Privilege — Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee

I move, That this House—

(1) resolves that the actions taken by Television New Zealand against Mr Ian Fraser following Mr Fraser’s appearance before the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 14 December 2005 constitute a contempt of the House,

(2) orders Television New Zealand to make a formal written apology to the House for those actions, and

(3) orders Television New Zealand to pay a fine of $1,000.

On the delivery of this, the second but first full report from the Privileges Committee in this Parliament, I take the opportunity to thank all members of that committee for their participation in this matter. The committee was required to meet at odd hours, and I am grateful to its members for their approach, and for the seriousness with which they dealt with this particular matter. The Privileges Committee has historically been a judicious and apolitical committee, and I can report to the House today that this position continues.

In respect of the report, I would like to begin with some general comments, then move to the specifics of the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) issue itself. This report is significant for three reasons. The first is that it sends an unequivocal message to State-owned enterprises and public organisations that Parliament will treat with the utmost seriousness any behaviour that impedes the proper process of accountability to the elected representatives of the people. That is a general warning. Secondly, this is the first time in 103 years that the Privileges Committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives is recommending that a fine be imposed. This reaffirms Parliament’s rights in this regard, and, although token in quantum, we note that future breaches of privilege may incur a higher fine. A line in the sand has now been drawn. State-owned enterprises and Crown agencies stand warned that Parliament will assert its rights, and future shortcomings by those organisations will come at a cost. The Privileges Committee has run out of wet bus tickets.

Thirdly, a further report of the committee will be forthcoming on the general question of protection of witnesses before select committees, and the Privileges Committee has made clear that a question remains as to whether it is realistic for the House or witnesses to assume that no consequences to relationships, at all, will arise from their giving evidence to a select committee. As the report states, the extent of protection afforded by the House requires further inquiry by the committee.

I turn now to the specific issues relating to TVNZ. Standing Order 400(w) provides as an example of contempt any “disadvantaging” of a witness before a committee of the House. On 7 December 2005 Mr Ian Fraser appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the financial review of Television New Zealand, as outgoing chief executive. On 14 December 2005 Mr Fraser appeared again as part of a Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry. It was at that particular meeting that Mr Fraser made some comments that were critical of the board and its members. On 22 December, Mr Boyce, Chairman of TVNZ, wrote to Mr Fraser saying that his comments amounted to serious misconduct and that it would be inappropriate for him to continue to represent TVNZ for the balance of the notice period he was serving out since his resignation. The chairperson of TVNZ, after Mr Fraser wrote to the Finance and Expenditure Committee complaining about the board’s actions, withdrew the board’s comments about misconduct and apologised to the Finance and Expenditure Committee if it had “inadvertently” offended the committee as a result of its action.

It was at that point that you, Madam Speaker, referred the matter to the Privileges Committee for its consideration, and the Privileges Committee has found that the letter of 22 December does amount to a contempt, as it disadvantaged Mr Fraser on account of his evidence given to the Finance and Expenditure Committee during that inquiry. The report does note that poor legal advice is not an excuse for the breach of the Standing Orders.

I turn briefly to the wider issues relating to the protection of witnesses. This is a matter that I suspect will occupy some time for the committee in the near future. The committee intends to continue to examine this wider action, and the extent to which any action may be taken against somebody providing evidence at a select committee when action taken against that person as a result of that appearance creates a difficulty. The matter is not clear cut. There is a question of balance, and it may well be necessary for the House to develop some principles, some guidance, and possibly even some clarification around the Standing Orders on this matter.

We do consider this to be an issue of significance to anyone who appears before a select committee. With this in mind, in our final report on this issue that you, Madam Speaker, have referred to the committee, we will consider whether, or how far, this protection should extend, in particular to those witnesses who attempt to use privilege to their own advantage or to make allegations they cannot or will not substantiate.

The report, in concluding, makes very clear that the Privileges Committee of this Parliament is not prepared merely to repeat its past warnings to State-owned enterprises and Crown agencies regarding their obligations to this Parliament and to its committees. The words contained in the report best sum up the committee’s feelings, where it states: “We intend to leave those who serve on the boards or in management of such organisations in no doubt that Parliament will treat with the utmost seriousness any behaviour that impedes the proper process of accountability to the elected representatives of the people.”

