KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : The first point I would like to make is that this bill is misnamed. Bills should always be named relevantly. What we have here is something quite different. I suspect that this bill is not about television, at all. It is about control, and control of the media. What we have seen over the last 3 years—

Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!

KATHERINE RICH: Mr Hughes may giggle—he may be the only member on that side of the House who actually watches television, I suspect—

Gerry Brownlee: Not after 10 o’clock.

KATHERINE RICH: That is his bedtime, I say to Mr Brownlee. We have seen a slow movement towards greater control of television. The reason for that is the revenge that the Prime Minister is seeking on Television New Zealand for her treatment throughout the election campaigns preceding her election as Prime Minister. This legislation is not about television but about social engineering. It is about deciding what is good for other New Zealanders to watch on television, and deciding for them what they should select on their remote controls. It is also about deciding a better use for a limited State resource.

There are a number of reasons that the name of this bill is insufficient. My first suggestion is that we do not call the bill the Television New Zealand Bill at all. Let us call it the “Let’s All Watch What Helen Wants Us to Watch Bill”, or the “Labour Party Propaganda Bill”. Or we could call it the “How to Wreck Television New Zealand in Five Easy Steps Bill”, because that is what is being done here. They have taken what was a very robust, successful business, and throttled it, so that it is no longer the financial success that it was. There was certainly every expectation that Television New Zealand would be able to retain some of its dividend, which is one of Labour’s election promises that it has not delivered on. Nobody thought, for one minute, that the way that TVNZ would be able to keep its dividend would be through losses rather than through having a part of the dividend retained.

I also think we should call it the “Let’s Come up with the Most Bizarre Structure Possible That’s Never Been Tried Anywhere Else in the World and Impose it on What is Already a Fragile Business Bill”. Submitter after submitter came before the select committee and suggested that the structure was not a good one for TVNZ. I am pleased to see that the Minister has agreed with the Opposition and has decided to make some changes to the bill on a Supplementary Order Paper. We should call this bill the “Let’s Impose a Whole Raft of Vague and Unachievable Objectives, and Then Expect the Business to Compete Bill”, because that is more appropriate to this legislation. If we were to use that title, it would be a better description of what this bill is about.

The statements about television through the bill are very vague. Although Marian Hobbs, the previous Minister, suggests that the charter is a very detailed, focused document, members will see that the statements are very vague and nebulous.

My last suggestion is that we should call this bill “Marian Hobbs’ Folly Bill”, mainly because it has taken nearly 4 years to get it introduced to the House. I was not surprised at all that she decided to hand over the reins to the new Minister. This was probably the least successful of the tasks that she has not completed since she has been in Parliament. Quite clearly, this bill is not about television at all. It is about imposing control on what was once a successful State-owned enterprise and imposing a new regime that can only damage the entity.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : Speaking to clause 1, the title, of the Television New Zealand Bill, I feel that title could be amended to read the “Television New Zealand (Sale of New Zealanders’ Assets) Bill”. Once again, the Labour Government has not learned from the lessons of the past, when it sold off billions of dollars worth of New Zealand’s assets in the 1980s. Here it is setting up a new structure for Television New Zealand in order to sell it off to the first available bidder, so that Labour can try to cover up some of the problems it is having with its budgetary requirements.

New Zealand First’s essential starting-off principle was to ensure that New Zealanders retained the assets that they had built up. This Labour Government is barely into its second, and last, term—as far as New Zealand First is concerned, this is the second and the last term of this Clark Labour Government, if Helen Clark is not unseated before the end of it—and it is proceeding with a bill that proposes, by the way it is structured, the sale of Television New Zealand. That is why I suggest the name of the bill should be the “Television New Zealand (Sale of New Zealanders’ Assets) Bill”. That is what this bill does. I suggest Labour is now creating a situation whereby it is setting up structures that will allow our television asset to be sold. That asset has been built up by New Zealanders since about 1962, when programmes were transmitted in black and white from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m.

The name of the bill could also be the “Television New Zealand (Silly Ideas) Bill”. If members look at the proposals for the charter on Supplementary Order Paper 57, dated Thursday 20 February 2003—which has been thrown at us today—they can see at last what that charter is all about. It has been talked about for a long, long time, and finally we have the charter, with all its silly ideas. I say the bill could have that title because the charter suggests, for example, that various measures could be included in the bill to provide for a wide group of people. In particular, the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper to clause 10 states, in subclause (2)(b)(ix): “include in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests;”. Is that not silly? That is why I say this bill should be called the Television New Zealand (Silly Ideas) Bill. There is a proposal that programming for a mass audience must have things for a minority audience, but how often will a mass audience be interested in things with a minority interest? There is no better way to turn the mass audience off watching television than to start dealing with minority interests. If people are watching one of those thrilling Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, will they keep watching that movie if there is suddenly a little excerpt of Thai dancing, or some other fancy little thing of interest to a minority audience, in the middle of it? Will we have a sudden break in a movie for something that appeals to a minority interest?

What a silly idea this legislation is. It has been rushed into the House at the last minute. This bill has been before Parliament for a long, long time. It has been before the Commerce Committee and we had the second reading last October. New Zealand First abstained from voting on the second reading because we wanted to know what the bill would do. I am still pleased that we did abstain, because clearly the bill could, as I have suggested, have two titles, one being the “Television New Zealand (Sale of New Zealanders’ Assets) Bill” and the other being the “Television New Zealand (Silly Ideas) Bill”. For reasons like that, we will not be supporting this bill.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) : I am very pleased to stand and support my colleague Katherine Rich in opposing this appalling bill that dares to waste the time of this institution. I support the amendments that she foreshadowed about the re-titling of this bill. I agree with her that the bill should be re-titled the “Television New Zealand (Befuddlement) Bill”, because it represents 4 years of studious thinking by Marian Hobbs. The reason that we think the title is not a fair reflection of this bill is that we are aware of the confusion and the delirium that has backed the bill. We are aware that the former Minister, who wrote and was responsible for this bill, stood up on her first day in Parliament and could not tell the difference between the chairman and the chief executive of Television New Zealand. I remember that. The reason I raise that now is that I want to ask how one can say that this is the Television New Zealand Bill when the promoting Minister did not know whether she was Arthur or Martha, or who was the chairman and who was the chief executive of Television New Zealand.

That is an important point, because Television New Zealand used to be one of the best publicly owned businesses in this country. It generated substantial amounts of money that were used to pay for schools, hospitals, cancer treatment, and all the public-good sorts of things that we in this House want to support. Television New Zealand used to generate tens of millions of dollars.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Could the member address the title, please.

Hon TONY RYALL: The point is that this company, Television New Zealand, used to generate so much money that the bill could be retitled the “Television New Zealand (Destruction of a Publicly Owned Cash Cow) Bill”, because that is what this Government has done. That company used to generate tens of millions of dollars of dividends that were used to buy public-good services in the community, and now that is wasted. Under the stewardship of this Government, perpetuated by this legislation, Television New Zealand is rapidly losing value and losing the premier position that it held in New Zealand broadcasting. It has ended up in befuddlement—a company that does not know where it is going and does not have any plans. All that it is focused on is its management. Does that not sound like the Government? Does that not sound like the very Government that is promoting this bill?

So I support Katherine Rich. She single-handedly forced Marian Hobbs from the broadcasting portfolio. Katherine Rich is the person who should be in this House deciding on the future of Television New Zealand. I support her completely in her amendment to change the title of the bill. The present title does not reflect what this legislation will do. This bill is all about the continued destruction of value in Television New Zealand—so much so that the company has at times been running at a loss during the term of this Government, and taxpayers have been deprived of tens of millions of dollars of dividend income that would have been much more appropriately spent and invested in other parts of the public service.

During the rest of the debate on the title we will hear from my colleague the Hon David Carter. National intends to show why the bill’s title is a misnomer that does not fairly reflect the genesis or the progress of the bill. It is an absolute requirement for the title of any bill that it should clearly and fairly reflect the content of the bill. This legislation is not about preserving the value of Television New Zealand but about destroying the value of that company. It will deny the public an opportunity to receive those dividends, and also deny them the opportunity of investing directly in a profitable broadcaster. This Government has destroyed the value of Television New Zealand. It is denying any future Parliament the opportunity to be involved in further capital investment.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) : I had the opportunity of going to a proctologist, but instead I chose to listen to Mr Ryall’s speech. I obviously made the wrong choice.

This bill should actually be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill”, because on 13 October last year Peter Dunne and I went to see Michael Cullen and suggested to him breaking up TVNZ into two groups to operate as a public service broadcaster separately from BCL, which should be allowed to get on with the job of setting up excellent transmission facilities for New Zealand. We wanted to make sure that BCL was allowed to go unchallenged as a business enterprise and could not be cannibalised by the charter. We achieved that and—

Dail Jones: Oh!

MARC ALEXANDER: Well, it is right here on Supplementary Order Paper 57. We have managed to separate the two, which I think is a great thing. We will not end up with a situation where a Minister could be in the untenable position of having to make a choice between a $10 million investment in, for example, BCL that could return some very good profits to this country, or dumping it into a television programme about the mating season for whales. So BCL will be able to carry on with the job of being a business, and the charter will be able to look after itself.

On the question of the charter, we look forward to having the TVNZ bill allow Television One and TV2 to go unchallenged and be leaders in numerous areas. We can see from some of the clauses in Part 2 that will come later on—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Could the member return to the question, please. Could he relate his comments to the title.

MARC ALEXANDER: The question is how we should title this bill, and it addresses the charter. It fundamentally addresses how we are to set up TVNZ, in comparison with what that would have been like without the involvement of United Future. We have at least saved the business side of TVNZ, and I gather from TVNZ that it is very happy that we have done that, as well. United Future can stand proud that it has saved the transmission side of the business from economic cannibalism, which could have been undertaken had the two areas not been separated, and I think that is very, very important.

So I do think this bill should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. We have saved the taxpayer from seeing something that could have been a huge black hole. It was quite within the realms of possibility that the bill would have been nothing more than a big black hole that taxpayers would have filtered their money through for many years to come, and it would not have been a transparent process. The fact that BCL was separated from the rest of the business and that we cannot have that kind of a cannibalistic financial approach will say to the taxpayer that we can make TVNZ accountable and transparent. The “Thank God for United Future Bill” is what the bill should be called, because that is exactly what it is. Because of our involvement we have separated the two parts of TVNZ, and I think that everybody from here on out can be grateful that we did so. We can concentrate a little more on the charter later on in this debate.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : As we address the title of this bill, I think that Marc Alexander has at least touched on one of the issues that we need to address when we contemplate the title, and that is that this bill, as it will be amended by the Labour Government supported by United Future, will be dramatically different from the bill that went through the Commerce Committee. It is a radically different bill and, really, that ought to be reflected in a radically different title.

The submitters who came along and made submissions at the select committee discussed one particular structure for TVNZ, and all spoke to that structure. Then, at the eleventh hour, like a bolt out of the blue, suddenly we had the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 57. United Future has boasted that it managed to persuade Mr Cullen, at the very eleventh hour and after the whole bill had been to the select committee, to radically change this bill and to break up Television New Zealand. So, instead of having an integrated company with a transmission arm and a content-producing arm, we have split those two arms up completely.

The United Future representative has boasted that Television New Zealand is happy with that change, and that we should call this the “Saved by United Future”—or something—“Bill”. I have news for him: I have not spoken to a single person in the industry who is happy with this bill. People in the industry are appalled at this last-minute change involving the splitting-off of the transmission arm and the setting-up of a separate arm for the transmission service, BCL Ltd, which is now to be called Transmission Holdings Ltd—THL—or whatever its name will be. They believe—as does the Green Party—that far from strengthening this bill, United Future and Labour, in separating off the transmission arm, will weaken Television New Zealand, reduce its revenue-generating potential, and leave it in a much more vulnerable state than it was.

