. The Privileges Committee did spend some time considering whether such guidance should also apply to the senior management of those agencies but we leave that matter for further consideration. 
 Important for the Government the Privileges Committee also recommends that the Government revise its guidelines—as supplied for example in the  
Cabinet Manual 
—regarding witnesses who appear before select committees. The guidance should make it absolutely clear that pressure must not be placed on individuals to deter them from giving evidence and that action cannot be taken against them as a direct consequence of their giving evidence to a select committee. 
By way of background we reviewed a number of privileges reports about the disadvantaging of witnesses in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom Canada and Australia. We endorse the following common themes: firstly the protection of witnesses before a select committee is a fundamental aspect of parliamentary privilege secondly the freedom of witnesses to give evidence must be absolute and thirdly the protection of witnesses who appear before parliamentary committees is the single most important duty of a Privileges Committee when determining possible contempts. 
It has long been recognised that if parliamentary inquiries are to be carried out effectively witnesses who give evidence to the House or a committee have to be protected against adverse consequences they may suffer as a result of giving that evidence. That point is well understood and there is a long-held rule of law dating back to the Bill of Rights 1688 to provide immunity for parliamentary proceedings from legal liability. The absence of recent case law on the issue in New Zealand or overseas suggests—and this is important—that it is well understood that evidence given by a witness before a select committee cannot be questioned in a court of law. If Parliament is to hold witnesses liable or accountable for that parliamentary evidence that is a matter for Parliament not the courts. However that principle can as we say in our report fly in the face of reality. The House must decide on a case by case basis whether a particular action or omission has the tendency directly or indirectly to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions. 
 Disadvantaging a witness on account of his or her evidence before a select committee may amount to a contempt but whether it does so requires consideration. It is on that basis that the Privileges Committee has recommended to the House that that be done by adding to Standing Order 399 a reference to the factors that the House will consider in determining whether conduct constitutes a contempt. 
It is worth emphasising one or two further points. Evidence given to a select committee cannot form the sole basis for an action against the person who gave it. The Privileges Committee looked carefully at that point and I make the following statement in support. The evidence might act as a prompt for an employer to establish a separate inquiry into the conduct of the staff member concerned but any action against the staff member should be based on the results of that separate inquiry not on the evidence given before a select committee or before Parliament. That was a fundamental point that members of the Privileges Committee worked hard to clarify starting on the basis of the interim report. 
Those recommendations are made to the House and as I said I move accordingly.