While we note that Mr Boyce, as the Chairman of TVNZ, did tender an apology, the committee did not believe that this was sufficient to put an end to the matter. The Privileges Committee recommends that the contempt of TVNZ be punished by requiring from the board of TVNZ a formal written apology to this House and further be punished by imposing on the board of TVNZ a fine of $1,000.

The Privileges Committee indeed found that a breach of privilege occurred on this occasion. We cannot allow any witness to come before a select committee, give evidence, and then be disadvantaged in any way by having done so. That is the import of Standing Order 400(w). That happened, and it is accordingly a breach of privilege. It needs to be noted as such, and that happens on page 6 of the interim report of the Privileges Committee.

As the previous speaker noted, the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) chairman has apologised to the committee for an inadvertent breach of privilege, indicating that it was never the company’s intention to undermine the workings of Parliament. Indeed, as the Privileges Committee went on to note in the report, we would not expect that it would have happened otherwise than inadvertently. It would not be our expectation that such a thing would ever be done on purpose, and to that extent we accept that it was inadvertent.

But a key point here is the extent to which it is reasonable to assume that board members will be familiar enough with the Standing Orders to factor that knowledge into their employment relations management. The committee’s findings require, however, that TVNZ, and indeed all Crown entities, ensure that they comply with Parliament’s requirements and, in particular, the requirements of the Standing Orders. That issue may go to future action and the future training of boards, and it is important that a lesson is learnt here.

I know from my own experience in governance positions, having been trained in the exercise of governance responsibilities and even in taking into account the responsibility of appearing before select committees—as I have had to do from time to time in governance roles—the relationship with a select committee is taken very seriously in that training. But the Standing Orders are never known as intimately by people outside of this House as by those within it. However, as the earlier speaker said, the failure of advice to people cannot be a complete exoneration. So these findings do raise issues of future awareness for State-owned enterprises, Crown entities, and others who may appear before select committees from time to time.

What these findings do not do is go to the heart of TVNZ’s success as a broadcaster. I think it is important to make that point, even though the point at issue here is the findings of the Privileges Committee. TVNZ is a successful broadcaster. It has the best ratings of any public broadcaster in the world, and, in fact, in recent times both a new chairman and a new chief executive officer have been appointed to TVNZ. We expect, in the light of this Privileges Committee report, that the board and the company will fulfil their roles responsibly, adhering at all times to the statutory requirements of a Crown entity company, including the requirements of Parliament and its committees. We hope that that will be the behaviour of all such Crown entities in the future, learning, as undoubtedly they will do, from the findings of the Privileges Committee. We look forward to the continued success of Television New Zealand as a broadcaster.

Madam Speaker, I first of all welcome the fact that you are in the Chair to hear this debate; you recognise the importance it has for Parliament and, in particular, the Privileges Committee, which is often referred to as being the most powerful committee of Parliament.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Usually with irony.

As Dr Mapp notes, that expression has been used with some irony in the past. I am pleased to see that the committee is on the road to showing that it expects a higher standard of behaviour from those who are obliged to report to the elected representatives of the owners of those sorts of businesses.

I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr Simon Power, not only for the clear exposition of the committee’s findings for the House today but also for the way in which the committee was chaired. It is no mean undertaking to get so many quite adventurous members of Parliament, who have their own views around a Privileges Committee table, to agree on a report of this nature. I commend him for the way in which he chaired the committee during those quite difficult hearings.

I welcome the report of the committee, because I am one who has for some time been engaged in pursuing the odd Crown entity or State-owned enterprise that has fallen short of its obligations to Parliament and to the select committees of Parliament. As the Privileges Committee report states, there has been a pattern of insufficient behaviour in the past—loose behaviour—that has required the committee to make a decision that is fundamentally about whether this place will ever take itself seriously in respect of the accountability of publicly owned businesses.

