Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21955] 
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Is he confident that he has curbed the “culture of extravagance” in Television New Zealand Ltd and addressed issues that were the subject of a select committee inquiry; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Shareholding ministers have made it clear to the board of Television New Zealand Ltd that the Government expects Television New Zealand to manage its expenditure in an appropriate manner consistent with its objective of giving effect to the charter while maintaining sound commercial performance. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister remember those words from the Prime Minister on 14 December 2004 when she spoke of a “culture of extravagance which requires explanation to shareholding ministers”; is it not a fact that TVNZ’s continuing long history of reckless and wasteful expenditure of millions of dollars on perks golden handshakes exorbitant salaries overgenerous wardrobes unjustifiable credit card spending and ritzy parties is testament to the fact that he has done nothing since the select committee inquiry of last year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I remember the Prime Minister’s comments and I have with me the report from the Commerce Committee on the briefing by Television New Zealand on credit card spending clothing allowances contracts and the principle of transparency. In both cases the chief executive undertakes—or has already acted—to stop things that are inconsistent with the Government’s view. 
Mark Peck 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the way TVNZ is performing financially? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am very satisfied with TVNZ’s financial performance. Even the Minister of Finance is satisfied. Over the last 2 years Television New Zealand has generated record levels of advertising revenue including $335 million in the year ended June 2004 and $196 million in the 6 months ended December 2004 alone. This strong advertising revenue has contributed to greater profits for TVNZ enabling the Crown to reinvest $11.4 million of TVNZ’s 2003 to 2004 dividend as additional funding to implement its charter. I am also satisfied that TVNZ is accounting in a transparent way for every single dollar of its charter funding which is committed to producing more high-quality New Zealand content than ever before. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Does the Minister further recall the reaction of the Prime Minister at the time of Judy Bailey’s reported salary increase to $800000 when the Prime Minister was reported as saying: “I think this was a spectacular mistake but on balance they should go and fix it.” and that if Bailey’s salary was as high as $800000 for “four minutes on air a day” the directors “have some explaining to do”; in light of furthering the TVNZ board’s considerations of Bailey’s upcoming salary proposals will he remind the board of the Prime Minister’s strong views on the matter or are we to regard her statements as just more evidence of the kind of hollow posturing that this Labour Government has become renowned for? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That was a strange question from a person who does not have a policy. Yes I do recall the Prime Minister’s comments and I am confident that the board understands the Government’s expectations. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is a point of order. The prefacing of that answer was unnecessary if that is the point of order. The Minister will concisely address the question please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is yes and I am confident the board understands the Government’s view on those matters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How could the Minister alongside his Prime Minister and colleagues be happy with TVNZ’s performance or attest to the fact that it is “accounting in a transparent way”—his very words 5 seconds ago—when this “culture of extravagance” at TVNZ just saw the taxpayer foot a bill for $52000 for a midwinter sales party shindig in Auckland; how is that an effective use of moneys that are meant to go to the taxpayer? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The sales team of Television New Zealand recently hosted a midwinter function which it does every year to thank advertising agencies and major advertisers who use them for advertising on Television New Zealand. These are people who provide advertising revenue that makes up 90 percent of the money that Television New Zealand gains in overall revenue and the sum of money spent on that function would account for 0.03 of that advertising revenue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How on earth does the Minister or the Prime Minister justify $52000 for a midwinter shindig; how long did it go on for where was it held and was he there? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I was invited but I was not there because I am not one of the advertisers that contributes $335 million to the bottom line of that organisation. This is a common practice amongst organisations throughout the country and it amounts to about 0.03 percent of the sum gained from advertising by Television New Zealand. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your particular attention for the supplementary question I am about to ask and draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 133/2 a ruling by Mr Speaker Hunt: “There is no convention that Ministers are not answerable for operational matters.” I draw it to your attention because the question I am about to ask relates to something I asked on 3 May. The Minister’s response was a written response that simply stated that the question related to an operational matter of Television New Zealand and therefore fell within the responsibility of the Television New Zealand board not shareholders. I merely ask that you pay particular attention to the way in which the Minister deals with the question which I would now like to put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Franks. Would you please put your question. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister care how Television New Zealand achieves the financial performance that he has just been so pleased about given that it is an organisation supposed to report facts and not to suppress them and given that it has supported a Queen’s Counsel in repeated court applications for name suppression for a star so that it can save the programme ratings until the programme ends; if he has not been briefed on this matter why not given that I asked him written questions about it on 3 May 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes; and this is obviously an operational matter for the board. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has given the excuse that I expected. I can point to other rulings to similar effect—it is not appropriate for a Minister simply to decline to answer on the grounds that it is an operational matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point. That ruling means that the question will not be ruled out of order by the Speaker if it relates to operational matters. It does not prevent the Minister however from providing a reply in whatever manner he or she chooses to do so. 
Stephen Franks 
: What will the Minister do if he finds that the facts are exactly as I have described them; and will he as shareholding Minister undertake to try to find out so that he can assure this House that State broadcasters will not in future collude with a person accused of a serious violent sex offence to maintain the disgraceful secrecy of our criminal justice system and to hold up broadcasting ratings and profits of which he is so proud? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If any of those accusations were true of course they would be a matter for shareholding Ministers to become involved in but I have no evidence of that matter. Of course the member has opportunities in a select committee to ask those questions directly of the board. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I heard a comment to my left. The Minister probably did not hear it but I am bound to come to his defence. He was accused of being a spineless Minister and that simply— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And a wimp! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He was called a wimp and a spineless Minister. We know that the Minister can be called smarmy but he cannot be called spineless. That member should be asked to apologise to the House now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister take offence at the term? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a prohibited term. You have taken offence. Does the Minister take offence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot take offence. I just feel sorry for the member because he is leaving soon. That is all.