6. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) Link to this
to the Minister of Broadcasting
When did the chairperson of the board of Television New Zealand advise him of the board’s decision to strip former chief executive Ian Fraser of his remaining duties, and what form did that advice take, given his statement to the House last week: “The chairperson simply advised me that it had been done.”?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this
The chairperson of the board of Television New Zealand advised the Minister by telephone in late December that the board had written to the former chief executive Ian Fraser, withdrawing his duties.
When the chairperson advised him that Television New Zealand intended to make a misconduct claim against Ian Fraser did he agree with that decision; if not, why did he not publicly lambaste the board as he did during the Judy Bailey fiasco, given that both issues are of an operational nature?
The chairperson of the board advised the Minister that this was the decision that had been made. That was perfectly appropriate. Otherwise it was an employment matter and not within the discretion of the Minister of Broadcasting.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister quite clearly why he did not choose to take the form of action that he chose when he investigated the Judy Bailey fiasco. I did not ask him what the chairperson told him. We understand exactly what the chairperson told the Minister. We want to understand what the Minister’s view was, whether he agreed with that, and why he had a differing view to the one he took on Judy Bailey.
Madam SPEAKERIt was not for the Minister to agree or disagree. It was an employment matter. He was simply advised of that by the chairperson, as is appropriate.
No, I think the member is saying that his question was about a comparison of two different situations. If the Minister is in a position to do so, would he like to address that?
The question asked why he did not take action. It was not for the Minister to take action; that is the answer to the question. He was advised of the situation by the chairperson.
I asked the member quite clearly what differentiated the Judy Bailey situation from the action that he took when he was advised that the board would take a misconduct claim against Mr Fraser. It is quite clear. We just want to understand what was going through his mind at the time.
H V Ross Robertson Link to this
Can the Minister tell the House who has the responsibilities for the issues raised by Mr Fraser with regard to his employment?
The board is appointed to undertake the governance role at Television New Zealand. The responsibility for employment of the chief executive officer of any Crown entity is a matter for the board, and it is not subject to ministerial interference.
Hon Georgina te Heuheu Link to this
Is it not time that the Minister realised that Craig Boyce, chairman of Television New Zealand, is a liability to this Government and a dead weight who is dragging down the company, and would not getting rid of him now be the best way to draw a line under this whole sorry saga?
I very much regret it when a person abuses the privilege of this House to personally insult an individual and make unsubstantiated claims against him. That member has done just that. I invite her to repeat those claims outside the House, and then the person whom she is complaining about can take suitable action against her.
When the Minister was told of the course of action that the board of Television New Zealand was taking in relation to the misconduct claim, did it occur to him that that would lead to a breach of privilege; if not, does he think that his ignorance in this matter added to Television New Zealand’s predicament?
I doubt that it did occur to the Minister at the time that that might be construed as a breach of privilege. I do note, however, the ruling made by the Speaker in this House that normally in a matter like this whereby the board has apologised, it would be within the Speaker’s discretion to just move on. But there are matters that need to be clarified. I think that there are grey areas, and I think that members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee would agree with that and there is a good purpose for that matter being clarified before the Privileges Committee. It is not for me to pre-empt that committee in its findings in any way.
What responsibility will he take for a board that has overseen the abject litany of failure at Television New Zealand, including protracted employment disputes with senior presenters, golden handshakes to outgoing employees, breach of parliamentary privilege, and a landslide in rating?
Contrary to what the member has just said, last week Television New Zealand announced that TV2 ratings, for example, had reached a 30-month high. As it has some of the most successful and most popular programmes it is doing very well financially. I challenge the assumptions made in the member’s question.
Who should the public hold accountable for the self-inflicted litany of disasters that Television New Zealand has made in recent times; and if we are to believe that sole responsibility lies with the board of Television New Zealand, why does he still have confidence in the board, as he said to the House last week that indeed he did?
I believe that by and large the board has carried out its responsibilities competently. I do regret, of course—as every member in this House would regret—the disagreement between the chief executive and the board. It is not for me or the Minister to determine where the fault lies in an employment matter. That is sorted out by the board and is subject to employment law.