The decision that has been made to impose a fine, and to acknowledge the token nature of the fine—because it is the first time in 103 years that such a step has been taken—is the right, measured response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. A step had to be taken. As Mr Power has said, a line had to been drawn in the sand. But we had to be careful to ensure that one organisation or one group of individuals was not being unduly penalised, because the Privileges Committee in the past has been inclined to extend some generosity to State enterprises, and simply to accept even a grudging apology as being an end to the matter.

So I think the Privileges Committee has got it right. There will be critics who say that $1,000 is not a significant fine for an entity the size of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), but I think that to go significantly further than that would have been to put TVNZ in the position of being, to some extent, a victim of the rather generous attitude that the Privileges Committee has shown in the past.

The report refers to the 2002 New Zealand Post case, which Mr Hide will remember with some interest, because he and I were involved as members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the time; indeed, we made the referral to the Speaker that brought the matter to the Privileges Committee. What had happened was the senior executives of New Zealand Post had told a barefaced lie to the select committee. The Privileges Committee was inclined to accept an apology. I am bound to say I thought its decision in that case was not only generous but extraordinarily light, and to some extent it has contributed to the sort of problem we have had in the ensuing 2 or 3-year period. But in that case the committee did, at least, lay down a warning. It did, at least, remind all State-owned enterprises and Crown companies of their obligations to report and account to the select committees of the House.

Faced with the clear warning that was contained in the 2002 New Zealand Post Privileges Committee report, the Privileges Committee in 2006 had no option but to take the next logical step to ensure that at least some authority was restored to this Parliament and to the committees that report to this Parliament.

The report of the committee makes it clear that this is not the only difficulty that has occurred in respect of TVNZ. Although the committee focused merely upon whether there had been a contempt or a breach in this particular case, it rightly recalled the previous difficulties with securing TVNZ’s cooperation in the supply of information to select committees. As someone who has sat frequently on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and sometimes on the Commerce Committee—in an examination of TVNZ, in particular—I say that particular organisation has had a really bad attitude, which has led, inevitably, to the finding that is being reported to the House today.

In recent years, I am sad to say, it has been my experience that the very senior executives and the chair of TVNZ have had a grudging and minimalist attitude to complying with their obligations to supply information to the select committee that is supposed to mark with a tick or a cross its performance for the year under review. The TVNZ chairman, and some of those who have reported with him, have been disdainful of those obligations. That disdain, and that grudging and minimalist attitude to compliance, is what has got them into hot water on this occasion.

The committee, in making its findings, has drawn attention to the fact that ignorance is no excuse. It has made the further point that the company has a longstanding general counsel who is on a large salary specifically to advise the board and the senior management on their compliance with obligations to Parliament. That particular gentleman has been found to be seriously wanting on this occasion, and I am sad to say to the House that he has been at the root of many of the difficulties that this Parliament and its select committees have had with that organisation in recent years. The law firm Bell Gully is also singled out for mention in the appendices to the report—and it is rightly singled out for mention. Surely, it should have turned its mind to the question of privilege when giving advice on a matter that was before a select committee. Clearly, Bell Gully let its client down on this occasion.

I want to give a more general warning today to the major law firms that make very substantial profits out of doing work for State-owned enterprises and Crown companies. Those law firms need to be aware that if they are engaged in advising State-owned organisations on how they might avoid their obligations to account to Parliament or select committees, then the Privileges Committee will mention them in dispatches when it finds that their advice has led to bad conduct—indeed, in this case, to a very serious breach of the Standing Orders of Parliament. I say to the internal legal advisers of Crown entities and State-owned enterprises, as well as to the external law firms, that this particular report has a message for them. In future, I urge those organisations to take much more seriously their obligations not just to provide advice to their clients but to make sure their clients—those publicly owned bodies—are aware of their obligations to this place.

I join others in welcoming the report. I think it is a milestone in terms of Parliament’s ability to exert its authority over the bodies that are owned by the taxpayers of New Zealand. It is the next step forward in improving behaviour that has become loose and undisciplined in recent times. I welcome the fact that the Privileges Committee, which represents parties from across Parliament, has been able to bring a unanimous finding here. It is a finding that will benefit not just Parliament but also the public of New Zealand, which ultimately owns the businesses that are at issue.