We believe that will indeed make Television New Zealand increasingly reliant on advertising revenue, at a time when we have a charter telling it that we want it to be editorially driven, not ratings-driven. But the splitting-off of BCL and all its revenue potential will mean that Television New Zealand will, firstly, become increasingly reliant on advertising revenue and, therefore, not able to implement the charter. Secondly, it will be increasingly reliant on direct Government funding. That is, of course, always a recipe for potential political interference in this most crucial area of the fourth estate. I will elaborate on our concerns about the separating-off of BCL, and the ways in which we believe that will weaken Television New Zealand, when we come to Part 2.

But we are at present discussing the title, and I would like also to say at this point that the Green Party—unlike other speakers in this House—does believe that in this increasingly globalised world, where our sovereignty, culture, and identity are being eroded, it is absolutely crucial that we have a strong, publicly owned television broadcaster here in New Zealand that is committed to promoting our identity, programmes, perspective, and point of view. What is the point of having a public service broadcaster owned by the public of New Zealand if, for example, only 13 percent of the programmes on TV2 are New Zealand programmes—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member come back to the title, please?

SUE KEDGLEY: So, coming back to the title of the bill, my major point is that it really does need to be changed in order to indicate that this bill has been radically changed from the version that emerged from the select committee. I suspect that Transmission Holdings Ltd will be the only State-owned enterprise to be created by an amendment from the floor of the House. That was an eleventh-hour amendment, produced in the Committee stage of this Parliament after the entire membership of the select committee had finished its deliberations and stated that it made sense to keep Television New Zealand with a transmission arm and a content arm, so that there could be a transparent cross-subsidy between the two arms.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : The ACT party continues to oppose this Television New Zealand Bill, which, as Sue Kedgley from the Greens said, is radically different from even the bill that we last debated in the House, because of the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 57. It should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill at all, because this bill will destroy what was once a great institution, which was returning over $60 million in profit, and which had more than adequate—

Mark Peck: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a very narrow debate. The bill has been to a select committee and members should be sticking strictly to the title. There has been a little bit of latitude, I would suggest.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that matter.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I thank that member for providing guidance to a new member. As I said, the bill should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill. In no way should what this bill creates be associated with what people in New Zealand know as Television New Zealand. People in New Zealand take pride in Television New Zealand. I think it should be called anything but the Television New Zealand Bill. As those members over there affectionately call their previous Minister of Broadcasting “Boo-Boo”, we could call it the “Television New Zealand (Boo-Boo) Bill”. In fact, that member has admitted that she does not watch television. She has not watched any television since the 1970s.

We know why this bill is radically different. It has nothing to do with United Future members, who say that it should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. We know that it has nothing to do with the “Thank God for United Future” party, because the reason it is radically different is that the previous chairman of Television New Zealand has fallen from high favour in a very painful way.

I will add to what the member from United Future said when he claimed that we have achieved separation of Television New Zealand into two. Well, it is very prescient of him to say such a thing. I think he must have divine foresight, because this bill has not been passed yet. It is not an Act. He has not actually saved the transmission arm from destruction.

If he is so keen on saving the transmission arm, why does he not also save the television arm? Why should we allow Television New Zealand to be reduced by what I say should be called the “What the Government Wants to See on Television Bill”? It should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill at all. That should not be the title. We have recorded in Hansard the honourable member Jill Pettis saying that the Government wants to see more documentaries shown on television. Why does it not, therefore, call the bill the “What Politicians Want Everybody Else to Watch on Television Bill”, or, as I said, the “What the Government Wants Everybody Else to Watch on Television Bill”? It is a bit like those words from that cunning linguist the Minister of Finance that “The Government is skiing.” or “The Government is climbing mountains.”

But, as I said, the ACT party totally opposes this bill; it does not matter what the title is. The whole thing is a disaster, and we will continue to oppose it.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) : I certainly want to speak to the title, and I want to speak particularly to the interesting contribution from Marc Alexander, who suggested that he would table an amendment naming the bill the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. I say to Mr Alexander that he should put his money where his mouth is and table that amendment. I will work with my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, and with the votes of “Mr United Future” I think we could get a change to this legislation. So I am challenging Mr Marc Alexander, as we debate the title, to be honest. He said he would put an amendment. I am challenging him to table the amendment, and I will work with ACT, New Zealand First, and National to get support for it. I tell him that we would have the numbers to change the title of this bill successfully.

I think he has gone a shade of white, and I do not think that he wants to persist with his first suggestion, which was to call the Television New Zealand Bill the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. I do not think that would do his electoral chances any good. We have had that suggestion from Marc Alexander for a change of title, but I think that one is probably not going to see the light of day.

My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall suggested the bill should be called the “Television New Zealand Destruction Bill”. I would be very supportive of that. I think it goes a long way towards tallying with the comments from Deborah Coddington, who reminded the Committee that as we debate the Television New Zealand Bill we are debating an organisation that was once a proud organisation worth a lot of money. Now we are dealing with an organisation that is far from being a proud organisation. It is nothing like the organisation it used to be. It is certainly not worth anywhere near what it was worth only a few years ago.

As we debate clause 1, “Title”, I am interested in whether Helen Clark is going to unshackle the previous Minister, the Hon Marian Hobbs, as this legislation is her brainchild. I am most surprised that she has not taken a call to date as we debate the title “Television New Zealand Bill”, and I will be interested to see whether she is allowed to make any further useful contributions as we proceed through the debate.

I have one further comment to make as we debate the title. It is really a question of who will be happy to see this legislation passed. I cannot imagine that many average Television New Zealand viewers will be rapt with the changes being engineered in the Committee today. But those who will be happy are the many thousands of New Zealanders who have bought shares in Sky television. As we debate the title “Television New Zealand Bill”, I say that, mark my words, the beneficiaries of this legislation will be the people who own shares in Sky television. It is going to become the channel of choice. People are not going to be interested in watching what Marian Hobbs tells them they are meant to watch. They are going to use the thing that she referred to as the “what-d’you-call-it”. She was unsure what a remote was called, when she debated something concerning television a year or so ago.

As we debate the Television New Zealand Bill today, I say that the shareholders of Sky television will be the big beneficiaries. They will see that people up and down the country find that this bill, the Television New Zealand Bill, does nothing to improve the quality of what they enjoy watching. It might have something to do with Jill Pettis telling people what they should be watching, and her feeling a lot better because—

Hon Tony Ryall: Cartoons.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Oh no, I think she talked about documentaries. It would be a documentary on Sonja Davies, or somebody like her—some well-known Labour Party member.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : Once again I rise to speak to the bill. I suspect that the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, as he looks at the commencement date listed in the bill, must more or less hold his head in shame, because the bill states: “The Act comes into force on 1 July 2001.” That is when the charter was supposed to come into effect.

Hon David Carter: John Tamihere would have got it done in time.

KATHERINE RICH: He would have got it done in time—quite clearly so. The commencement date is 1 July 2001, and here we are, some 19 months later, talking about this bill now. We are into the fourth year of talking about the charter, the fourth year of discussing this bill. Now the Government is bringing in, at the Committee stage, changes that make the bill quite radically different from the bill that the Commerce Committee looked at.

This part sets out the purpose of the Act. Once again, things have changed dramatically. It was intended that there be no split of BCL from Television New Zealand. Unlike Marc Alexander, who spoke before, I do not see having the two parts of the organisation together as cannibalistic. There are some good reasons for having the two organisations together. BCL is a very profitable organisation, and a lot of the profits from that particular part of the company have been able to be directed into the production of local content. That will not be possible now. If we are to look at the good sides of cross-subsidisation, that was one.

Now BCL is going to be split off. That is a total about-face by the Government, but it has nothing to do with United Future. It has more to do with the fact that the Alliance is now no longer an important part of the Government. We all know that keeping the two organisations together was Jim Anderton’s goal.

In terms of splitting off BCL, and the changes that are outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper from the Government, I would like to take the Committee back to some comments made by the Minister when he was being interviewed on Media Watch. At the time the Minister was asked: “So the elements of the structure we have now—two commercial channels, with BCL part of the same entity—that’s set in stone?” Steve Maharey replied: “Yes.”

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s one of the things you say as a Minister that you don’t really say.

KATHERINE RICH: This was actually 25 August 2002; even back then, he said it was set in stone. The second question was: “Now there’s no temptation, now that you’ll possibly have the opportunity, to split BCL as the Government has always wanted to?”. He responded: “No. I think, as I say, the die is cast there to get this legislation through.” That was said back in August 2002, and here we are, further down the track, with a bill that is dramatically different from the one that was discussed in the select committee, and with these eleventh-hour changes.

If we look at the purpose of the bill, we see it aims to put in place the charter. We have a document that comprises probably fewer than 500 words. This Government has managed to deliver less than one word a day. Frankly, I am sure that if my colleague Tony Ryall had put pen to paper, he could have written the charter in half an hour.

In terms of where we have to go to from here, the purpose of the Act, although set out there in black and white, is still incredibly vague. It states that the television business has to give effect to the charter. I ask the Minister what “gives effect to” means. Does it mean “implement”? What does it mean in terms of the way this charter will be measured? Some years down the track, we are still standing here without any idea of how this charter will be measured, how much it will cost, or how much impact it will have on the TVNZ business. The purpose of this Act is quite vague and really should have greater detail.

Of course, the Minister says that the $12 million that the Government has put into the provision of the charter will make a big difference. I remind the Committee that, on the day that press release came out, Annette King was making a comment about the health sector. She said that $10 million, if my memory serves me correctly, was a mere trickle.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I would like to talk about Part 1, the purpose of this Act. I reiterate that the Green Party does support the transformation of Television New Zealand into a Crown-owned company, because we would like to see it change from being a commercially focused State-owned enterprise to being an organisation that, hopefully, is editorially driven rather than just commercially driven, and that will have the satisfaction of viewers, not the return of a commercial dividend, as its primary objective. What is the point, we say, of keeping a television channel in public ownership if it is not going to focus on a New Zealand voice, a New Zealand perspective, and New Zealand programmes?

We do need to remember that TVNZ has been more commercially driven, more dependent on commercial income and advertising revenue, than any other public service television in the world. Figures from a year ago show that whereas we were spending about $3 a head annually on public service television, Australia was spending $30, and the United Kingdom was spending $120. So we support the idea of trying to change the culture of Television New Zealand from one that is simply preoccupied with advertising revenue and ratings, to one that is focused on New Zealand programmes and the New Zealand perspective.

In that regard, we sincerely hope that TV2 will improve its performance. At present, a mere 13 percent of the programmes screening on TV2 are New Zealand programmes. That is the channel that children watch. Our children are watching a couple of hours of television every single day, on average. What are they seeing when they watch TV2, the young people’s channel? They will learn more about Los Angeles than they do about their own suburbs and communities, because New Zealand society remains largely invisible on TV2. We sincerely hope that will begin to change—or what is the purpose of a publicly owned television channel?

Although we support the transformation of TVNZ into a Crown-owned company, we are totally opposed to the Government’s last-minute amendment, which came like a bolt out of the blue, to separate off the transmission arm. We believe that, exactly as Katharine Rich said, it will weaken, not strengthen, TVNZ. It will shrink the potential revenue base of TVNZ and therefore its potential to make New Zealand programmes. It will eliminate the option of having transparent cross-subsidies from the transmission arm, and it will make TVNZ increasingly reliant on advertising revenue, at the very time that we are asking it, in the charter, to be editorially driven, not ratings driven. It will weaken the implementation of the charter.

