Brian Rudman: Fraser soap opera keeps dragging on - at $11,500 a week

Ian "I don't want to go home" Fraser seems to have forgotten one of the crucial tricks of his trade. When it comes to the curtain calls, don't be caught on stage when the applause peters out.

Indeed, in this one-man show the former TVNZ chief executive is taking longer to depart, stage left, than a consumptive operatic diva, at every shuffle gasping and spluttering into his bloodied hanky about the vileness of his former bosses.

Now call me unprincipled, but if I'd had a bust-up and told my masters to shove their job, I suspect I'd have been delighted if they'd said, "There, there, Brian, no need to rush off immediately. Forget about all that scribbling you do, just go sit in a corner, take your friends to Toto Restaurant for lunch, shuffle a few papers and keep out of our hair. In return we'll pay you $11,500 a week for six months and send you to a conference in New Delhi."

Mr Fraser did such a deal last October, but by December was before Parliament's finance select committee, dramatically bad-mouthing his masters - the TVNZ board.

The board in turn took umbrage and wrote to him saying his "voluntarily" provided remarks to the committee were inappropriate and "damaging" to them and to the organisation's "reputation, brand and commercial activities". His testimony amounted to "serious misconduct".

They said they wouldn't fire him this time, but would "consider doing so if you make any further disparaging comments about the company, its board or management".

Further, the board said the earlier arrangement for him to stick around in the office carrying out "certain tasks" was no longer appropriate.

They also said they wouldn't pay for the trip to India and asked him "to return all TVNZ property and records".

The good news was he would still get his $11,500 a week until the end of April.

In response, Mr Fraser announced legal action, which in turn sparked Opposition MPs into jumping up and down claiming the board's threats to him, and the punishments imposed, were a contempt of Parliament.

Under the ancient rules of parliamentary privilege, witnesses cannot be disciplined for testimony they give before a select committee. In fact you can say whatever you like, free from the laws of defamation.

The rumblings from Wellington had TVNZ chairman Craig Boyce rapidly withdrawing the threat of disciplinary action "without equivocation" and apologising to Parliament.

But the demand that Mr Fraser return his ballpoint pens and company crested toilet paper stood.

As does the cancellation of the free trip to India and his chance to do "certain tasks".

For Mr Fraser, that's not good enough and he's preparing to do further battle.

You have to wonder why. His king's ransom for doing nothing after spitting the dummy back in October and resigning of his own free will continues to flow.

As this soap opera drags on, it's hard not to contrast it with the case of Josie Bullock, the whistle-blowing probation officer, and contemplate how unjust life can be.

Compare. Mr Fraser goes public, cheekily claiming he's lost confidence in his board, and resigns.

In return he gets a $300,000 golden handshake, which continues to flow despite his juicy and sensational expose of life at the top of TVNZ.

Josie Bullock, on the other hand, was sacked for complaining publicly of sexist treatment of female staff during ceremonial occasions at her workplace. Earlier complaints through the correct channels had gone unheeded.

Last month the Department of Corrections conceded she was right and is now introducing protocols that belatedly respect both the law and modern practice.

Ms Bullock is still unemployed, though, and got no golden handshake for speaking out and bringing the department into the modern world.

Her mistake, apart from not being part of the privileged elite who always manage to look after themselves, was to talk to the media and not a parliamentary select committee.

But how just is that? If Mr Fraser's right to air TVNZ's dirty management linen is worthy of protection, then is a genuine whistle-blower's right to retain her public service job any less important?