Mapp Wayne: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2584] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 First Madam Speaker I acknowledge your presence in the Chamber. This is an important debate and it is right that the Speaker should be chairing it. I also acknowledge my colleagues on the select committee including the chair. I think that every member of the select committee did their work very carefully and thoroughly and were mindful of the task we had in front of us. We intended to send a very clear signal to State enterprises. 
I intend to deal with just two issues. Firstly what was the breach here; and secondly what does the punishment of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) mean for the future? The Privileges Committee was in no doubt that the TVNZ letter to Ian Fraser was a contempt. It was a contempt because it was intended to punish Mr Ian Fraser for the evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
The simple facts are these. The Finance and Expenditure Committee had a specific inquiry into the resignation. Clearly TVNZ expected full and frank questioning from members of that select committee as to the reasons for the resignation. TVNZ knew that that would be controversial. The whole country knew that it was controversial. The public had a right to know why that resignation had occurred. Members of Parliament expected full and frank answers from both TVNZ and Mr Fraser in relation to that issue. Actually they got them. Mr Fraser was very full and frank and so was TVNZ. TVNZ needs to reflect on the fact that being publicly owned it was required to account in that inquiry and that its dirty linen would be washed in public. That is exactly why the inquiry was being held. So it could not whinge about the evidence after the fact. It certainly could not punish Mr Fraser for giving the evidence. But that is exactly what TVNZ did. What is more it did that after it took legal advice—and as colleagues have said from a member of the general counsel an in-house counsel who has had to work with select committees for 16 years. They certainly knew or should have known their obligations. So this is a very clear message to State-owned enterprises not to try to cover up. 
I now turn to the issue of the punishment—to both the apology and the fine. I for one—and I know that other members share this view—was extremely dissatisfied with the apology given by Mr Boyce in the presence of his legal counsel. It was qualified and half-hearted and in fact when it was given by Mr Boyce his counsel was at pains to stress that it was only if a breach had in fact occurred. I say that that is not an apology. It is something we have heard in other cases: “I apologise if someone takes offence.” So rather more was required than that. Frankly when anyone appears before the Privileges Committee to give an apology we need to make sure that it is real it is genuine and it is unqualified. 
I now turn to the fine. Yes it is a small fine at this stage and the reasons for that have been well canvassed. We were affirming a right to levy a fine for the first time in 103 years. But future breaches—and we have specifically noted this in the report—will result in much heavier fines. I put it this way. Take this fine as a shot across the bows because on other occasions the punishments will be much more severe. The shots will strike home. In fact I say in closing that this report is intended to be a deterrent to State-owned enterprises so that they will account firstly to the public and to the Parliament for their use of public money. I say to the media that this should be a warning or a statement perhaps not to use in the future the ironic epithet of the “all-powerful” Privileges Committee because we have now exercised our power. 
Motion agreed to.