Given that advertising revenue is notoriously fickle, and in particular will become so—as we and the pundits predict—as we move into the digital era, we believe that this bill, when the Minister of Broadcasting’s amendments are adopted with the help of United Future, will inevitably increase TVNZ’s dependence on Government funding, which, of course, has its own problems of potential political interference. If TVNZ is dependent on Government funding, what happens when there is a change of Government and there is no more funding forthcoming? On the political interference argument, there is an old saying: “She who pays the piper plays the tune”. It would be very easy for a future Government, unhappy with Television New Zealand’s election coverage, for example, to threaten to reduce the Government subsidy—$10 million a year, we are told, for the next 3 years. Helen Clark made it plain that she was furious with TVNZ’s election coverage 4 years ago. It is not unimaginable that in future a Prime Minister would vow to reduce the amount of Government funding available for TVNZ, because of his or her unhappiness with election coverage. That is what happened back in 1975 when Robert Muldoon refused to raise the licence fee, essentially as a way of punishing the broadcaster.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) : It is a great privilege to be able to speak in this debate along with Katherine Rich, the National Party broadcasting spokesperson. I want to echo the comments she made about Part 1 of the Television New Zealand Bill. Part 1 lists the purposes of this Act, and they have changed quite remarkably from when the bill was first introduced. When the bill was first introduced it was all about providing Television New Zealand with a very complex, three-board structure with two subsidiaries, with various people having various cross-directorships.

Katherine Rich: Dr Armstrong would have been on all three.

Hon TONY RYALL: Dr Armstrong would have been on all three. But we now find that a Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled late in the day that provides for the splitting up of Television New Zealand into a television business and a transmission business. This is a quite fundamental change and about-face from the Government in recent times. Katharine Rich was the first person in the whole Television New Zealand debate to say that the transmission arm should be split off from the broadcast arm, and she has been proved correct, but I would like the Minister of Broadcasting to stand up and explain the remarkable about-face that we have seen in his tenure of the broadcasting portfolio. He was asked on the Media Watch television programme: “So the elements of the structure that we have now, two commercial channels, with BCL part of the same entity, that’s set in stone?”. Mr Maharey replied: “Yes.” He said it was set in stone. He said that on the Media Watch programme on 25 August 2002. What a remarkable turn-round!

The reason he has changed his position is the logic and the weight of the argument that Katharine Rich and the National Party in Opposition have brought to this bill. The Government simply could not withstand the weight of the argument.

I would also like the Minister to stand up and explain the very generous references to Māori in clause 4. We are spending oodles of taxpayers’ money on a Māori television channel, and now we find that the alternative channel will have to take lots of notice of Māori interests, as well. Not only will there be a Māori television channel; the public service television channels will be dominated by Māori interests, as well. Māori are not getting one channel; they are getting three. That is not what the Government promised the people of New Zealand. I want the Minister to stand up, take a call, and explain why Television New Zealand will have to take into account the aims and aspirations of Māori more than any other group in the community, and where that sits with the fact that tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will provide a special channel for Māori. Why does Television New Zealand have to accept that responsibility, which this Government has decided will be met through an independent television channel for Māori? I would like the Minister to get up and explain why some people can get two bites of the taxpayer cherry, while others are shut out and get none of what is going on, as a result of the segregationist approach that this Government wants to pursue throughout this country.

I acknowledge the debate, led by Katherine Rich, that has led to the about-face by the Government. It is extraordinary that only 4 months ago the Minister was saying that the previous structure was set in stone. It is now a few months later, and the Minister has done a complete 180-degree flip on that issue, without giving any explanation to the people of New Zealand. We used to have a thing called the “Maharey principle”, which refers to things people say when in Opposition that they do not really say when in Government. Now we have the “Maharey principle 2”, which refers to things people say when in Government that they do not really say when they are in Government! Beat that! What a flip! Clearly, this Government owes Parliament an explanation of why it has changed its position.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : Part 1 of the Television New Zealand Bill deals with the purpose of the bill, which has now been totally changed by the Supplementary Order Paper we have just been given. The purpose of this bill is interesting because for the first time it brings in the dreaded word “charter”, which we will get to later on in the Committee stage. Paragraph (b) of clause 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 57 states that the legislation will “ensure that the Crown entity responsible for the television business gives effect to its Charter while maintaining its commercial performance:”. Commercial performance is defined later on in this part, but a tension is developed here. How can this Crown entity give effect to a charter that is trying desperately to please every single little sector of the public, and, at the same time, maintain its commercial performance? There is absolutely no way that it can do that.

Under the old bill, before Supplementary Order Paper 57 came in, there was a slight chance that that might happen. But now that BCL has been separated out and taken away, the only way that Television New Zealand will get any funding is from the advertiser or from the taxpayer. We have already seen the Government commit $12 million to implement the charter. That $12 million has going to a business that was once a proud enterprise, returning over $60 million a year in 1999. The Government already has to give it $12 million, and that will increase, because an enterprise like this cannot both be dependent upon advertising and try to be a public broadcaster.

The ACT party would do away with this whole bill, and sell Television New Zealand. Why do we need public broadcasting? What is the purpose of a public broadcaster? What is so special about television? Why does Labour not buy back all the publishing companies in New Zealand? There are many people who read more books than they watch television—probably including most of the people in this House. Books are enormously important in terms of seeing one’s own culture, of seeing the Kiwi identity reflected—whatever “Kiwi identity” means; it is something defined by politicians. Why does not Labour buy all the publishing companies, and deliver a charter to get rid of, for one thing, the secularisation of the State? That is a dangerous, slippery slope that this bill goes down, as we will see later.

I see that the Minister of Broadcasting is not in the chair any more, but perhaps the Minister who is now in the chair, Jim Sutton, could take a call and explain to us why Supplementary Order Paper 57 proposes to change the definition of “shareholding Ministers”. At one stage, shareholding Ministers were defined as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Broadcasting, but now that has changed to the “Minister of Finance and the Minister for the time being responsible for TVNZ”. What on earth does that mean? I call on the Minister to take a call and explain to us what that means. It is another one of those nebulous sorts of phrases that creep into legislation like this. For instance, does it mean Parekura Horomia, who might want to increase taxpayer funding for Māori programmes on Television New Zealand, as well as the mythical, elusive, Scarlet Pimpernel - like Māori Television Service? Perhaps the Minister could take a call and explain to us what that means, if, indeed, he knows.

I will conclude by supporting Katherine Rich’s comment that the Minister of Broadcasting must be ashamed when he sees that the commencement date has changed from 1 July 2001. We see that time and time again with legislation that comes before this Committee.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) : I take pleasure in speaking to Part 1. I, too, have concerns as far as the purpose of the bill is concerned. There has been a big change from the structure in the original bill, which was to “provide for a Television New Zealand Crown entity group consisting of a Crown holding company with 2 subsidiaries, one of which conducts a television business and the other a transmission business”, to one that “provides for the existing State enterprise, Television New Zealand Limited to be split into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business;”, and so on.

I think the Hon Tony Ryall had a very good point. Four months ago this Government said the previous structure was set in stone. Now, all of a sudden, this Government has done a total turn-round. It has obviously realised that its policy-making machine—or whatever it is that its crazy ideas sometimes come from—does not work.

I will also speak on clause 4. It states: “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—equal employment opportunities programme” etc. It then goes on to state, in the definition of “good employer”: “including provisions requiring—”, and it goes on down to paragraph (d), which states: “recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Māori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Māori; and (iii) the need for greater involvement of Māori as employees of the employer operating the personnel policy;”. It goes on to some other issues, as well. It reminds me of the exact wording in the State Sector Act 1988—not that I was very old back then; at least, Darren Hughes and I had been born at that point in time. The wording reminds me that the Labour Government has not changed its spots, although it appears to be different, and tries to be a new face of the Labour Party.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CRAIG McNAIR: I was saying that the Labour Government has not changed its spots. The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues thinks that the phrase I used was a bit outdated. But clause 4, after the definition of “equal employment opportunities programme”, talks about recognition of “the aims and aspirations of Māori”, “the employment requirements of Māori”, “the need for greater involvement of Māori as employees of the employer operating the personnel policy”, and so on. As I said earlier, that sounds like the Labour Government of old—the Labour Government under David Lange. The exact same wording is used in the State Sector Act of 1989. Where is the creativity in this part of the bill? This Government has a new look, but underneath it all it is the same Labour Government. Four months ago this Government said that the previous structure was set in stone, then all of a sudden it made a total turn-round.

Five years ago we saw the Prime Minister all dressed up in nice photos; she looked very nice in them, but that was not the real Prime Minister. The photos of her did not even look like her much. That is what the Labour Government is like. It is all dressed up with window dressing, but really it has no substance.

Hon Dover Samuels: Hang on!

CRAIG McNAIR: That got a bite! I have concerns about this bill, especially about Part 1.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) : I was very keen to take a call on Part 1, in which we are discussing the surprising—or maybe it is not surprising—about-face by Mr Maharey. In August last year he argued that in no circumstances would BCL, the transmission arm, be split out to be a separate company. Now, after listening to and recognising the excellent contributions and work done over the intervening months by my colleague Katherine Rich, the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting, Mr Maharey has conceded that there may be a better way of doing things.

But I want particularly to talk about clause 3 as it went to the Commerce Committee. It has now been eliminated under Supplementary Order Paper 57, which was drafted at the eleventh hour by this Labour Government. I refer specifically to paragraph (c), which stated: “ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operates as a successful business:” Those are fairly simple words—“ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operates as a successful business:”. We acknowledge that the “Maharey principle” has been applied to this legislation. Mr Maharey has suddenly changed his mind, and we are no longer talking about a subsidiary of Television New Zealand.

However, nowhere in the Supplementary Order Paper can I find any reference to the requirement that BCL still operate as a successful business. If it is there, I expect Mr Maharey to take a call and point that out to us. But I suspect that what we are seeing here, again, is further destruction of taxpayer value—further destruction of a business that, at this stage, is still a profitable part of Television New Zealand—by allowing the business to operate on the basis of one of those wally-ish social responsibilities, with no requirement at all that it be run as a sensible business.

Marc Alexander: Rubbish!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Marc Alexander interrupts, and says: “Rubbish!”

Hon Steve Maharey: It is rubbish.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister has not taken a call.

Hon Steve Maharey: The member hasn’t asked a question yet.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes, I have asked a question. I will repeat it, seeing that Mr Maharey not only has changed his mind but appears to be hard of hearing. I ask him why the words “responsible for the transmission business [operating] as a successful business” have been taken out. Why have those words now been taken out of the original bill that went to the select committee? If Mr Maharey will take a call and explain that, I will happily sit down and let him do so.

Hon Steve Maharey: No, I’ll wait for a sensible question to be asked.

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, he is not going to take a call. Maybe Mr Alexander would like to take a call, because he has suddenly become a real expert on the Television New Zealand Bill. Let him take a call and assure the Committee that this particular arm of Television New Zealand, once it is split into a separate entity, will still be required to operate as a sensible and profitable business. It is a simple question. It should be easily answered. I am happy that Mr Alexander is prepared now to acknowledge that he will take the next call. It will be interesting to see whether he does—to see whether he jumps to his feet and defends the Government’s new change to the legislation before the Committee. [Interruption] He might come with God’s message! I do not mind how he comes to the debate, but let him now take the next call and assure us that he is supporting legislation that will not have this business become another part of the social agenda, with no requirement at all that it operate as a successful business.

