Television New Zealand Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.