An interesting situation: Outgoing CEO of TVNZ Ian Fraser testified recently to the Finance and Expenditure Committte of Parliament about severe problems with the TVNZ board. Subsequently the board have stripped him of his remaining responsibilities due to his 'serious misconduct' at the committee. Fraser is now considering a personal grievance claim against the board claiming that they have breached parliamentary priviledge.
This raises an interesting situation. Parliamentary priviledge is not just for MPs - it is for Parliament itself, and it includes evidence presented by witnesses to select committees. There was an interesting situation over 5 years ago when the Police Commissioner testifed to a committee about a businessman that they thought was a leader of some crime syndicate - the businessman couldn't sue the police for the allegation since it was made under priviledge.
The problem here is that Parliament will probably be most displeased that a public entity has used priviledged evidence presented by a witness at a select committee to discipline that witness. If they are able to do that, then it would make it very difficult for public servants to provide full and frank advice to a committee.
I have no idea if Fraser's grievance claim will succeed, but it would not surprise me if TVNZ were called back in front of the committee and given a bit of a dressing down. They could of course be sent to the priviledges committee, but that may be considered overkill.
This raises an interesting situation. Parliamentary priviledge is not just for MPs - it is for Parliament itself, and it includes evidence presented by witnesses to select committees. There was an interesting situation over 5 years ago when the Police Commissioner testifed to a committee about a businessman that they thought was a leader of some crime syndicate - the businessman couldn't sue the police for the allegation since it was made under priviledge.
The problem here is that Parliament will probably be most displeased that a public entity has used priviledged evidence presented by a witness at a select committee to discipline that witness. If they are able to do that, then it would make it very difficult for public servants to provide full and frank advice to a committee.
I have no idea if Fraser's grievance claim will succeed, but it would not surprise me if TVNZ were called back in front of the committee and given a bit of a dressing down. They could of course be sent to the priviledges committee, but that may be considered overkill.
However, I think it does need to made very clear to all government departments, SOEs, crown entities and the like, that when public servants are called in front of select committees, they are expected to give full and frank advice, and that the department should focus on fixing problems raised at the committee, not disciplining their staff for telling the truth.
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
free sony vegas movi maker