We have already heard in the debate that Television New Zealand was worth a billion dollars. Now it would be difficult to sell, even if the Government wanted to do so. That is the level of destruction of shareholder value that we have seen in 4 years.

Marc Alexander: Because of the split?

Hon DAVID CARTER: No, definitely not because of the split. The member should listen. It is because of the way that Television New Zealand has now completely changed its focus. It no longer has to focus on delivering dividends to the Government.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, not yet.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I shall consider this legislation from a New Zealand First point of view, comparing its original purpose with its new purpose, which is to split the company into a Crown entity conducting a television business, and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business. The previous speaker made an excellent point. Unfortunately for me, he stole my thunder to some extent. I had also noticed that the original paragraph (c) in clause 3 made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was to “ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operate as a successful business:”. Whatever happens, however it might be owned, we can only say that that is an excellent proposal. But on Supplementary Order Paper 57, thrust upon us on 20 February, there is no requirement that whatever is formed operates as a successful business. United Future says it is a party of business people. From time to time we have heard from Gordon Copeland about his business past. I would have thought that United Future members would insist that that provision be inserted in the bill.

Again, New Zealand first objects to the split of anything that would enable the Government of the day, whatever one it might be, to sell part of it. It might not be the immediate Government, but if there is a change, and those members become the socialists they really are, they would possibly sell off this business, or, if they go back to the Roger Douglas style, they might sell off the entity that has been created. If it is not created, if there is no split, it cannot be sold, and New Zealand First opposes the split.

I would have thought that United Future, which so boldly said that the title should be the “Thank God for United Future Bill” would include in the purpose of the legislation—in keeping with what it says is its philosophy—that all future television programmes should be of a family nature, supporting the family and the development of family life in New Zealand. There is nothing in this bill that promotes family life. United Future talks a lot about family life. In its coalition agreement discussions with the Labour Party, I would have expected that United Future would insist that family life be referred to in the purpose of this legislation. New Zealand First will be putting an amendment at an appropriate time to require that the programming feature programmes of a family nature that support the family and development of family life in New Zealand. That is consistent with my member’s bill, the Commission for the Family Bill, which is waiting to be drawn in one of the ballots that are forthcoming. I expect United Future to support my amendment. That is the basis on which those members are here in this House. I expect the United Future members to stand up and vote for the amendment, along with whoever else cares to vote for it, ensuring that family life is given full status in this legislation, and ensuring that the legislation is not silent on the subject, as is the case with the charter at the present time. If United Future members were strong they should have, in all their negotiations for which they are taking credit, and with all their talk about family life, insisted that a purpose of the Act be that family life is given priority in television programming. But they have failed to do so. It goes to show that they were really not thinking of this much. To utter what I regard as almost a profanity, in saying that the bill should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill”, and not to have the purpose of the bill take into account family life, shows how little regard United Future really has for family life in New Zealand.

The Government has thrust upon us Supplementary Order Paper 57. It could have done the dog legislation in the same way, by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2). But, no, we see in relation to the Television New Zealand Bill a Supplementary Order Paper that makes a dramatic change to how this bill will operate and to the future of television in this country. The Government is prepared to do that for this television legislation, but on a relatively minor issue, the dog legislation, it was not prepared to take the same course. Instead, that bill ended up back at the Local Government and Environment Committee, from which it will never arise again.

That shows how the Government tries to impose its will on us by way of this Supplementary Order Paper, to which the Minister of Broadcasting has not spoken. We have had no explanation from any Government speaker, as I recall, during this Committee stage, as to what this Government intends by this bill. Maybe the Government does not really know what it intends. Has this legislation been drafted by United Future? Does only United Future know about this? Is the Labour Party totally ignorant of what is in it? The Labour members who are in this House might want to take the next call and explain to us what is meant by the various amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper and how they work. Surely Parliament is entitled to know what is in the mind of the Labour Party.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) : I have followed this debate with interest, particularly the contribution that has been made by National members who were on the Commerce Committee. It is interesting that Tony Ryall and Katherine Rich are the only two members who have spoken in this debate who have an understanding of what this is about.

Sue Kedgley: Do you think we don’t know what this is about?

LINDSAY TISCH: I know that other contributions have been made. I am saying that from a National point of view it has been really, really important that two members of the Commerce Committee have made a valued contribution to the debate. They understand all the issues that have come forward. I am not decrying some of the debates that have come from our ACT friends and from New Zealand First, because they have been substantial.

Deborah Coddington made a very good point, which I have written down. She was asking why the Government is involved in television at all. That is a good question, and I would like the Minister of Broadcasting to answer that.

Hon David Carter: Sky does a good job!

LINDSAY TISCH: As my colleague says, Sky does an extremely good job. In the short call that I have I want to ask the Minister to take a call and explain why clause 3, “Purpose of Act”, has been completely changed by Supplementary Order Paper 57, which has been promoted in his name. What we see now in clause 3(a) is a split to “provide for the existing State enterprise Television New Zealand Limited to be split into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business;”—a complete split. That is one of the points that Katherine Rich has talked about and promoted for some time. Yet it was not in the original bill. It has only come about now, in a Supplementary Order Paper that has come forward at the eleventh hour.

I want the Minister to take a call and explain why this change has just happened. Why were the recommendations of Tony Ryall and Katherine Rich from National, who were on the committee and looked at the whole of the Television New Zealand Bill, not taken heed of? What we see now is that, at the eleventh hour, the Government has decided to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that splits out the two arms of Television New Zealand. That is something that Katherine Rich has promoted and something that National supports.

But the issue now is that a once very profitable organisation—a State-owned organisation—has over recent times lost shareholder value. It has been losing it for some time. At some stage it was worth about $60 million; that is a figure that has been talked about tonight. What we will see now, under the charter, is a $12 million taxpayer injection into the making of programmes. What happened to the commercial model? We had a television station that worked extremely well, yet in recent times it has been muddled around by this Government. That commercial model could have worked. With the split and the charter we are now seeing an injection of $12 million of taxpayer money into the production of television programmes.

We find that that is not necessary. We are not supporting it, and I doubt that that is surprising to members, at all.

Dail Jones: I am not surprised.

LINDSAY TISCH: That is not a surprise, is it! The other point I would draw members’ attention to in the Supplementary Order Paper—and I once again ask the Minister to take a call on this—comes under clause 4, which states that “shareholding Ministers means the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the time being responsible for TVNZ”. I want to know from the Minister, and I ask him to take a call on this, what he means by “the Minister for the time being”. Is this an ad hoc approach? Is this just a temporary arrangement for the time being, for TVNZ? I want to know whether that Minister will be the “Minister for Social Responsibility”, or the Minister of Māori Affairs.

Stephen Franks: That is all they are!

LINDSAY TISCH: Well, it could be. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us. What does “the Minister for the time being” mean?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) : I have been listening to the debate very closely, and I think, finally, Lindsay Tisch has asked a question that is worth answering.

Deborah Coddington: I asked it first!

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Well, if the member asked it earlier, then I should have noticed and answered it then. I think it is a reasonable question; it concerns a change that I think the Committee does need to be aware of.

One of the issues that we have had to deal with in relation to splitting the organisation into a State-owned enterprise and a Crown-owned company—a “CROC” as it is called—for the television business is the fact that in Australia the transmission arm operates under the name of Television New Zealand. Under the rules that operate in Australia around capital gains tax, if one splits the organisation apart in the way that we are intending to do, then one invites capital gains tax to be paid on that part of the organisation. What we are doing at the present time is ensuring that we do not expose ourselves to paying that kind of capital gains tax in Australia in relation to the organisation. We have ensured that the shareholding Ministers remain the same as they were before. In other words, the ownership structure of this organisation remains the same until we see where we go from here. The Committee needs to know that we are simply protecting the value of the organisation in Australia. We have made sure that no money needs to be paid in relation to the changes that will take place. That is why these changes are in the bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : I may appear to be frivolous in the next few minutes, but often the easiest way to illustrate a point is to show the extent to which it becomes ridiculous. In this case, it is a very serious point.

When we write law that is obscure, that is deliberately ambiguous, and that can mean just about anything someone wants it to mean, we are really lining the pockets of lawyers and feeding the egos of the activist judges. We are giving them the ability to make decisions that this House is not willing to make. I point here to clause 4 and the definition of “equal employment opportunities programme” and the definition of “good employer”.

With the equal employment opportunities programme definition in this Television New Zealand Bill, the Government is telling TVNZ—under clause 22A, which comes later—that it must develop and ensure the implementation of programmes to eliminate “all aspects of policies, procedures, and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate … inequality in respect of the employment of any person or group of persons.” What the hell does that mean? What possible meaning can a court give to this, when any persons or group of persons can come along and complain about inequality in employment? Does this mean it is wrong for TVNZ to have a screening policy, for example, that keeps out the stupid? Does this mean that it is wrong for TVNZ to do psychological testing to make sure it eliminates those who may pick on their fellow workers, or who may steal money? Does this mean that the procedures for seeking references, in order to shut out those who have a history of criminality, can be precluded, because those people can then come back and say: “You are excluding the group that has a criminal record.”? Does this mean that in any employment dispute, this poor institution is going to face constitutional lawyers bringing up clause 22A, and demanding to know why TVNZ has taken any kind of step that discriminates between the good and the bad?

What does this do if, for example, TVNZ turns down a Jehovah’s Witness, we find that TVNZ has no existing Jehovah’s Witnesses in its employment, and it is asked why it does not eliminate this inequality? What does it do for Mormons or paedophiles in that situation? What about members of the Man-Boy Love Association who claim that their views should not preclude their involvement in programming? What about the Prostitutes Collective? I guess this provision would be wasted on the Minister in the chair, who has led his life of “blameless excellence”, and would not have any particular interest in this. The range of groups or persons who can claim that they have been the subject of inequality in employment practice is almost endless.

We want to know from the Minister whether TVNZ is allowed to discriminate between the polite and the impolite, or the respectful and the disrespectful, or those who are sensitive to the mores of Catholics or of Māori and those who are not. Are we allowed to have even the vigour of broadcasters like those from The Rock, who can make very good jokes that a number of others do not appreciate? This provision says to me that inequality—which is not defined—in relation to any persons or group of persons will be the basis for legal action.

This is not trifling. This is not mere rhetoric. We could, for example, get the Libertarianz demanding to know why its members cannot be employed, because their view that Inland Revenue Department workers should be brought before a Nuremburg-type tribunal probably has not been represented by TVNZ to date. That is pretty unequal, because there has been plenty of representation of the view that more tax is good! We have had countless repetitions of the view of the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, that whacking up tax rates is clearly a social virtue, irrespective of the fact that the Government has put up the tax rates on working families even more.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) : I move, That the question be now put.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : This is the part of the bill that has been essentially gutted by the Supplementary Order Paper—but it has been gutted for good reason, because the Minister and the Government have come round to the Opposition’s way of thinking. One of the things that was quite clear, and which we communicated very strongly, was that the proposed structure, as presented, was never going to work. Nobody said it was going to be a good option for Television New Zealand. I remember when Jane Wrightson of the Screen Producers and Directors Association came before the select committee and described the structure as clumsy and designed to fail. We argued quite strongly that there was no other similar structure anywhere to be found in the public sector or in the private sector. Treasury confirmed this view when it presented its information to the committee. So it was really a structure made up by the Government and by Ross Armstrong, and imposed on what is already a failing business.

