McCully Murray: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
McCully Murray: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5112] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson I am indebted to you for giving me another call and I give you notice that I will keep on seeking the call until the Minister does the Committee the courtesy of providing some answers. I know that you will be keen to exercise leniency in that respect because the Minister should be compelled to answer those questions and if not answered makes a mockery of the process the Committee is engaged in today. For example Part 3 of schedule 2 relates to the appointment process for the chief executive. The Committee is discussing a process that has already been acted out and the Minister refuses to tell the Committee today whether the provisions that we are solemnly debating have been acted upon. 
In particular I refer the Minister to the provision in clause 18(2) of schedule 2 in relation to the appointment of the chief executive which states: “In appointing a chief executive the board must—(a) act independently;”. That is what the schedule states. I want to know whether the Minister can assure the Committee that that test was met in the appointment process of Mr Fox. Was that an independent process in the words that are in the bill? Was it independent when Mr Fox presided over the appointment committee? Was it independent when he sat through the report back to the board? Was it independent when there was a 3:2 vote and one of those was a proxy? I simply ask the Minister to give the Committee the assurance that it is entitled to if that is not to be a process that should draw the contempt of the public. 
In relation to the appointment process I also want to ask the Minister about clause 18(3) in schedule 2 which states: “In determining or amending the terms and conditions of the appointment of the chief executive the board must—(a) consult with the State Services Commissioner;”. I ask the Minister whether there was a proper and meaningful consultation process with the State Services Commissioner. Even the Minister of Maori Affairs should be able to answer that question. If not why are we going to solemnly pass that schedule into law this afternoon? Will the Minister take a call to answer that question? 
The documents that I have seen make it quite clear that the State Services Commissioner did have the appointment process drawn to his attention. He said that no it was not a satisfactory process and that he had certain concerns. In an email that I have seen and which the Minister should have seen the State Services Commissioner stated quite clearly that one of the problems was that the terms of reference for the appointment—the job description if one likes—was the same job description that applied in respect of Mr Davy. Yet Mr Davy and Mr Fox could hardly be more different. The State Services Commissioner then pointed out how wrong it would be to change the job description after the board had decided who the appointee would be. He said that that would take a bit of explaining. The Minister now has a bit of explaining to do. He wants us to solemnly vote for a schedule that describes a process that he knows simply did not happen. 
Then we have to ask the Minister why if the consultation process in relation to the State Services Commissioner was inadequate the next bit did not come into play that states that where that process does not work then the responsible Minister should be consulted. I want the Minister to tell us whether his officials consulted him and whether they told him the State Services Commissioner had said that that stuff did not look very flash. Did his officials tell him that? He should have been; that was in the email traffic that I have seen. What did the Minister do then? I want the Minister to tell the Committee that this afternoon. If he wants us to vote for schedule 2 and clause 18 of Part 3 of that schedule I want to know what he told his officials to do if he was consulted because the State Services Commission consultation process was inadequate. If the Minister did tell his officials to make the appointment anyway I want him to own up to that.