The Green Party strongly supports this report. I was able to participate in some of the Privileges Committee discussions on this issue, and I found them to be most illuminating. Some people are probably wondering what all the fuss is about, and why the New Zealand Parliament is so exercised about Ian Fraser’s row with Television New Zealand (TVNZ). The answer is that important issues about our Parliament and the way it operates are at stake here.

The most important of those issues, in the Green Party’s view, is the issue of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech in Parliament, including that right for submitters who appear before select committees, is a very ancient and important right at the heart of our democracy. Let us face it—without freedom of speech in our Parliament, we would not have a functioning democracy. So it is vital for the health of our democracy that we jealously protect freedom of speech in Parliament, in this House, and for all witnesses who appear before our select committees. That is why we have taken this issue so seriously. If witnesses appearing before Parliament are not able to express their views freely and without fear of punishment or retribution, Parliament ultimately would not be able to hold Government, and Government corporations and departments, to account.

In the Green Party’s view, TVNZ’s behaviour, in punishing a witness who gave evidence it did not like before a select committee inquiry, amounted not only to contempt of Parliament but also to an attack on freedom of speech. The fact is that if TVNZ took exception to Mr Fraser’s comments, which it obviously did, it could have used the natural justice provisions that exist in our Parliament, and it ought to have asked to make a further submission rebutting Mr Fraser’s issues, point by point. What it should not have done was turn to the employee and punish that employee for his remarks. I think that if we had allowed TVNZ’s behaviour in this instance to go unchecked, it would have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech, and on the behaviour or willingness of witnesses appearing before select committees to tell the truth. Basically, why would witnesses be prepared to appear before a select committee and give their honest opinions and views, if they felt they could be sacked or punished by their employer for doing so? I therefore think that it was very important the Privileges Committee took a strong stance on this view and found that TVNZ had committed contempt of the House.

The Green Party strongly supports the punishments. We do not think they are excessive. They send a message but they are not over-the-top. We hope that the Privileges Committee report on its actions will send a very, very clear message to witnesses appearing before select committees, and also to Government departments and organisations, that any attempt to intimidate, disadvantage, or hinder a witness from giving evidence, or to otherwise undermine their freedom of speech, will not be tolerated by this House.

It is great that the Privileges Committee has ruled unanimously on this matter, but I think there are other matters that we need to turn to in terms of our ability to hold Government to account. I was surprised to learn while on the Privileges Committee that our Parliament and select committees cannot request a Minister to appear before a select committee and answer questions we may have in relation to that committee. I think we need to look at the ability to hold Ministers and the Crown to account, as well as the ability to protect witnesses who appear before us. The Health Committee has asked a Minister to appear before it on a certain matter. So far the Minister has failed to do so, and I believe we need to look at that matter, along with our finding here today. It is a matter of being able to hold Government to account.

In conclusion, we believe we are upholding an extremely important issue—that of freedom of speech. That is why we have taken this issue so seriously, and why we have so strongly supported the unanimous committee report on the matter.

United Future strongly supports the Privileges Committee’s report. In our view, this is less a report about a contempt of Parliament committed by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and much more a report about the supremacy of Parliament. What it really does, aside from dealing with the particular issues relating to Mr Fraser, is send a signal to all State-owned enterprises, Crown-owned companies, and the like that their ultimate accountability is to Parliament, that their ultimate authority derives from Parliament, and that they are responsible, in turn, to Parliament.

The practice that has developed over recent years—to which Mr McCully alluded—is one that I am familiar with, and in a number of the instances I was chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the time. The first time we had trouble with TVNZ was in the late 1990s. Then along came the New Zealand Post case. Perhaps it was no coincidence that the chairman of both entities was the same person at that stage, who had what can only be described as contempt for Parliament.

But they were not the only instances. I recall a situation where one State-owned enterprise came to a select committee one day to have its annual financial review. Before the chairman sat down he asked the committee: “Is this going to take very long? I’ve got a plane in 45 minutes.” That contemptuous attitude now goes right across the spectrum.