So why change the structure? Often this Government concentrates on changing structure, but “bustle” is not necessarily “industry”. At the moment what we have seen is a few changes being made, but in the meantime a lot of good programming has been put on hold at Television New Zealand. If we look at the amount that has been spent, just on putting this bill through the House and through select committees, etc., we see that this money could have funded at least 100 documentaries, or at least three or four dramas. We could have seen a lot more content on television.

One might have thought there would be some progress in broadcasting in the last 3 years, so when Marian Hobbs, the previous Minister, was justifying why there had not been any delay she used to say that a lot of changes had been made “in anticipation”. It was interesting to hear the Minister on Media Watch asked: “Do you think public television has become better in the not-quite-3-years that you’ve been here?”.

Lindsay Tisch: What was the answer?

KATHERINE RICH: “Ah, no, I wouldn’t actually claim that.” So we are beginning to wonder what changes have actually been made. We are into the fourth year of the Labour Party’s election policy, and we have not seen any changes.

Hon Tony Ryall: No more Montana Sunday Theatre

KATHERINE RICH: Quite right, and no more 60 Minutes. No more ; that was one of the first changes made under the new charter regime. Perhaps that was because a lot of negative political comment came out of that show that the Government did not like. One of the changes that I have seen is the picture of our Prime Minister on the new opening blurb for . I am wondering whether that is part of the charter, as well.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Backchat was on TV3.

KATHERINE RICH: That Minister obviously has not watched much television! We had a confusing logic being used. We had excuses being made when there were delays in getting this bill through the House. We should remember that the start date for this whole thing was supposed to be 1 July 2001. Of course, Part 2 is the part that introduces the charter, and this is where we get into an exercise in creative writing—in the extreme. We have about six different clauses, which are all designed to say the same thing. We all want to see a diverse range of programming on television, but this charter says it in about six different ways. Somehow or other we are now to look at that square box in our lounge and see something that is going to add to our personal development. We are supposed to look at the square box in our lounge and see something that is supposed to add to our “ethical and spiritual understanding”. I say that it is a very, very sad world when we expect a television to do all those things.

In looking at the charter we see there are two ways it could be used—firstly, for those suffering from insomnia it would probably put them to sleep, and those suffering from depression would probably find that parts of it make them laugh—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If one was suffering from diarrhoea—

KATHERINE RICH: I could not comment on that. Some of the things that have been overlooked are subjects quite dear to New Zealanders. For example, sport barely gets a mention. We have all these different parts of the charter that deal with a lot of other different subjects, but sport was an add-on at the end. Of course, “independence of the media” was an add-on. That was something that really upset Television New Zealand, because the independence of the media is something that it holds very dear to its heart. It was not until there was an absolute uproar that that was included and made clearer. We have a number of amendments on the Table, which we will be asking people to support.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : I am pleased to rise to speak to Part 2. Firstly, like my colleague Dail Jones, I would like to alert United Future to the fact that New Zealand First has tabled an amendment to the charter set out in new clause 10(2)(b)(xv) on by Supplementary Order Paper 57, to include an additional sentence “to include programming of a family nature that supports the family and the development of family life in New Zealand”. In view of the proposed Families Commission we will be expecting United Future’s support on this amendment. I can see those members across there looking quite concerned, so it will be interesting to see how the vote turns on that amendment.

As we have said before, New Zealand First basically opposes this part of the bill—the bill entirely. As Sue Kedgley has said too, this is going to be a Supplementary Order Paper that has been created entirely on the floor of the Chamber, and is not really a good option for Television New Zealand.

I would like to speak on new clause 10(2), and I wonder whether the Government had been reading George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when it included this. I quote directly from new clause 10(2)(b)(ii) inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 57: TVNZ will “feature programming that contributes towards intellectual”—that is good; we will accept that—“scientific”—again that is fine—“cultural”—and we wonder which culture will be chosen; and then we come to the bit that Katherine Rich has already pointed out—“spiritual and ethnical development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders”.

It is really apparent from this part of the bill that the Government appears to want to be responsible for the spiritual and ethical aspect of our lives. Again, I think it is a really sad world if we expect television to do this. New Zealand has always been free from any interference by the State, as it should be under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I believe that all New Zealanders would stand up to defend this aspect of their lives. They need to be able to manage this themselves. New Zealand First believes that if there is a demand for the promotion of spiritual development through television, then of course, this should be covered, but we have seen no evidence yet that it is required.

I refer now to clause 16(2)(a)(iv), which states that TVNZ will “ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Māori and the presence of a significant Māori voice;”. New Zealand First questions why we are spending money—and a substantial amount; many, many millions with no result to date—on setting up a Māori television station if the programmes are going to be shown on Television One and TV3. What is the Minister indicating? By taking this double-barrelled approach, is the Minister indicating that he has no confidence in the Māori television station, or is this recognition that many Māori in the Northland and Gisborne regions will never be able to receive the Māori television programmes and that Television One and TV3 had better provide them? Or is there at last a recognition that many families will have to go into debt to have the UHF aerials to receive the Māori Television Service in these areas?

I am sure that a broad-brush approach like this will ensure that all New Zealanders have access to Māori programmes, but to New Zealand First it appears to be a real put-down for the Māori Television Service, and the legislation in this part of the charter is attempting to solve problems that are not even there.

I refer now to paragraph (b)(xi) of the charter, which states that TVNZ will “maintain and observe a code of ethics that addresses the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed;”. In view of the increasing rates of diabetes and obesity among our young people and our children, which can partly be attributed to television advertising of fast foods, New Zealand First will be really interested to know which aspect is going to be considered a priority for TVNZ. Will the priority be the health of our young people and our children—and, of course, my favourite subject, their dental health—or will it be the many millions of dollars that this type of advertising brings in for Television New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) : I rise in this debate on Part 2 to support the Opposition debate being led by our colleague Katherine Rich. Over the last 3 or 4 years Katherine Rich has diligently highlighted the inadequacies in the Government’s approach to the Television New Zealand Bill, and that is the reason we are seeing the Government do a complete 180-degree turn on the break-up of Television New Zealand and a major rewrite of the charter for Television New Zealand. The problem with this Government, of course, is that there are a whole lot of Ministers in it who do not know anything about television. They have never watched it. The Prime Minister says she really does not watch a lot of television. Marian Hobbs says that the only time she watched television was in the 1970s, and now we have Mrs Dalziel giving us a lecture that Backchat screened on TV3 because it was made with private money. Obviously she does not watch a lot of television. She is probably spending a lot of time with her friend arranging for Ukrainian workers to come to New Zealand.

Marian Hobbs was asked about her charter on the radio. She was asked: “Do you think public television has become better in the not quite 3 years that you’ve been here?”. The answer from Marian Hobbs was: “No. I wouldn’t claim that.” That was from the very Minister who is supposed to be in charge of this bill at its genesis.

Let us look further at this bill. This bill includes that Television New Zealand in its objectives will reflect the regions of the nation as a whole. Marian Hobbs was asked in that same interview: “You also promised to, for instance, look at ways of supporting regional television. I haven’t seen any evidence of that.” Marian Hobbs replied: “No, there isn’t any.” That was from the Minister who promised to do something about regional television. There is nothing there.

The National Party will vociferously oppose the imposition of a charter on Television New Zealand. We are sick to death of the spa-pool liberals in the Government enforcing their values on the rest of the nation. Let me give members an example of what the spa-pool liberals in the Labour Government want to put in Television New Zealand’s objectives. I quote from paragraph (b)(ii) of the charter: “feature programming that contributes towards intellectual, scientific, cultural, and spiritual and ethical development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders, promotes informed and many-sided debate and stimulates critical thought, thereby enhancing opportunities for citizens to participate in community, national and international life;”.

Well, that is what we get from Mike Hosking on Sunday at 7.30. The fact is that this Government has the wrong values to be imposing any charter on the people of New Zealand. What is more, this Government is spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to set up a Māori television channel, and it is going to put Māori on the other two channels by dint of its charter, as well. We are spending tens of millions of dollars to have a Māori television channel, yet this Government wants to foist on us a charter that will make Television New Zealand run programmes that serve the interests of and information needs of Māori audiences, including programmes promoting Māori language, and programmes addressing Māori history, culture, and current issues on the other two channels as well.

Is one channel not good enough? Do we have to have it on the other two channels as well? As far as I am concerned, the spa-pool liberals opposite want to force this stuff down our throats at every opportunity they have. What I say to this Government is that this TVNZ charter is going to go. When the Government changes, in less than a couple of years—if it can hold on as long as that—this charter is one of the first things that will get the chop. It will get the chop because it reflects an elitist view of what New Zealanders should watch. It reflects Marian Hobbs’ 1970s view, which is: “Let’s have lots of Close to Home and on our television channels.”, and it reflects the wishy-washy, third-way irrelevance of Steve Maharey.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : This part deals not only with the charter but also with the structure, and the Minister said that no one has asked any questions on it. So I would like to ask a question, and it is this: could he possibly explain the logic for this eleventh-hour decision by Labour and United Future to split off the transmission arm of Television New Zealand, which is called BCL Ltd. The former Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs described the transmission arm, BCL, as a wonderful golden goose. It has been a successful enterprise, which has been contributing profits to TVNZ since its inception. So why would the Government want to split off the revenue-generating arm of TVNZ at this point in time? Why would the Government not allow the transmission arm to plough its profits back into the television business?

The independent audit firm—Arthur Andersen and Co; an accounting firm, I think—was asked by the Government to see whether there was a case for separating off the transmission arm, BCL, from TVNZ. The audit company studied this for some months—probably at great expense—and it came back with the advice to the Government that there is no compelling reason to do so. So why has the Government done it? The only compelling reason for splitting this off is to make it easier to sell off, and to open it up to a future sale, which, of course, is why the National Party and ACT support this particular clause.

Selling off this BCL with its national network of 450 transmission sites, built up over many years at taxpayer expense—is this what is the Government’s hidden intention? It obviously is—to sell off an asset, to sell off BCL, which will now be called Transmission Holdings Ltd. I would like the Minister to explain the logic of separating off the revenue potential of BCL at the very time when advertising revenue in the digital age is predicted to decline, at the very time when we are asking it, through the charter, not to focus on ratings but, rather, on programmes. Where will this extra money come from? What is the logic? Would the Minister please explain the logic to me?

The United Future member said what a great idea it was to split off this transmission arm. He said the people at TVNZ think that it is a good idea. Well here is what the people in the industry say. Not one person whom I have spoken to thinks there is any logic to it. The Screen Producers and Directors Association, the industry body, believes that the split will have a catastrophic effect in the long term and that it will irrevocably damage TVNZ’s potential to remain a strong national presence. It said: “We cannot see how such a move will do anything other than hobble TVNZ’s potential to deliver on charter obligations in a meaningful way.” So could the gentleman from United Future, or the Minister, please explain the logic behind this that so escapes the Green Party and all the members in the industry whom I have spoken to?

I have a series of amendments to the charter. First of all, there is one about adding the word “independent” to make it clear that when we talk about the film and television industry that we are referring to the independent industry. This is crucial, because already the chief executive of this cash-strapped organisation TVNZ, which is now trying to figure out how it will get its money for programming now that it has split off the transmission arm, is flailing around and looking at the independent industry. It looks at it and thinks: “Oh, ho! We can get some profits from the independent industry by revenue sharing with the independent industry.” Basically it means sharing in the independent copyright and so forth.

