Editorial: TVNZ's dangerous fit of pique

The Office of the House of Representatives' prescription for people appearing before one of Parliament's select committees is succinct. "When giving evidence, you are expected to be respectful and to tell the truth." A deliberate attempt to mislead a committee could, it warns, ultimately result in a finding of contempt of Parliament. Former Television New Zealand chief executive Ian Fraser heeded that advice in December - much to the delight of those fascinated by the broadcaster's inner workings - when he appeared before a finance and expenditure select committee inquiry. Now, however, he finds himself punished for it. This alarming development must be scotched, urgently and effectively.

Mr Fraser's testimony over the events that led him to quit his job rounded off a horror year for the state broadcaster. He portrayed the TVNZ board as dysfunctional and meddling, and alleged that one director had orchestrated a campaign to undermine him and news head Bill Ralston. The board's reaction was quick - and utterly inappropriate. Without any discussion with Mr Fraser, it wrote to him, saying his comments to the select committee amounted to "serious misconduct".

Mr Fraser was stripped of the duties he was undertaking while serving out six months' notice on about $300,000. The board, it seems, was content to see him paid to do nothing until his contract ends in April. Further, according to Mr Fraser, it threatened to terminate his remaining employment if he made further similar criticisms of TVNZ.

This hamfisted reaction reflects dismally on the broadcaster's board. Its aim was doubtless to protect TVNZ from further damage to its reputation by shutting down Mr Fraser. But the choice of a sledgehammer suggests a fit of pique, and perhaps the aggregate of months of turmoil got the better of it. The upshot is that the board has managed to place itself squarely at odds with a number of important parliamentary principles. Overlooked in the rush to pounce on Mr Fraser were, for example, the fact that evidence given to select committees is protected by parliamentary privilege, and that Standing Orders dictate that intimidation of a witness represents contempt of Parliament.

If calmer counsel does not prevail, the confrontation with Mr Fraser will probably see the board embroiled in personal grievance proceedings. But the ramifications of the case extend far beyond that. Select committees could not function efficiently if people feared punishment for speaking fully, frankly and truthfully when they appeared before them. Civil servants might be tempted to begin tempering their advice. Parliamentarians would find their ability to frame effective legislation or conduct efficient inquiries compromised. Ultimately, the country would suffer from any obstacle to the free flow of information.

That is not a situation Parliament can countenance. The obligation for people to speak the truth when they appear before committees must be inviolate. The finance and expenditure select committee will have to act immediately; the TVNZ board should be left in no doubt about the error of its ways, and the repercussions if it chooses not to alter its policy toward Mr Fraser.

Compromising with the former chief executive will clearly be galling for the TVNZ board. But Mr Fraser must be returned to the duties agreed on after his resignation. As much as the board wants nothing further to undermine the broadcaster's reputation, a far more important principle is at stake. No challenge to it can be tolerated, even from so forlorn a source as TVNZ.