This Privileges Committee hearing was as much about calling to account those cavalier and arrogant people for their behaviour as it was about the contempt committed by TVNZ in respect of its treatment of Mr Fraser. I welcome the fact that the committee has issued an interim report, and has signalled that it intends to do more work on the broader issue, because I think that is one of the key questions that we face as we move forward. Otherwise the process of accountability to Parliament by the enterprises that it has created will become even more perfunctory than it has been to date.

The second point I allude to is that the other group that was on trial through this process was the Privileges Committee itself. It is customary to talk about Parliament’s all-powerful Privileges Committee, but there have been too many instances in recent years where the Privileges Committee’s reports have been akin to the proverbial slap on the back of the hand with the wet bus ticket. Many agencies around this town and individuals who have had the experience of appearing before, and being upbraided by, the committee wear it as a badge of honour. They too were there; they too got slapped over the wrist. This issue was one where the committee needed to be determined, to take a stand, and to make it clear—as I think Mr McCully said, and as I certainly heard Mr Power say at times during the hearings—that it would not, on behalf of Parliament, be trifled with any longer. That brings us to the issue of the penalty that we are recommending be imposed.

As has been said, it is 103 years since Parliament imposed a fine on any individual or organisation. We briefly canvassed the idea of imprisonment, but were advised by the Clerk that in order to imprison someone we actually had to have a cell somewhere on the premises, and apparently we do not. Maybe that is something the Parliamentary Service Commission could look at providing in the future.

More seriously, why a fine of $1,000? I was the one who proposed that measure, my reason was simple, and I am pleased that the committee, in the main, adopted the viewpoint. This was not about punishment in any monetary or punitive sense. This was about sending a signal that we had reached the end of our tether in terms not only of the contemptible behaviour of this organisation, TVNZ, but of others, as well. We wanted to back up that signal with something more than just the customary strong rhetoric that could go away once the dust had settled.

I found it interesting, incidentally and in passing, that Bell Gully should write and say, basically, that it did not check the point through, but as that was not material to the case, could we please leave Bell Gully’s name out of it, because that will affect its reputation. That is an interesting commentary on the way in which the legal profession behaves. I know Mr Finlayson has reason to be aghast at that. Again, it is symptomatic, I think, of the view that a number of agencies have formed about this whole process: the matter is not that serious, they do not need to get too worked up about it, and, if Parliament is to take the matter seriously, they do not want their names brought into it because they might be embarrassed.

Maybe a few of those people have learnt a lesson arising out of this, but it is easy to see the issue in terms of being about just Mr Fraser and the board of TVNZ. I suspect the board was badly served by its internal and external legal advice. I suspect the board was operating in an environment where the proverbial old boy network had said that these things come and go and that the board did not need to get too steamed up about them. Maybe now there might be some recognition more broadly afield about the fact that Parliament is baring its teeth. Parliament is showing that it is master, not just of its own quaint destiny but of the destiny of those agencies as well, and the exercise of accountability takes place accordingly.

I want to applaud the role the chairman of the Privileges Committee took. I thought bringing the committee together in the way he did was a very skilful exercise of his function.

I also draw to the attention of the House some comments made by Mr John Key on the radio this morning, which I thought absolutely summed up the situation. People may postulate as to what the notion of parliamentary accountability is—who is Parliament that people should be accountable to? Mr Key made the point that every publicly listed company in New Zealand is accountable to its shareholders and goes through shareholders’ meetings, which can be quaint, anarchic, unpleasant experiences sometimes. But none the less directors of those companies have to go through those meetings—and wear the funny hat that Mr Shepherd wears at every meeting he seems to attend.

We did not do that in the Privileges Committee, but it is the same sort of notion. This is the annual accountability exercise of State-owned enterprises, and it has to be taken seriously. TVNZ is prime offender No. 1. We have had the instance with New Zealand Post. Over the years many other agencies have pleaded variations on commercial secrecy or of their having had other pressures on time as excuses for not giving answers to Parliament. I hope, as a result of this report, that the message will go forward that this behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

I conclude on this point. Mr Swain, who gave us the benefit of his experiences as Minister for State Owned Enterprises, made at some stage the telling comment that this sort of information about the relationship between State-owned enterprises and select committees and Parliament ought to be handed out in the regular meetings held between the chairs of those agencies and their board members in terms of their learning about the responsibility they undertake. I endorse that view. I hope it is picked up by the present Minister and that he will read the Riot Act to those directors. The only way we will change this culture, aside from the strong words and actions of this Parliament, is by changing the hearts and minds of those directors so that they recognise they have a responsibility, too.