This proposal of the chief executive would threaten the independent industry. Surely nobody here wants us to go back to obliterate this creative, flourishing, and independent industry of New Zealand—the television and film industry—and return to the days where TVNZ was an in-house basic enterprise. That is a very simple amendment, and I hope that everyone here will support it. It means a great deal to the independent industry, because it feels under threat from TVNZ.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) : Members of the public who are following this debate will know that Part 2, which is before the Committee as I speak, has been completely changed in substance since the bill was introduced. Those interested members of the public, particularly those who participated in the industry, will be saying to themselves right now how remarkable it is that the bill could be so different in respect of Part 2, and that the Minister responsible for the bill could be silent as to the reasons for a complete change to the character of Part 2. The Minister should take call. I will give members of the public who are interested, and members of the Committee, the benefit of my distilled wisdom on the reasons for the change. If the Minister wants to dispute my analysis, then he should take a call. He is taking the Committee and the public cheaply in making these sweeping changes to Part 2, and not even having the courtesy to take a call to tell members of the Committee and members of the public why these significant changes have been made.

I join with my colleague Katherine Rich in applauding the changes that have been made in relation to the structure. They are changes that were advocated by this side of the House when the bill was introduced. First of all, for those who have difficulty recalling the history, we were to have a parent company and two operating subsidiaries. It was a formula that had its genesis in one feature, and one feature only—that was, the chairman. The chairman of TVNZ at the time, Dr Ross Armstrong, was a very close friend of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. He was also the chairman of several other Government enterprises. That chairman decided that he wanted to formulate the structure in this bill to suit himself. He established a formula that saw a parent board of which he could be the chairman, and two subsidiary boards, of which he could be the chairman of both.

I want the Minister to tell the Committee tonight whether he had any advice, or his predecessor had any advice, as to whether that was a good thing. I know, and he knows, that the officials who sit in the Committee tonight told him, his predecessor, and the Prime Minister that that was a loopy structure, it was open to abuse, and it put far too much power in the hands of one man, Dr Ross Armstrong, Helen Clark’s little friend and helper. That is what the officials told this Minister and his colleagues. I want the Minister to tell us tonight that that was the case.

It was only after Dr Ross Armstrong, Helen Clark’s little helper, was fired by Dr Cullen while Helen Clark was out of the country, that we saw this bill change. The Dr Ross Armstrong section of the bill, Part 2, was only there for his benefit. It was only there so he could do the bidding of the Prime Minister in the most powerful medium in this country. I say to the Minister that he owes this Committee an explanation as to why Part 2 has changed in this dramatic way. I regard this as a very significant change to the bill, yet the Minister has been silent.

Clause 8 provides for a separation of the transmission arm into a State-owned enterprise. Clause 10 provides for a process of Order in Council for that State-owned enterprise to be established. I want the Minister to explain why it is that we have the unique occurrence of a State-owned enterprise being established by way of an Order in Council. Previously when we have looked at major changes of this sort they have been legislated more specifically. It is important that the Minister explains why this particular structure has been sought, particularly when there is no certainty about the people who are to drive these changes.

I have some questions that the Minister needs to answer. Who was to be the chairman of TVNZ who is to make these changes proposed in clauses 8 and 10? Will it be Mr Boyce, the acting chairman, who is there today; and who will be the two new board members who will have such a powerful position as a result of clauses 8 and 10? These are important matters.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : I have some questions for the Minister, who asked why there were no questions. I will run quickly through those. In clause 9(4) there is a statement that the conversion is to take place for a consideration equal to the book value of the equity of the transmission business. I take it that that is a tax-driven clause. I take it, and ask for confirmation, that someone has had a look at this to decide whether the current book value is actually anywhere near what was expected when this set out. These book values may have changed to such an extent that instead of being a tax benefit, which this was intended to confer, it could go the other way around. I see that a poor representative of the Treasury has to be along here to watch this final symbolic act in the destruction of half-a-billion dollars’ worth of value to New Zealand taxpayers as we put this bill through.

My next question concerns clause 10(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 57, which states “In carrying out its functions, TVNZ’s principal objective is to give effect to its Charter … while maintaining its commercial performance:”. We know that this Government cannot stand to see the word “profit”, does not like “return” or “contract”, and goes for “agreement” and talks waffle about “partnership”. What is “commercial” in this context? Does “commercial” mean “not lose money”? Does it mean something good or something bad? Usually, this Government refers to things commercial in terms that show it has that arrogant, academic sneer towards grubbying one’s hands with commerce. Is that what is intended in this bill? Does “commercial” have its usual socialist, left meaning of something undesirable? Could it be?

My next question concerns clause 10(3)(b) on Supplementary Order Paper 57: “to develop and publish for itself an equal employment opportunities programme each year and to ensure that that programme is complied with:”. What does “to publish for oneself” mean? Is it vanity publication? How widely does one publish it? Who is being published to when one publishes “for itself”? Does it mean stick it on a website? Why is Parliament bothering with such tripe?

Then subclause (4) states: “The Charter must be reviewed by the House of Representatives at least every 5 years.” Can someone please explain what that review would consist of? Does it mean that the charter would fall into abeyance? Is it a sunset clause? Does it simply mean that we will all have a look at it? What does a 5-yearly review by the House of Representatives mean, I ask the Minister, and if he does not know and cannot tell us what that means, why is this crap in the bill?

I go on to look at the careful provisions in the bill to govern really important things about TVNZ. Before changing the name of those poor new entities, the Minister must consult the board and make sure it agrees. Changing the name is such an important matter! There are no provisions in the bill to govern the independence of the board appointment process, or to ensure that board members who are uncomfortable cannot be thrown out at will, or to make sure that board members be selected on merit and not politics.

In most countries, that is regarded as a vital constitutional provision. Here we have the most powerful organ in the fourth estate, under direct political control—and there is not a thing here about controlling the exercise of those discretions, except a provision carefully setting out consultation requirements on the change of the name.

The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. This is a piece of absolute drivel. For a civilised, modern country to put its most powerful media organisation so nakedly under political control, with members of its board effectively removable at will, without any compensation, with no kind of independence requirement, and with a whole set of charter requirements that put them under politically correct domination, is a disgrace.

It is a disgrace that will hurt New Zealand, because people with pride will not want to work on an outfit like that. People with professional pride will not want to work on an outfit that is an organ of State propaganda. How do we distinguish the drivel in the charter from the sort of group-think stuff that Orwell wrote about, which we saw from Pravda?

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) : I would like to speak on a few things. First of all, we remain unhappy with some of the wording of the provisions contained in the charter, and we acknowledge some of the comments made from right throughout the House. We believe—

Stephen Franks: Well, why vote for it?

MARC ALEXANDER: I ask the member to hang on. We believe that this was an opportunity to provide for TVNZ not only to set standards in the protection of young children, in particular, from exploitative advertising and violent programming, but also to pull other broadcasters in the same direction, by being a leader.

I have an amendment that addresses some of those concerns about children, who are the ones most easily exploited by the media. We are well aware of the Advertising Standards Authority and its guide to standards, and of TVNZ’s adherence to the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s codes of practice, but we remain unconvinced that that is sufficient. We view the imposition of this charter as an opportunity to compel TVNZ to lift its game and become a leader in those areas. The Commerce Committee, in considering those matters, held that they might be better achieved outside the charter, with an external monitoring regime. Yet, at the same time, committee members acknowledged how expensive such an undertaking would be—in other words, how difficult it would be to find funding for it and to show its effectiveness.

We further support the Greens’ amendment to add the word “independent” to subparagraph (x) of clause 10(2)(a). That is a much-needed addition in order to ensure the development and long-term stability of our small but excellent film and television production industry. With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 57 and the comments before about family-friendly programming, I say one does not necessarily have to use the word “family” in order to achieve the same ending and objectives. I hope that my amendment will go through, because that addition will help to protect those who are the most vulnerable at the hands of the media.

The question as to why TVNZ will be split up in this way is fairly simple. We had an overall board that oversaw the TVNZ board and the Transmission Holdings Ltd board, which made absolutely no sense at all, especially when one considers that someone like Ross Armstrong was, in fact, thinking in terms of having an office at each of those organisations. We got rid of the overseeing board; it was an additional cost that did not make any sense. Liberating Transmission Holdings from the rest of TVNZ made good sense because that insulated it from the financial cannibalism that could have occurred, had a potential Minister in charge of TVNZ decided, at great expense, on politically correct programming that three people in New Zealand would watch, and, by subterfuge, accounting for the expense of that with Transmission Holdings money—money that should rightfully be left in that company, in its own business interests. Therefore, it seemed a good idea to split the two organisations up, and to have any Minister with a conflict of interest who wished to pump money from one into the other being required to stand up and be held accountable for those sorts of decisions, instead of leaving them in the back rooms and allowing the kind of financial cannibalism that could have taken place. We have liberated the business of Transmission Holdings and ensured its survivability and profitability.

We have allowed TVNZ, through the charter, the opportunity to be a leader. United Future is unclear about some of the goals in the charter. We are not happy with some of the language used in it, and, in particular, with clause 16(2)(a)(iv), which states: to “ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Māori and the presence of a significant Māori voice;”. What on earth does that mean? I have absolutely no idea. I defy anybody to tell me what that means. There are quite a few politically correct phrases in the charter, and a lot of them will undoubtedly be duplicated in the efforts to put together the Māori Television Service. I am unclear as to why we need that duplication, unless we are of the opinion that Māori television will not go ahead and this legislation is the back-door way of bringing it to the public.

Stephen Franks: So why are you voting for it?

MARC ALEXANDER: Because overall, this bill, in conjunction—

Stephen Franks: You are voting for something when you don’t know what it means.

MARC ALEXANDER: The member should hang on. In conjunction with Supplementary Order Paper 57, the bill makes sense.

Stephen Franks: Oh yeah?

MARC ALEXANDER: Yes, it does. We have liberated the business aspect and allowed it to flourish without the interference of Ministers, who could potentially cannibalise it. We also have a charter that has the potential to lead this country in broadcasting.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) : United Future ought to be embarrassed to support such junk legislation, just through having done a nasty little deal with the Government. We expect better from United Future than that. Part 2 of this legislation can only be described in one way: just as the financial world refers to “junk bonds”, this is junk legislation. That is the only way I can describe it. I congratulate my colleague Katherine Rich, because Supplementary Order Paper 57 makes the bill not as bad as it once was. The Government is clearly embarrassed by this bill. We have not heard a single Government speaker stand up and defend Part 2. At least my colleagues, like Katherine Rich, got some sense put into it, but it is still junk legislation.

I feel I have some knowledge that enables me to speak on this bill. I have probably been involved in delivering television more than most members in this House. At one stage I had an educational television show for pre-school kids showing in four countries: Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. That educational programme was made by a private television company, with none of the junk that the charter in this legislation brings in. It had none of that. I once ran a scientific programme in Australia for students after school. That natural science show was a live, direct telecast, and was a science programme for students after school. It was an informative and entertaining programme—at least it had a great rating, so I guess it was reasonably entertaining—and it was delivered by a private television channel with none of the junk that there is in this charter.

In this country I once ran a programme for form 2 kids called W3. It was an informative programme. In fact, it had a great rating when we used to do it back in the late 1970s. They used to fly me over from Adelaide to front that show in the early days. A lot of people from around the country come up to me, say they were on that show, and ask whether I remember them. South Pacific Television made that show, and it did not have a dopey charter like this to require it to do so. In those days we did not have a Government that felt the need to tell New Zealanders what they had to watch. We did not have a Government that was so arrogant that it thought it had to tell New Zealanders what they had to watch. I also once did a programme called , which was produced by a private production company called Kevin Moore and Associates. That company had nothing to do with Television New Zealand; Television New Zealand bought the rights to show the programme. None of the junk in Part 2 of this bill was required to have those informative programmes screened.

