Madam SPEAKERI have received letters from John Key and Shane Jones raising as a matter of privilege the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is suggested that this action could amount to a contempt of the House in that the chief executive may have been punished on account of that evidence.
From the material sent to me it is apparent that Television New Zealand has acknowledged that its actions could be interpreted as a contempt, and has apologised for not considering this aspect of its action. I am also aware that the chief executive has reiterated his intention to pursue a personal grievance against the company, notwithstanding its apology. However, that is a private matter between the chief executive and the company with which I am not concerned here.
Often, when a contempt has been acknowledged and an apology for it tendered, the Speaker will exercise a discretion not to take the matter further. However, in this case, despite Television New Zealand’s acknowledgment of error, I think that a general question of the status of select committee witnesses does arise that warrants the attention of the House. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise that discretion in this case.
Consequently, I rule that a question of privilege does arise from the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.