This is an important debate. I am conscious that an even more important one is to follow and I do not want to tarry any longer, but it is necessary to put on the record the strength of feeling across Parliament about this incident. It is seen as an example of the contempt that is repeatedly being committed by many State agencies that think they know better than we do.

I am very conscious that a lot of people have travelled a long way for the next item in front of the House, so I will be brief.

The ACT party fully endorses this report. I will make only four points, because most of the points I was going to make have been made already. Firstly, this report is no reflection on the staff of Television New Zealand. One thing that is clear to me is that when TVNZ is in the news because of the behaviour of its board and its advisers, the board does not seem to care. But, of course, all the hard-working, conscientious staff who care about their workplace do. I think we in this House should be clear that this is a criticism of the board and the governance of TVNZ, not of TVNZ as a whole.

Secondly, this is a very serious report. It is the first time that the Privileges Committee has recommended a fine in 103 years. The message should go out loud and clear that State-owned enterprises are accountable to the people of New Zealand. They are accountable to the people of New Zealand through this Parliament. That is the process that operates. In my time on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and other select committees, I have been staggered at the idea that State-owned enterprises are totally unaccountable to anyone. The Ministers are busy; they cannot keep up. The cavalier nature with which State-owned enterprises have treated the people of New Zealand in terms of any sense of the accountability they owe has truly shocked me. The Privileges Committee, with the support of the House, will send a very strong message to each and every State-owned enterprise that it is accountable to the people of New Zealand; it is accountable through Parliament.

My third point is about the legal advice that TVNZ gets. Attached to the Privileges Committee report is a letter from Mr Noel Vautier, who has been general counsel for TVNZ for 16 years. That letter highlights the problem. Mr Vautier wrote that he has worked for TVNZ for 16 years and has never really had anything much to do with the Standing Orders. If somebody is general counsel for an organisation, should he or she not have some regard for the rules that apply to the accountability of the organisation? The answer has to be yes. It is clear to me that the TVNZ board and its general counsel have never worried about it. They have treated the people of New Zealand and Parliament with contempt.

Mr Vautier made the point—and I want to pull up Mr Dunne on this—that maybe Ministers or Parliament could provide some material. Maybe they could, but the point is that a high-powered legal counsel does not sit there and say: “I don’t know the rules because no one posted them to me, or ran a seminar.” A legal counsel is paid the big bucks and given the big title to go and find out. We have members in this House who do not have the benefit of legal training, a university education, and those sorts of things. Some of us struggle, but we actually make sure we understand the rules under which we operate. Why can TVNZ’s general counsel not do that? What sort of accountability has been running that the general counsel could make such a statement to the Privileges Committee? It is disgraceful that the board and the general counsel of TVNZ could be so dismissive of any accountability that they would not bother even to acquaint themselves with the Standing Orders. And they actually seem quite proud of it!

Finally, my fourth point is that I acknowledge everyone on the Privileges Committee—well, not quite all, but most, and I think everyone knows what I am referring to here. I make special acknowledgment to the chairman, Mr Simon Power, because he did an outstanding job on a thorny issue. I think he needs to be acknowledged.

I rise to speak to this issue today as a member of the Privileges Committee, and also as the Māori Party spokesperson on broadcasting. The concept of privilege is an interesting one for the Māori Party. In fact, it is an interesting one for the whole House to consider, given the advice and the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, and the issue of special privilege. I intend to return to that often during my speech today. The special rapporteur said that the idea that Māori have received undue privilege from Treaty settlements—an idea freely floated in the media and by some politicians—lacks any substance whatsoever.

