Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14339] 
11. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Has TVNZ made any agreement to make a payment to Paul Henry on his resignation? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am not aware of any of the terms under which Mr Henry was employed. Furthermore it would be inappropriate for me to seek that information from Television New Zealand (TVNZ) as I would be contravening the Television New Zealand Act and the Crown Entities Act. If TVNZ were to reveal this information to me it might be in danger of contravening the Privacy Act and the Employment Relations Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member I say that I struggled to hear the last part of that answer. I believe it was a serious question and the level of interjection was just too high. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is he saying he does not know or is he saying he will not tell the House? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I think I was pretty clear: I do not know. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister accept that TVNZ’s dividend to the Government and its value are his responsibility and can he guarantee that these have not been reduced in any way by any payment to Mr Henry over and above the statutory minimum requirements? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has he told TVNZ not to make a payment over and above the statutory minimum requirements; if not why not? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No I have not. I refer that member to the precedent set by his colleague Trevor Mallard in 2008 when Ralph Craven departed as Transpower boss. Trevor Mallard said at that stage that Ministers were not responsible for the work of chief executives and staff or employment matters and that they were operational and a matter for the chairman. So I tell the member to go and talk to Trevor Mallard; he knows the rules on this. We are following the same form. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a big difference between being responsible and knowing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member knows he cannot litigate an answer that is available— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well he cannot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. It is up to the person questioning the Minister. If he does not like the answer he has further supplementary questions to dig in to that answer. It is not up to another member to by way of point of order interfere with it. The questioner has the opportunity if the answer does not seem appropriate or of the quality the questioner expects to dig into it with the next supplementary question. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I object to that member saying that I am telling lies. I am quoting directly— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Admittedly there was some interjection when there should not have been when a point of order was being heard. I confess that I did not hear the member assert that the Minister was— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I make it very clear that I did and I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was quite out of order so I now ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to stand and withdraw and apologise. If he is admitting he said it I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I so do. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is required to say: “I withdraw and apologise.” not: “I so do.” or whatever phrase the member used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the member made. I took what the member said to be a genuine following of my instructions. What troubles me at times is when members get up and say: “I withdraw and apologise.” as if they do not mean it at all. I thought the member indicated in the way he said it that he actually meant it. I let the issue pass; it was my judgment to let it pass. I apologise to the House if I erred there. I do not want to go back and take time to correct it now because it was my judgment at that time that the member apologised. But I stress to the House that it should not be taken as a precedent. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would be the circumstances under which a payment by TVNZ to a resigning presenter would not be acceptable and is there conduct that would be serious enough to cause that Minister to intervene offer an opinion or even pray tell ask the chief executive officer for any information? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: When we talk about what the circumstances would be we are dealing in a hypothetical area and I am not prepared to comment on that. But I note that when Steve Maharey was the Minister of Broadcasting and Ian Fraser left Television New Zealand he was loathe to make any comment at all for exactly the same reasons that I have cited. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister under what circumstances he would for instance be prepared to intervene in what circumstances he would be prepared to offer an opinion or in what circumstances he might even ask a question of his chief executive officer to be informed of the information. None of that was addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member listens to what the Minister said he said that they are hypothetical questions that the member is asking. He is not prepared to answer— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hear no evil see no evil. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! He said that he is not prepared to answer such a question; he can look only at an individual circumstance on its own merits. He cited previous Ministers who have taken a similar approach. I believe that that is answering the member’s question. As he said he is not prepared to answer such a hypothetical question.