One of those programmes—the one I used to do for pre-school kids that showed in four separate countries back in the mid-1970s—still shows in New Zealand today on Prime Television. I turned the television on at some hour of the morning the other day, and there it was. I am probably too embarrassed to say what the programme is called, but if members turn on the telly they will hear that famous little tune “What a Funny Old Fellow is Humphrey”. That programme is informative and entertaining for kids, I fronted it in 1975, and it is still going now in 2003. A private television company produced it, and it did not need this dopey charter.

What is so objectionable about this bill is what the charter states. It states that Television New Zealand will feature programming that contributes towards intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethical development. What about the physical development of our kids? I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, that we have a problem with kids watching too much television. They are sitting on their backsides, instead of getting out there and playing sport. What about changing the wording of that stupid charter to include physical development?

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : If we could now switch over from the National programme to the New Zealand First programme, I am afraid that I cannot be quite as amusing as the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, but I point out that New Zealand First is concerned—as has been expressed by members of this Committee—that this particular part of the bill sets up Television New Zealand and our television stations to be sold off to private enterprise, so that New Zealand would lose control of its television service. That is what we are seeing here. It is totally in keeping with the policies of the Labour Party from 1984 until 1990 and the National Party from 1990 to 1999, but it is totally against the policy of New Zealand First.

New Zealand First wants to make sure that New Zealand’s assets remain with New Zealanders, and that no opportunity is given to any Government to have the easy right to sell off those assets. Of course, if Television New Zealand were sold off to private enterprise, New Zealand would have no television station. I would like to see New Zealand have a television station along the lines of—although not totally like—the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Of course, the BBC in England is far too good to compare TVNZ with. We should always retain some ownership rights to television in New Zealand. Labour is setting up this legislation to enable that asset to be sold, and it is supported by all those Labour members on the Government side of the Chamber who obviously do not support the public ownership of Television New Zealand. They are willing to run the risk that one day Helen Clark or Michael Cullen will walk into caucus and say the Government is short of money, and, after asking what the Government can flog off this time, caucus will decide to flog off Television New Zealand. That is what this bill is set to do.

In addition, the bill has provisions regarding the charter. Clause 10(2)(a) on Supplementary Order Paper 57 has 10 subclauses stating what TVNZ would do under the charter, and clause 10(2)(b) in that Supplementary Order Paper has another 14 subclauses stating what it must do. But in none of those measures is there any provision that Television New Zealand must have regard to family life. In keeping with the bill that I prepared in August last year—in support of the commission for the family—I am moving an amendment that in those various provisions there be a requirement that in the fulfilment of its objectives, Television New Zealand will feature programming of a family nature that supports the family and the development of family life. United Future has taken a lot of credit for this legislation. In fact, it seems to have taken all the credit for it, even taking credit away from the Labour Party. If United Future members have any regard for the family, one would think they would have insisted that such a provision be included in the bill. I will be looking very closely at how United Future votes on my amendment.

New Zealand First will be supporting the amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley from the Greens, in order to ensure that there will be a leading role to be played in New Zealand television by independent companies. We will be supporting her amendment to put the word “independent” before the words “New Zealand film and television industry”. We will support the United Future amendment with regard to violence. In particular, we will support any code with provisions on violence that specifically has regard to the effect of violence on children and young persons, because that is part of our philosophy of supporting the family. I spoke on that philosophy in this House as long ago as 1976. We will also support anything that ensures the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed are kept to proper levels. We will support various other amendments, because we want to take a broad-ranging approach to the charter and to make sure that all possible avenues are used in the charter to protect the New Zealand way of life.

We would not support a situation that allows the Government to sell off this asset, but in any event at least the Committee might support the amendments I have referred to, especially if there is support from United Future. So far the bill has proceeded to the Commmittee stage mainly with the support of United Future and of the Labour Party. The Greens have been quite broad in their approach to the voting on this bill, as one would expect on something that plays such a fundamental part as television in our life in New Zealand. I commend all the amendments to the Committee that will ensure decent standards for television, and I look forward to the vote when it takes place.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) : I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : I shall take us back to why we even need this bill. Television New Zealand was not broke. There was no need to fix it. There was nothing in the State-Owned Enterprises Act that stated that Television New Zealand had to return such a huge dividend to the Government. When Television New Zealand was making $60 million in profit, it could have returned just $1 million of that and kept $59 million for making good programmes. But Labour and —I have to say—National, appointed chairmen of Television New Zealand who used the enterprise as a cash cow for the Government, which vacuumed all the profits out of Television New Zealand and returned them to itself.

So what do we have now? We have a bill that will introduce this Government’s agenda of social engineering. This Government had appointed a chairman who was a very good friend of the Prime Minister, and who was going to be there to implement social engineering—

Hon Member: Who?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I refer to Ross Armstrong, who fell from grace, but who was the ideal person to carry through that social engineering. At the moment we have another very good friend of that other minority party—I cannot remember its name, but it forms part of the coalition—Progressive, thank you very much. He is a very good friend of that party—an acting chairman—who will also implement that social engineering.

This charter is a shocker. ACT will be supporting the Greens’ amendment that will insert the word “independent” in front of “New Zealand film and television industry”, because, without it, that clause is a stalking horse for the appropriating of property rights. That amendment will at least go some way to protecting the property rights of those independent producers who need it to raise money to make the programmes they can make, without going cap in hand to New Zealand On Air, or to politicians—not that the amendment will make much difference at all to this charter. Who will police this charter? What happens if it is not implemented? Will we have “thought police” running around looking at things like “national identity”? This Government is obsessed with national identity. Why cannot we decide as individuals what our identity is? Why do we have to have the State constantly passing legislation that talks about national identity?

We go down to clause 16(2)(b)(ii) which talks about “programming that contributes towards … spiritual and ethical development” The State, I remind members of this Committee, is meant to be secular. The State should not be going anywhere near the promotion of spiritual and ethical development. Whose ethical and spiritual development are we talking about in that clause? ACT New Zealand opposed an amendment to the Radio New Zealand charter that would have brought in spiritual development, for the very reason that the State, under the separation of powers, is meant to be secular. We see that provision being sneaked in here in this charter, and it is the beginning of a slippery slope. We are seeing it also with other legislation like the Land Transport Management Bill, which has to have regard to the same things.

Further on down the clause is a provision to promote Māori language and culture. What facets of Māori culture are we talking about here? Are we talking about Alan Duff’s facet of Māori culture? Are we talking about the Once Were Warriors facet of Māori culture, which produces child brutality and brutality against women? There is absolutely nothing in this charter that clearly defines what is meant by these nebulous, politically correct, post-modernist, relativist bits of wording in this charter.

This charter is also an absolute insult to the people who currently work for Television New Zealand, because it presupposes that they are not already informing, entertaining, and educating New Zealanders—not already featuring New Zealand films, drama, comedy, and documentary programmes, or not already doing programmes about New Zealand’s history, heritage, and natural environment. Those things are already happening. Current affairs is already promoted to a very high standard, but this charter presupposes that that is not happening.

If we go down to clause 16(2)(b)(ix), we see that Television New Zealand will “include in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests;”. Will we see programmes like Casablanca? Members should look at the wording of that provision.

PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) : I agree, and my anger was rising, along with that of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who took us back a couple of years to W3, , and . A large debate is going on in the National caucus team at the moment about whether we should move an amendment to bring back those programmes. We might very well do that, because we know that their quality was superb, and we certainly support our colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith.

Jill Pettis: You weren’t even born when those programmes were on.

PHIL HEATLEY: The member is quite right. I was not born at that stage, and the member had just retired, so we were certainly at two different stages in the generational cycle—I was being born, and the member was just retiring. I think the retirement age back then was 60, but members can correct me if I am wrong.

I, too, am concerned about the charter in this bill, which tells New Zealanders how they should live their lives. One thing I am quite interested in is the provision in clause 16(2)(b)(i), which, according to Minister Marian Hobbs and Minister Steve Maharey, states that Television New Zealand will “provide independent, comprehensive, impartial and in-depth coverage and analysis of news and current affairs in New Zealand and throughout the world and of the activities and public and private institutions”. Judy Bailey will step up—I am not sure what to—and deliver these things as we have never seen them delivered before. I say, “Good luck! Good on you, Judy!”

Interestingly enough, I’m dreaming that Judy Bailey wrote to me on 14 February—as is her habit. In that letter—I must admit it was a personal letter—she outlined all sorts of goals that she had for the future. I will have to write back to her and say: “Judy, there is no time for the social comforts that you seek, because you will have to improve the intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethical development of New Zealanders in a way that reflects their diverse beliefs.” That is what she will do; that is what she will involve herself in—the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders and their intellectual, spiritual, and ethical beliefs.

I am delighted, because I will walk the streets of Whangarei, comforting all those who are on a spiritual journey. I will say to them that no longer will they have to travel to the Himalayas to talk to the Dalai Lama or various Sherpa people, who might tell them where to go in order to find inner peace; they can watch Marian Hobbs’ and “Slippery Steve’s” Television New Zealand programming. People will be delighted; they will find spiritual enlightenment and personal development. I am absolutely delighted about that.

The Minister will also include—and members will be pleased to hear it—programming and television news. I wish people in the gallery would stop stampeding out the door to switch on Television New Zealand at home, wondering what they are missing. Come back; I am speaking! I know they are dying to see what Television New Zealand has in store for them, but I ask them to come back. In programming, we, the mass audience, we will see material that deals with every minority interest. That will be great! Every dope-smoking, tambourine-playing witch doctor will be on our television sets from 6 o’clock on, and, by goodness, it might even be that Judy Bailey has to brush up her act. That is what we will have—a mass audience that has to deal with minority interests.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A degree of decorum is normally observed when describing people outside the House, and especially with people who are held in high esteem by New Zealanders. All I am asking is that next time the member speaks in the Chamber, he shows a little more decorum when speaking about someone who is so highly respected. Otherwise, he brings this Parliament into disrepute.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that point of order.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) : On behalf of other members who have asked questions of the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, I am disappointed that we do not yet have the answers we have sought. I want to go back to where I focused earlier—to clauses 8 and 10, which provide the mechanism by which the new State-owned enterprise, Transmission Holdings Ltd—currently known as BCL—will be established. Essentially, what will happen is that the directors of Television New Zealand will be charged with formulating a separation plan. Is that right, Minister? The Minister does not know the answer, so maybe I will ask his officials. But this is a very important part of the bill. The directors of TVNZ will effectively be in charge of the shaping of a new State-owned enterprise, which is to be confirmed by way of an Order in Council, as provided for in clause 10. The Minister owes it to the Committee to tell us who will be playing that important role. Television New Zealand today has an acting chairman. After the demise of the late, unlamented Dr Ross Armstrong, Helen Clark’s close friend—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Could be the member’s close mate!

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: If the Minister wants to take a call, that would be refreshing, because the Minister in the chair will not. The Minister owes it to us to say whether Mr Boyce, who we put in the chair as the acting chairman, is to be the chairman who will do the important things that are described, particularly in clause 8. I understand that Cabinet and the Cabinet Appointments And Honours Committee have been focused on that issue over the last few days. Is that right, Minister? The Minister does not know. Would the Minister like to tell the Committee whether the Government will appoint a permanent chairman to oversee the important task that is contained in clause 8, or will it not? To discharge the functions outlined in clause 8, will the Government appoint the two additional board directors for whom there are vacancies at the moment, or will it not?