Mr Ian Fraser’s actions, his subsequent reprimand, and the disciplinary action of the board have been widely reported and debated in the media, at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and at the Privileges Committee. I do not plan to go into the detail of who said what to whom, but I do wish to speak to the idea that parliamentary privilege should protect those who have been called to appear before select committees. The Māori Party values independence, integrity, and the freedom to contribute to debate. The report from the Privileges Committee refers to the fundamental importance of protecting witnesses. It refers to participation without fear of intimidation or disadvantage, and it also questions whether the actions of Television New Zealand have amounted to “assaulting, threatening, or disadvantaging” Mr Fraser. Those are strong words, but they are not words we have not heard in the Māori community before, and they are not unlike words used by my colleague Mr Te Ururoa Flavell, who mentioned the following comment made by Ngāti Wai elder Hori Te Moanaroa Parata in relation to Crown consultation: “DOC and the Minister think they have been consulting with us. What they have been doing is insulting and almost assaulting us.” So the Māori Party is very aware of assaulting and threatening behaviour.

I remind the House again of the report of the special rapporteur who referred to the coercive relationships between the Crown and Treaty claimants. Threats, coercion, and insults were what Mr Fraser was subjected to, following his appearance before the select committee. Further actions were taken, which the Privileges Committee said amounted to contempt. I now learn that the fine imposed is the first fine to be handed down by the Privileges Committee in 103 years, but I wonder whether a $1,000 fine is not just like a slap with a wet bus ticket. I want to return to that notion of privilege, because I know what a $1,000 fine means to one of my whānau, who on the car-koi down to Parliament got fined 1,000 bucks for supposedly “driving in a manner likely to annoy other people”—not actually annoying anyone, but likely to annoy. I note that in the case of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), the broadcaster was not hauled up before the Privileges Committee because it was likely to be in contempt; it was called to account because it was in contempt.

It seems that there is a dual standard of justice in this country, as quite properly noted by the United Nations special rapporteur. I again remind this House that in a very insightful, intelligent, and factually accurate analysis of the state of Māori and its relationship to the Crown, the special rapporteur itemised the particular concerns he found with the media portrayal of Māori. They include portraying Māori unfairly as having benefits denied to others, referring incorrectly to the level of control Māori have over significant resources, portraying Māori as poor managers—in being either corrupt or financially incompetent—using denigrating and insulting comments about Māori, and highlighting bad news about Māori over good news. I wonder exactly what fine this House would impose on the media for the poor manner in which they have treated Māori issues. I would also ask this House what it would consider to be an appropriate fine for the decades of neglect, deceit, and abuse heaped upon Māori people by successive Governments, and properly recorded by the UN special rapporteur.

Today we try to alert the House to another breach of privilege—the denial of funding for Māori Television by NZ On Air, for programmes designed for a nationwide audience. Apparently, NZ On Air’s response was that it did not believe that a broadcast of commemorations and historical coverage of the war efforts of brave, courageous, and patriotic New Zealanders was worthy of support on Māori Television.

The Māori Party stands by the report of the Privileges Committee, and congratulates it on its ground-breaking decision to protect the right of workers to blow the whistle on bad employment practices, a matter we intend to speak on during debates on other legislation coming before this House. The Māori Party also asks this House whether, in seeking to discipline others for a breach of privilege, it perhaps accepts that the United Nations might be an independent arbiter of our own standards, the decisions our Governments make, and the impacts those decisions have on our own indigenous peoples.

I think that the previous speaker should be given a commendation for creative use of a speaking opportunity. This debate is about the report of the Privileges Committee. I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to make a couple of comments. Firstly, I endorse the comments made by colleagues about Simon Power’s chairmanship of the Privileges Committee.

The committee reached its interim determination very, very quickly, and we are able to move on the interim part of the report with this debate today. I stress that it is an interim report, because there is more work for the committee to do, and there will be more investigations for the committee to carry out. Others have said today that the work of the Privileges Committee essentially underpins the freedom we have in a democracy like ours to speak without constraint in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is surely when one appears before a select committee of Parliament that is conducting an inquiry. Although we have heard today that various people have pleaded a defence that they did not know about the Standing Orders, others stated that that is no defence in these circumstances.

For anyone who might be sitting on a State board and worried about what this means, it can be best summed up by suggesting that if a person appearing before a select committee does not mislead that select committee, does treat that select committee with some respect, and does not engage in any activity that may undermine or impede the activity of that select committee, then that person will be fine. But if people engage in activities that do undermine and do mislead, and if they generally fail to show the appropriate respect that is due to a committee of Parliament—the representatives of the people—then they will be in trouble.

