Report of the Privileges Committee. Fifty-second Parliament (Hon David Parker, Chairperson) May Presented to the House of Representatives

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Report of the Privileges Committee. Fifty-second Parliament (Hon David Parker, Chairperson) May Presented to the House of Representatives"

Lauren Hart
5 years ago
Views:

1 Question of privilege regarding action taken by Maritime New Zealand following evidence given to the Regulations Review Committee by the managing director of Maritime Management Services Ltd Report of the Privileges Committee Fifty-second Parliament (Hon David Parker, Chairperson) May 2018 Presented to the House of Representatives Hon David Parker Chairperson

2 Contents Recommendation... 3 Referral of question of privilege... 3 Committee consideration... 3 Appendix A... 5 Appendix B

3 Question of privilege regarding action taken by Maritime New Zealand following evidence given to the Regulations Review Committee by the managing director of Maritime Management Services Ltd Recommendation The Privileges Committee recommends that the House take note of this report. Referral of question of privilege On 20 October 2015, the then Speaker of the House, Rt Hon David Carter, ruled that a question of privilege arose from a matter raised by Hon David Cunliffe. It concerned alleged actions taken by Maritime New Zealand against Maritime Management Services Limited. The referral of this question of privilege is attached to this report as Appendix B. Background and allegations In April and May 2015, the Regulations Review Committee was considering the complaint of Mr Paul Wilson regarding the Shipping (Charges) Amendment Regulations 2013 and Marine Safety Charges Amendment Regulations Margaret Wind, the managing director of Maritime Management Services Limited (MMS), provided written evidence at that time in support of the complainant. The evidence was critical of Maritime New Zealand (MNZ), the regulator of the New Zealand shipping industry. MMS alleged that MNZ conducted a punitive investigation into its activities following the provision of this evidence to the Regulations Review Committee. This investigation, it is alleged, seriously disadvantaged MMS. As the Speaker noted in the referral, any disadvantaging of a witness to a select committee, especially by a government agency, is potentially very serious, given the importance of parliamentary free speech. Standing Order 410(x) provides that the House may treat as a contempt any action that disadvantages a person on account of evidence given by that person to the House or a committee. Committee consideration Process undertaken by the Privileges Committee We invited written submissions from both MNZ and MMS in December We received MNZ s submission in February 2016 and shared it with MMS for comment. We did not immediately table MMS s submission because we had concerns about natural justice regarding some material in its appendices. We also heard oral evidence on a procedural matter from MNZ on 16 March This concerned whether MNZ would provide transcripts to MMS of interviews it had conducted with MMS clients as part of its investigation. At this meeting we learned from MNZ that it was 3

4 seeking to prosecute MMS for offences under the Maritime Transport Act We also learned that any interview transcripts would be provided to MMS as part of evidential material relating to the prosecution. As a result, we decided to defer further consideration of this question of privilege until the criminal proceedings had concluded. In the District Court, MMS subsequently pleaded guilty to being party to two offences under section 68 of the Maritime Transport Act (Acting without necessary maritime document) and was fined $2,000 for each offence. Sentencing concluded on 28 November We resumed our consideration in February 2018, after the managing director of MMS wrote to us saying that she wished to pursue the allegation of disadvantage. MMS provided a further submission, and resubmitted its original submission after removing any references raising natural justice issues. The committee s findings The scope of our inquiry was very specific. It was to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, MNZ disadvantaged the managing director of MMS because of evidence she gave to the Regulations Review Committee. After careful review of the extensive written evidence from both MMS and MNZ, we have concluded that no disadvantage has been established. We learned that the investigation into MMS began before MMS gave evidence to the Regulations Review Committee. We received no evidence of a connection between the giving of parliamentary evidence and the fact of the MNZ investigation into MMS, nor the way in which it was conducted. We therefore have no matters to bring to the attention of the House. 4

5 Appendix A Committee procedure We met between December 2015 and May 2018 to consider this question of privilege. We received written submissions from Maritime New Zealand and Maritime Management Services Limited. We heard evidence from Maritime New Zealand on a specific procedural matter on 16 March Committee members Hon David Parker (Chairperson) Hon Amy Adams Hon Gerry Brownlee Hon Christopher Finlayson Golriz Ghahraman Hon Chris Hipkins Barbara Kuriger Rt Hon Winston Peters Hon Grant Robertson Hon Michael Woodhouse Evidence received The evidence we received is available on the Parliament website, 5

6 Appendix B 6

Journals of the House of Representatives of New Zealand

Journals of the House of Representatives of New Zealand Fifty-second Parliament For the period 5 December 7 December 2017 Number: 17.23 Issued: 15 January 2018 Published under the authority of the House