Television New Zealand Bill

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?

“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

Quite right, and no more 60 Minutes. No more Backchat; 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 One News. I am wondering whether that is part of the charter, as well.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Backchat was on TV3.

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—

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.

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?

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 Kaleidoscope on our television channels.”, and it reflects the wishy-washy, third-way irrelevance of Steve Maharey.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

Because overall, this bill, in conjunction—

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

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

💬 Stephen Franks: Oh yeah?

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.

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 It’s Academic, 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?

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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?

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.

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, It’s Academic, and Here’s Humphrey. 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.

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.

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!

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. [Interruption] 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!

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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).