In that regard, I think I would want to turn one or two comments to the legal counsel for Television New Zealand (TVNZ). He was mentioned by name by Mr Rodney Hide as being Mr Noel Vautier, who has been in the job 16 years, apparently without ever understanding what accountabilities the organisation he offers legal advice to has under law. It seems extraordinary to me that he is still in the job.

I say very clearly that there will be further requests for information from TVNZ. This report is only an interim one, and it would be extremely unwise for TVNZ to fail to fully cooperate with the further requests that will be made of it. It cannot be stressed enough, and it has been stressed by all speakers so far, that the penalty brought down in this case is somewhat less than it might have been had it not been for the long gap between fines imposed by this committee. Also I think there is a consideration here of the fact that TVNZ is re-establishing the board. There is to be a new chairman and there will be new board members, so in that interim period it seemed that the penalties set down by the select committee are most appropriate. But no one in the State sector should underestimate the intention behind the message these penalties send.

I say again to the in-house counsel for TVNZ: “Do not frustrate further attempts to gain access to information that the select committee is rightfully entitled to.”

First, Madam Speaker, I acknowledge your presence in the Chamber. This is an important debate and it is right that the Speaker should be chairing it. I also acknowledge my colleagues on the select committee, including the chair. I think that every member of the select committee did their work very carefully and thoroughly and were mindful of the task we had in front of us. We intended to send a very clear signal to State enterprises.

I intend to deal with just two issues. Firstly, what was the breach here; and secondly, what does the punishment of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) mean for the future? The Privileges Committee was in no doubt that the TVNZ letter to Ian Fraser was a contempt. It was a contempt because it was intended to punish Mr Ian Fraser for the evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

The simple facts are these. The Finance and Expenditure Committee had a specific inquiry into the resignation. Clearly, TVNZ expected full and frank questioning from members of that select committee as to the reasons for the resignation. TVNZ knew that that would be controversial. The whole country knew that it was controversial. The public had a right to know why that resignation had occurred. Members of Parliament expected full and frank answers from both TVNZ and Mr Fraser in relation to that issue. Actually, they got them. Mr Fraser was very full and frank, and so was TVNZ. TVNZ needs to reflect on the fact that being publicly owned, it was required to account in that inquiry and that its dirty linen would be washed in public. That is exactly why the inquiry was being held. So it could not whinge about the evidence after the fact. It certainly could not punish Mr Fraser for giving the evidence. But that is exactly what TVNZ did. What is more, it did that after it took legal advice—and, as colleagues have said, from a member of the general counsel, an in-house counsel who has had to work with select committees for 16 years. They certainly knew, or should have known, their obligations. So this is a very clear message to State-owned enterprises, not to try to cover up.

I now turn to the issue of the punishment—to both the apology and the fine. I for one—and I know that other members share this view—was extremely dissatisfied with the apology given by Mr Boyce in the presence of his legal counsel. It was qualified and half-hearted, and in fact, when it was given by Mr Boyce, his counsel was at pains to stress that it was only if a breach had, in fact, occurred. I say that that is not an apology. It is something we have heard in other cases: “I apologise if someone takes offence.” So rather more was required than that. Frankly, when anyone appears before the Privileges Committee to give an apology, we need to make sure that it is real, it is genuine, and it is unqualified.

I now turn to the fine. Yes, it is a small fine at this stage, and the reasons for that have been well canvassed. We were affirming a right to levy a fine for the first time in 103 years. But future breaches—and we have specifically noted this in the report—will result in much heavier fines. I put it this way. Take this fine as a shot across the bows, because on other occasions the punishments will be much more severe. The shots will strike home. In fact, I say in closing that this report is intended to be a deterrent to State-owned enterprises so that they will account, firstly, to the public, and to the Parliament for their use of public money. I say to the media that this should be a warning, or a statement perhaps, not to use in the future the ironic epithet of the “all-powerful” Privileges Committee, because we have now exercised our power.

Motion agreed to.