Television New Zealand Bill

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.