Would he expect to be advised by TVNZ if TVNZ recorded allegations of illegal behaviour; and has he received any such advice?
Has he seen or had any reports on the New Zealand blog Whale Oil Beef Hooked at www.whaleoil.co.nz that contains a 2004 Television New Zealand (TVNZ) interview by Brent Fraser, where a former fisheries skipper, Wayne Crapper, explains how Peter Simunovich’s boss and his lawyer coached him to lie to the scampi inquiry, and to perjure himself in an affidavit; would he expect to have been advised of that?
If that member wishes to trawl websites on political matters, can I recommend he go to 08wire.org and view John’s Got a Crush on Obama.
I fail to see how a reference to another blog could, in any way, shape, or form, be an answer to the question of whether the Minister had seen or had any reports on a blog.
The member may not be satisfied with the answer, and others will judge the quality of it, but it was addressing the question of blogs.
Did the Minister look further into Mr Hide’s allegations last week that TVNZ had destroyed the tapes?
I have received an assurance from TVNZ that no tapes were destroyed, and that various tapes on this matter are held at TVNZ and at Simpson Grierson. I look forward—I must say more in hope than in expectation—to Mr Hide apologising for misleading the House again last week.
Has TVNZ advised him that in the tape that it ordered destroyed in the newsroom but has kept on a shelf—[ Interruption]
Has TVNZ advised him that on this tape it is alleged that Parliament was lied to, that witnesses were coached to lie, that at stake was an inquiry that cost tens of millions of dollars, involving $140 million of quota—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems to me, from listening to this supplementary question—and I have let it run for a little while—that it is now traversing the same ground that has been previously the subject of points of order in relation to matters being sub judice. My understanding is that Simunovich Fisheries is still suing TVNZ, and, presumably, this matter is all part of the evidence in that particular case. If that is so, then we should not be traversing it—not to mention that the Minister has already argued and noted that he has not actually received any material relating to allegations of criminal behaviour, so the supplementary questions are scarcely able to elucidate that particular answer.
Speaking to the point of order, I can confirm that I am advised that TVNZ is involved in live civil proceedings: Simunovich Fisheries Ltd and others v Television New Zealand and others, as well as the related live proceedings Peters v Television New Zealand and others.
I think if the matters are before the court and are live—and I understand that there are defamation proceedings—the member is perfectly entitled to ask general questions, as he knows and as he has been told before, but not to repeat specific allegations that have been made by others.
Would the Minister expect to be advised by TVNZ that it had evidence that Parliament had been misled in a systematic and conspiratorial way; if not, why not?