The Minister will know that there is widespread discontent within Television New Zealand that the board is a bit light in terms of some of its commercial aspects. There has been a desire to see a strong commercial board put in place to do the important things that follow the passage of this legislation, including the bits that are contained in clause 8. The Minister would give us comfort tonight if he could tell us whether Mr Boyce will be the permanent chairman to do the things that are in clause 8, and which directors will be appointed to participate in the important functions contained in clauses 8 and 10.

I also want him to assure the Committee that there is no substance to the rumours that I have picked up in United Future circles, that the reason its members are supporting this bill is that they have done a deal with the Minister over some of the board appointments. I ask the members of United Future whether they can give an assurance that they have not done a deal over the appointment of directors for TVNZ, or for the new BCL. [Interruption] I do not believe that, because I have heard it widely mooted in United Future circles that they have been promoting candidates for those boards. Will the Minister give an assurance? The Minister will not. The Minister, by his silence, speaks volumes. The Minister is effectively confirming that there has been a dirty, grubby deal done in relation to this bill, which sees United Future get some of their boys, or girls, on to the boards of either the transmission company or Television New Zealand. [] Well, why will the Minister not stand up to take a call? Why will the Minister not even move his head to deny it?

Hon David Carter: Because he’s asleep!

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Minister might be asleep. That Minister knows that if he were to give such an assurance in the Chamber, he might be accountable in a privileges case later on. I think he should take that responsibility seriously. If the Minister wants to deny that important assertion, this is his chance to do it.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) : I move, That the question be now put.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I have three amendments that I would like to introduce, so I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to do so.

Just before I introduce them I would like to reiterate my question to the Minister of Broadcasting, which he has yet to answer: why would he split off the profitable transmission arm of Television New Zealand? This is the part of the company that the previous Minister of Broadcasting said was the wonderful golden goose that was providing the funding to enable Television New Zealand to make New Zealand programmes and to have a successful television service. Why would he split that off? What is he going to do, what is his game plan, when advertising revenues slump, and a future National Government—if we assume there will ever be such a thing—comes in and says it will not subsidise Television New Zealand to the tune of $10 million or $12 million a year? What is the game plan for Television New Zealand then? Where is the money going to come from? By trying to cripple the independent industry? I am astonished that the Labour Party is undertaking a split of Television New Zealand such that will make it vulnerable, weaken it, take off its revenue-producing arm, and make it vulnerable to Government handouts—which may not come, of course—and dependent on advertising revenue. I would appreciate an answer, because I cannot see the logic behind it.

I turn to a number of amendments that the Green Party has. The first one is on the question of violence. It is extraordinary that we had a charter that discusses all sorts of issues, but is silent on the issue of violence. According to research undertaken by the Broadcasting Standards Tribunal, not only adults but New Zealand children themselves said that their No. 1 concern about television was the violence on it. They not only rated television violence as their No. 1 concern—that is, 55 percent of them—but said they saw it as disturbing, distasteful, and potentially harmful. Why would we not address this issue in a charter that is supposed to be all about improving the quality of New Zealand television? We hear a great deal of talk in this Chamber about violence in New Zealand, and about the violent culture in New Zealand. Why would we not address the issue?

More than 3,000 pieces of research have concluded that children who watch a lot of violence on television become desensitised to violence, are more likely to be violent, are less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, and so on and so forth. Even the Broadcasting Standards Tribunal has concluded that parents cannot be solely responsible for regulating and monitoring the content of television viewed by children. A recent study said it is essential that regulators take a leading role in ensuring children are not exposed to potentially harmful television content. This is particularly true when it comes to Television New Zealand—publicly owned television. What on earth would be the point of public service television, which is owned by the people of New Zealand, exposing the children of New Zealand to potentially harmful television content in the form of gratuitous and excessive violence?

Our amendment asks TVNZ to play a leading role in complying with free-to-air codes of broadcasting practice, and in particular any code with provisions on violence. There are some very excellent codes with provisions on violence; it is just that they are completely ignored by broadcasters in New Zealand. This amendment puts a specific obligation on TVNZ to comply with the code on violence and with other ones, to take a leading role, and to account for that.

I have already talked about the second amendment, which is to add the word “independent” to the film and television industry. The final amendment is with regard to the rather waffly charter provision that states: “maintain and observe a code of ethics that addresses the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed;”. As it reads, it is completely meaningless. What we would like to do is just take the intent of that provision, as we read it, and clarify it.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The next amendment, in the name of Katherine Rich, is to omit new clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57. I rule that amendment out of order. It is inconsistent with the previous decision of this Committee.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (iv) from subclause (2)(a).

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): An amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to add words to the Minister’s new clause 10(2)(a)(ix) is out of order because it is inconsistent with the one the Committee has just agreed to.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:

to insert in subparagraph (x) of subclause (2)(a), before the words “New Zealand film and television industry”, the word “independent”.

• Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): A further amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 10(2)(a)(x) is out of order. It is the same in substance as one that the Committee has already agreed to.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (ii) from subclause (2)(b).

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) : Part 3 is a very important part, because it deals with the issue of reporting and the issue of measurement.

Reporting has elicited some very interesting information after the last 3 years, when we have seen a steady decline in the financial capability of Television New Zealand. The reports of the last couple of years have shown a decline in the dividend. When this Government took over Television New Zealand, it was returning a dividend of around $60 million per year, and we have seen that deteriorate to the point that, I believe, it was just over $10 million in the last set of annual accounts. Deborah Coddington made a very important point before. She said that if that dividend had been handed back to Television New Zealand, it could have bought a significant amount of programming.

Labour in its 1999 pre-election policies stated quite explicitly that one of its policies was to ensure that TVNZ kept a significant part of its dividend. It has not managed to do that. In fact, it has not even looked as if it is even going to consider doing it. What it has done, I suppose, is reduce that dividend, but through other means—through losses and the financial deterioration of the company.

Measurement of the charter is a very important part of the success of this bill. One of the things that concerned me as I sat on the Commerce Committee, hearing a number of submissions, was that nobody really has any idea about how this charter will be measured. I said to each and every submitter who came before the committee that he or she had some quite large expectations, and I asked how the submitter thought any Government body would measure it. In fact, I also asked the Minister of Broadcasting at the time, as well. Nobody could come up with any ideas about how it would be measured.

I think it shocked a number of the members of the select committee when it finally dawned on us that the measurement mechanism will be put in place by Television New Zealand itself. It will decide how it will implement this charter, then it will decide how it will measure itself in relation to that charter. If Television New Zealand decides that to meet its charter obligations it will show three dramas, and it delivers those three dramas, it can tick that box and measure itself as having completed the charter. So much for public involvement! So much for the expectation of the viewers at home! So much for the expectation that we will actually see some marked improvement in the quality of the programming on television, and will see different sorts of programmes screened!

We all know that we will see very little difference whatsoever, mainly because Television New Zealand simply does not have the money to do it. The $12 million, which is GST inclusive, will not buy much programming at all. I argue that we will see just a creative relabelling of a lot of shows that would probably have been shown on television in any case.

As I said, this whole part deals with the issue of measuring the charter. If we actually step back to the charter, and have a look at a few of the clauses, we find it is quite clear why measurement will be difficult. Apparently, the charter will provide shared experiences. It will serve varied tastes and interests. It will provide a balance of programming. It will somehow encourage—and this is my personal favourite—“creative risk-taking and experiment”. That does not sound like a charter at all. It sounds very much like a form 6 the birds and the bees lecture. Quite clearly, it will be very difficult to be able to measure this part of the charter.

This part also states that the measurement will be done through qualitative and quantitative surveys. One can only hope that those surveys have more information in them than some of the reports we have recently seen coming out of Television New Zealand, which has sat on a lot of information and will not show us exactly what its viewership is. One of the concerns I have about this charter is that we may see a deterioration in viewership. The previous Minister accepted the point that if we increase the amount of programming directed to minority interests, there may be a certain trade-off when it comes to viewers. So, getting back to the issue of reporting, that is why this is a very important part.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) : Like my colleague Katherine Rich, I have some questions for the Minister in relation to Part 3, and I say at the outset that I take offence that this Minister, in taking this measure through the Committee tonight, is sitting in his chair like a stuffed dummy. In fact, I would like your assurance—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We do not need to hear language like that. Whether that is a personal reflection or not does not matter. The member will withdraw that, please.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Can I simply say that I would be pleased to have some reassurance that the Minister in the chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I asked the member to withdraw.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I withdraw. Can I seek some reassurance, though, from members who are better placed than I am in the Chamber, that the Minister is indeed with us tonight, because his inability to answer important questions in relation to previous clauses of this bill is a gross offence to this Committee. If the Minister does not want to get on his feet and answer questions, he will find that we will keep on asking them. As a presiding officer, Mr Chairman, you know that when Ministers decide to show a flagrant disregard for the questions of the Committee, the Chair has the remedy of simply letting the questions continue. I urge the Chair to consider that course at this early stage, unless the Minister changes his attitude.

I say in relation to clause 25 that the Minister is indeed lucky that the Committee has adopted the amendments proposed by him in respect of Part 2, because were it not for those changes the disclosures of directors’ fees that are required under clause 25 would be a matter of humongous embarrassment for him and for others. As Part 2 was originally cast, of course, there would have been a requirement, as a result of clause 25, to disclose the directors’ fees being paid to Dr Armstrong as chairman of the parent company, of the transmission company, and of the television company. But as a result of the changes in Part 2, that will not be required. Dr Cullen, of course, had the foresight to see Dr Armstrong off the scene while the Prime Minister was out of the country—[Interruption] Mr Maharey also wants the credit for that himself. If he wants to stand and give us an explanation of that, I would be very happy to shower compliments upon him as a consequence. I simply say that the Government is fortunate that those disclosures will not be required as a result of clause 25, on top of the disclosures of Dr Armstrong’s other emoluments in relation to Industrial Research, New Zealand Post, Kiwibank, and everything else that he was serving on, without mentioning the public-private partnerships that he was in the process of setting up when he was seen off the public purse by Dr Cullen—and Mr Maharey says by him, as well.

Clause 26, as Katherine Rich has told the Committee, deals with the requirement for qualitative and quantitative research. This Minister in the chair is also the Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand. He will know that in relation to the qualitative and quantitative research required of that organisation, it will not release that. That organisation will not do that.

I then look at clause 29, which talks about sensitive information being protected from disclosure, and see it states that the test is that if one would not have to release information like that under the Official Information Act, then these entities will not have to release it, either. I have not seen a provision like that in the law before, and maybe the Minister—[Interruption] Mr Hughes is trying to interject. Does he know whether there is such a provision? Has he seen a provision like clause 27 in the law anywhere else? I doubt whether he has ever read a statute book, so I do not know whether he can give the Committee a very informative answer. But maybe the Minister in the chair knows about that, because that is a most unusual provision. It states that as long as TVNZ or BCL, in its new guise, forms the view that the Ombudsman would not require release of information under the Official Information Act, then it does not have to disclose it. That is a remarkable secrecy provision in this bill. The Minister in the chair, as the Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand, knows that that organisation refuses to divulge to members of Parliament its qualitative and quantitative research.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) : I was going to rise to answer some questions that Mr McCully asked of me, but as he did not ask any questions I am afraid I cannot speak for very long.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) : As I look through Part 3 and as I look to the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, I wonder what John Tamihere is thinking, as he sits in his office in Bowen House or wherever his office is. I wonder what John Tamihere thinks of this bill. I wonder what the member for Tamaki Makaurau thinks about the bill in its entirety, but as we are specifically talking about Part 3, I will say about Part 3.

• Progress reported.