Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege

The SPEAKER (11:01): I rise in regard to the matter of privilege regarding the Minister for Industry and Skills, which was raised yesterday. I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege that was raised by the member for Lee in the house yesterday. Before I address this matter, I also wish to outline again the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and its members. Again, I remind members that it is not a device by which members, or any other person, can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by the vote of the house on a substantive motion.

I remind members that we do have a test case in McGee's Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, which, in my view, makes the test for whether or not a matter is a matter of privilege by defining it as a matter that can 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'.

Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes the house in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his or her duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result, may be treated as a contempt and therefore be considered a matter of privilege even though there is no precedent of the offence.

I now refer to the matter of privilege raised by the member for Lee as it relates to answers to questions provided to the house by the Minister for Industry and Skills on 27 and 28 November this year on the appropriate experience in vocational education and training of one of two ministerial nominees to the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) pursuant to the Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1993.

The nature of the member for Lee's allegation is that the advice provided to the house by the minister is factually wrong in that one of the minister's nominees to the CITB does not have what he considers the appropriate experience in vocational education or training as required by section 5(1)(b) of the Construction Industry Training Fund Act 1993 to qualify as a ministerial nominee to the board.

The member for Lee, in asserting his claim, is quoted as saying: 'It is abundantly clear that the advice that the Minister for Industry and Skills has provided to the house is wholly incongruent with the facts.' In support of this allegation, the member for Lee refers to, amongst other things, the nominee's work history, experience and qualifications. The member for Lee has since provided me with a copy of a curriculum vitae and LinkedIn details of the minister's nominee to the CITB whose qualifications are in question.

I have now had the benefit of reading the Hansard and also referring to the materials that have been supplied to me, by not only the member for Lee but also the minister. In this instance, there has been no misleading of the house about the appropriate qualifications and experience of the minister's nominee, as the minister is rightly involved in determining the nominee's appropriateness. What has given rise to this matter, clearly, are different interpretations about what are considered to be the requirements and the necessary qualifications for a ministerial appointment under the Construction Industry Training Fund Act. That is clearly the case here.

In reaching the decision, I have no doubt that the minister and the member for Lee are as adamant in their belief as to what they considered to be the appropriate experience required of the minister's nominee and whether those requirements have been met. But it does not fall to me to make a judgement either way because, in my view, the conduct complained of does not meet that threshold. It cannot 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'.

Therefore, in the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege for the reason I have stated above. I would also decline to give the matter the precedence that would allow the member for Lee to immediately pursue the matter. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing this matter by way of substantive motion, if they wish.