Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18070] 
8.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Is Television New Zealand involved in any legal action before the courts? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: What does the Minister think of the State broadcaster Television New Zealand (TVNZ) being engaged in legal action filming in December 2004 an interview with a former Simunovich Fisheries skipper Mr Wayne Crapper who says on tape that he lied to Parliament’s scampi inquiry— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are now going back over the ground we have been over any number of times this week. Of course that supplementary question in particular does not arise out of the principal question. The fact that TVNZ was filming something is nothing to do necessarily with the fact that it is engaged in legal action and if the legal action is in front of the court it is sub judice in any case. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I can confirm to the House what Winston Peters confirmed yesterday and what was denied by Mr Hide and that is that  
Simunovich Fisheries Ltd and others v Television New Zealand and others 
 is a live defamation action before the court. Mr Hide was wrong yesterday in what he said to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I ask Mr Hide to ask his question consistent with the rulings that have been made and consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can this matter be before the courts as evidence when the State broadcaster ordered the tapes destroyed ordered all transcripts destroyed— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order. That is a point of information or a point of debate or if the member wishes to ask a supplementary question that may be in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the House has wrestled obviously for the last couple of days with what is sub judice and what is not. If what Mr Hide is now suggesting is the case—that he is referring to a tape that no longer exists—then it surely cannot be one of the discovered items in this case and therefore cannot be material to any conclusion that comes from that case. It is just an allegation about an activity that hangs out there and any reliance on this matter being before the courts cannot be substantiated because it is something that does not appear to exist. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the member misunderstands. The transcripts are in front of the court—yes—and of course it is perfectly legitimate for the member to ask why if the matter is before the court TVNZ has destroyed the tapes. I think the transcripts exist. That is a question he can clearly ask. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree with that. As I indicated to the member he can ask that question; it is the other information that is superfluous to the central question that is out of order. But the member may ask that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister of Broadcasting find it acceptable that the State broadcaster TVNZ when confronted with evidence of orchestrated perjury to Parliament not only failed to notify the police but ordered the tape and the transcripts destroyed thereby obstructing justice and is this the sort of standard that he expects the State broadcaster to set? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have no information that would confirm that what that member says is correct. I would add that what he has told the House in the last 2 days has not been correct and therefore I will not rely on him. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That raises a very interesting question. Mr Hide has been repeatedly blocked from either making statements or asking questions around this matter. The only issue on which there appears to be any particular dissent is whether this is a live case. Now if Mr Hide is talking about a particular transcript a particular video a particular interview—whatever—that has now been destroyed then none of what Mr Mallard has just claimed can be so. Secondly I would ask—perhaps to stop the House going through these long exercises of trying to find out who is saying what what is the truth of either position and whose word you have to take over the other—would it not have been a good idea for the Minister of Broadcasting knowing this question was coming up to have required TVNZ because he is also Minister for State Owned Enterprises to supply him with the discovery list so he could know exactly what he was denying? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member asked his question. The Minister responded to the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the Minister expect to be advised that the State broadcaster had evidence of the stealing of millions of dollars of scampi quota and evidence of repeated lying to Parliament to cover up the stealing especially given that Winston Peters— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point again but this is repeating exactly the issue that has been raised time and time again during this week which has delayed the business of the House for a very long period of time this week. The member seems to be once again transgressing and getting himself into trouble remembering of course that the Minister is not responsible for how TVNZ deals with news items. That is clearly outside ministerial responsibility and I would think the member would be quite grateful for that fact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member can ask his question without the interpretation he is placing on the events in his assertions. Certainly he can ask the question. There is a wide ministerial responsibility so I will allow the question although I take the point that with broadcasting there is a particular issue of independence of the media as separate from ministerial direction. I will let the member ask the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think I have got the question. The answer is no and for me to be involved in and briefed on those matters would be a breach of the Broadcasting Act. 
Rodney Hide 
: When does the Minister think that a tape goes from being a matter of news to a matter of evidence in the obstruction of justice which is a criminal case alleging that TVNZ destroyed that evidence; fortunately the member for Epsom has a copy of the tape—TVNZ does not—and would the Minister like to see that tape before I take it to the police? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Absolutely and definitely not. If the member is withholding matters that the High Court wants he is in contempt. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I say to the Minister that I am not withholding the tape. I have given it to TV3 which hopefully will happily broadcast it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that information.