B.C.N.Z. staff were reluctant to appear

Press, 27 April 1984, Page 4

B.C.N.Z. staff were reluctant to appear

PA Wellington The Broadcasting Corporation created a situation where some staff were reluctant to appear before a Commission of Inquiry into its activities, the commission’s report said. The report said this aspect of the inquiry was “serious in the context of a corporation with the monopoly position that B.C.N.Z. enjoys in the field of television in New Zealand.” It noted the corporation had agreed to meet the legal expenses “on behalf of the central characters in the inquiry” and said this was “curious.” Travelling and accommodation expenses of some employees and their legal counsel were also paid by the corporation. No similar provision was made in respect of others, the report said. “This matter concerned the commission as did the obvious co-operation of the several counsel acting for the parties — all paid for by the corporation. “In effect, any persons wishing to give evidence to the commission against the corporation or its managment employees, had to: ® “Risk the ire of their peers. • “Meet their own legal costs or proceed without counsel. • “Face the inevitable torrid cross-examination

from three or more sources, all funded by the corporation. “Any employee who chose to challenge the authority of, or even to criticise, a senior executive, ran the risk of having a closing of ranks against him or even his contract terminated, or at least not renewed. “As a practical matter, faced with the need to have critical evidence subject to cross-examination, we found it impossible to offer a viable alternative. In all the circumstances perhaps it is little wonder so few came forward.” The commission said that in “agreeing to meet the legal expenses as it did, the corporation helped to create a situation where other employees were reluctant to come forward.” “As it happened, virtually the only B.C.N.Z. employees who appeared, other than those represented by cor-poration-funded counsel, did so at the request and in support of those employees so represented.” It said the appearance of a television executive producer, Mr Malcolm Kemp, late in the hearings, produced evidence which could and should have been brought to its attention much earlier by Messrs Trevor Spitz, Tom Parkinson, Rod Cornelius, and others. “Indeed, the commission felt moved to complain to

counsel for these employees that relevant information available to them had been withheld. We cannot now be certain that this information would have surfaced except for the appearance of Mr Kemp. “We are left wondering what else might have come to our attention had other staff been prepared to give evidence.” The report said Mr Kemp’s evidence “destroyed the Parkinson-Spitz version that (Gray) Bartlett, (Brendan) Dugan, and (Jodi) Vaughan were the only unhappy people on the ‘That’s Country’ show.” “The parade of entertainers at the Christchurch hearing, all entirely supportive of Mr Spitz and all dependent on the good will of Mr Spitz for their continued employment on the ‘That’s Country’ show, left the commission wondering whether this Mr Spitz was larger than life.” The Opposition’s spokesman on broadcasting, Mr J. L. Hunt, said when he called for the inquiry in Parliament last August that people in broadcasting had approached him with information but did not want their names revealed. They were “frightened of repercussions if their names are revealed — they might secure no further contracts with the B.C.N.Z. — and frightened that they might be sacked.”