Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:629;Page:1278] 
6.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 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) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: 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. 
John Key 
: 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? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: 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. 
John Key 
: 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 SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to address the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It 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. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: 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? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: 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. 
John Key 
: 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. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Because the cases were different. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House who has the responsibilities for the issues raised by Mr Fraser with regard to his employment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: 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 
: 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? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: 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. 
John Key 
: 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? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: 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. 
John Key 
: 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? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: 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. 
John Key 
: 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? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: 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.