Criticised executives say they will not resign

Press, 27 April 1984, Page 1

Criticised executives say they will not resign

None of the broadcasting executives singled out for criticism in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Broadcasting Corporation contracts is considering resignation or any other changes to his status in broadcasting, as a result of the commission’s report. Neither the chairman of the board of the Broadcasting Corporation, Mr lan Cross, nor the DirectorGeneral of Television New Zealand, Mr Allan Martin, nor the producer of “That’s Country,” Mr Trevor Spitz, was considering resignation when asked by “The Press”

yesterday. Mr Cross, Mr Martin, and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lange, all criticised the narrow basis of the commission’s findings. Mr Lange criticised the commission for going “spectacularly outside its terms of reference” in its suggestion that the corporation be reshaped. He welcomed the commission’s recommendation that the chairman’s job be split into two — an “independent non-executive chairman” and a chief executive. Mr Lange said the com-

mission confirmed that two jobs were not capable of being handled by one person. Of Mr Cross, he said, “We would accept his resignation.” Asked what would happen if Mr Cross did not offer his resignation, Mr Lange said, “He would find it convenient to give his resignation.” Asked about Labour’s attitude to the chairman, he said, “Mr Cross is not stupid; Mr Cross is an astute operator. He has kept two incompatible jobs going for a long time now but the game is up.”

It would be a matter of “assessment later” if Mr Cross could stay on in one of the jobs. Mr Cross said the inquiry was concerned with events surrounding “That’s Country,” which was one programme within one of eight departments at TVNZ. “They criticised the top management of broadcasting within too limited a context. Although some justification for that criticism exists, it is unfair to allow criticism to apply to the whole of broadcasting.” He said the commission’s findings on specific allega-

tions confirmed the assessment of the corporation and its decision last August to tighten management practices and control procedures. “When the commission moves off that firm ground and into the wider areas of broadcasting, its report becomes a puzzle. It makes sweeping recommendations which involve an unprecedented restructuring of the system, even though it admits that it did not examine the management structure in depth,” Mr Cross said.

He said he looked back on the achievements of TVNZ over the last seven years with pride. He doubted whether any organisation in New Zealand had to be more accountable for its actions than broadcasting. Asked about the commission’s criticism of his position as chairman and chief executive responsible only to himself for day-to-day activities, Mr Cross said this was a matter for politicians to decide. “The commission’s recommendations are being referred to a committee chaired by the Prime Minister. Whatever is decided by statute and Parliament, I will accept,” he said. Mr Cross said the report was reassuring in that it dispelled allegations of corruption within broadcasting, and supported the corporation’s internal inquiry into “That’s Country” last year. Mr Cross defended Mr Martin against criticism in the report. He said the commission was uneasy about the handling of the “That’s Country” situation by both the board and the director-general, yet everything done at those levels had been supported at various points in the report. “The director-general has a life-long distinguished record in television both here and overseas,” said Mr Cross. Mr Martin also questioned how the commission members arrived at their conclusion that TVNZ management was weak and inappropriately structured without looking at the organisation in depth. “They spent a few weeks looking at one aspect of television. Most significant inquiries take 1% to two years to reach the sort of conclusions they arrived at in a matter of weeks,” he said. The members of the commission, Mr Reid Jackson and Mr Mervyn Good, were accountants who tended to emphasise the administrative structure of television rather than production aspects, said Mr Martin. “Our emphasis is rightly on production and programming, and not on administrative controls which tend to stifle an organisation,” he said. The commission’s charge that Mr Martin and the controller of programme production, Mr Rod Cornelius, did not adequately control Mr Spitz and the then head of entertainment, Mr Tom Parkinson, were untrue, said Mr Martin. “I don’t know what they are talking about,” he said. “Mr Parkinson was controlled as well as the next man, but he was successful because he was given the freedom to be successful. This applies to all producers.” Mr Martin said the commission seemed to confuse the distinction between artists and producers, and did not appear to understand the difference between them.