Television New Zealand Bill

Before we were interrupted at the end of the sitting at nearly 10 p.m. last night, I was talking about looking over at the Minister in the chair at the time, the Hon Steve Maharey, and wondering what the Hon John Tamihere was thinking at that point. I still wonder what he is thinking while he sits in his office in Bowen House as this bill goes through the Committee. I wonder whether he is thinking about making certain comments about this bill, and whether they will be similar to those quoted in the New Zealand Herald on 24 February. The article I am referring to stated: “Junior minister Mr John Tamihere will today apologise to Cabinet colleague Steve Maharey after he publicly accused him of”—very unparliamentary statement—“about the welfare system.” I wonder whether the Hon John Tamihere is thinking the same thing about this Television New Zealand Bill. I also wonder—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Come to the bill.

The senior Government whip can try to be the big bully that he is, but I am getting to Part 3 of the bill. I want to bring out some of what is written there.

As reported back from the Commerce Committee, the bill states that statements of intent will have to include, in addition to the usual matters, qualitative and quantitative performance measures for measuring performance against the charter, and a statement of how the public will be involved in measuring performance against the charter. How will those measures be qualitative? How will they be quantitative? Who will measure what is qualitative and quantitative? Will Helen Clark measure that by the standard of her world view, and so on? Will the senior Government whip measure that? I certainly hope not, but will he measure what is qualitative and what is quantitative? Everybody has different points of view. I know that I would probably measure that quite differently from how it would be measured by the senior Government whip, by Nandor Tanczos and some other people in this Committee, by Helen Clark, and, probably, by the Minister, the Hon Steve Maharey. On behalf of New Zealand First, I ask the Committee what measures are in place to really back up what this bill states—that is, to really back up the performance measures, in terms of what is qualitative and what is quantitative.

I go back to the provisions of the bill that talk about featuring programming that contributes towards intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethical development, that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders, that promotes and informs, and so on. I say we all have different views on different things in different parts of life. For example, when my New Zealand First colleague Dail Jones put in an amendment regarding programming of a family nature that would support the family and the development of family life in New Zealand, our views were obviously quite different from those of the Labour Government.

I just could not help rising at this point, to follow on from a member who, indeed, has a reputation in this Committee for blameless excellence. It is nice to have a member of that kind to follow on from.

I want to reflect just for a moment on Part 3, which largely deals with reporting. In reflecting on the member’s speech, I suggest to members who are taking part in this debate that the Government is very happy to answer questions that are put to it and that need to be answered during this debate. However, it is very hard to do so when a member spends most of his time labouring the issue of why we would have quantitative and qualitative measures of a charter when, of course, that is standard practice for every country that has a public service television channel and a charter. This is what the BBC, NHK in Japan, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation do. Those organisations have a charter and they have quantitative and qualitative measures that the organisations themselves are required by law to be able to put out there and to measure, in terms of what the public think about what they are doing and of measuring the effect of changes in their programming, and so on. It is very difficult to take part in the debate when members insist on asking questions that are so blindingly obvious. But I repeat that it was such a pleasure to talk after a man with such a reputation that I could not resist the opportunity to do so.

I am delighted that the Minister has undertaken to answer questions. My first question is in relation to clause 25(1)(a), where the financial report must state the “fees (including consultancy fees) received by board members in any capacity from TVNZG”. When we look at clause 25(1)(b) we see that the statement of remuneration for employees simply states: “remuneration and any other benefits in their capacity as employees”. Is that deliberate? Is that a result of an unhappy experience with the John Hawkesby affair? Is that deliberately intended to shelter employees who are also contracting as service providers in another capacity, which I understand is not uncommon in the television field? Is that intended to ensure that TVNZ does not have to be hounded, or will not be hounded, for meeting market rates?

The Minister will be well aware that the Prime Minister made capital 2½ years ago by joining the hue and cry against TVNZ, and by joining the uproar against what was called excessive incomes—incomes, of course, that would have barely been seen as competitive with those paid in Australia, let alone with the incomes for top professionals in this field anywhere else in the world. However, the Prime Minister joined the hue and cry. This Government essentially said that it would hit those fat cats where it hurts and cap their salaries, in order to make sure that they could not be paid like that.

I then find a sneaky little paragraph that states that we will only report income in the capacity of people as employees. To me as a lawyer, when I see something that is so clearly different between the two paragraphs, I know there must be intent in that. Here it appears to be a little device to make sure that the Government can get away with paying people their market value in TVNZ, but by doing so under the table. The Government will pretend to disclose people’s earnings, but will make sure that the disclosure is, essentially, a subterfuge. I am not surprised at that.

I have another question for the Minister in the chair, Mr Maharey. When we get into clause 25(2) we see that the annual report must report on the reconciliation of functions and objectives where they are in conflict or in competition, and it must tell us how it ensured those functions and objectives were given the “appropriate weight”. At first sight that looks to be Parliament simply ducking its responsibility. We have approved a charter full of politically correct nonsense, such as: “enable all New Zealanders to have access to material that promotes Māori language and culture”, without it telling us which bits are to be given weight—whether it is the Alan Duff bits, the Once Were Warriors bits, the historical bits, the contemporary bits, or the religious bits that other Ministers are now so keen to inflict on us all through our local authorities and elsewhere. Which bit has to be given weight, and how does Television New Zealand do that in competition with the fact that, for most New Zealanders, Television New Zealand will be so boring that they will turn to TV3? How does Television New Zealand decide to weigh up an objective of haranguing us all about Māori culture, and at the same time being commercially viable? Parliament should be telling Television New Zealand what priority is to be given to those things; instead, that is left up to TVNZ, through its hand-picked, politically correct directors. What is “appropriate”? Why would a drafter be obliged to use the term “appropriate” in a context like this if it was not to duck responsibility, and to hide?

Let us go over to another one. We see the same sort of thing in clause 26, which states that TVNZ will tell us that it has ensured that it has given the functions or objectives “appropriate weight”. What is, for example, the appropriate weight between—and I am looking at the charter; I refer to clause 10(2)(b)(ix) in Supplementary Order Paper 57—including in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests? What is to be included in programming intended for mass audiences? Does the rugby now have to be interrupted to show us some ballet, or is that provision more sinister than that? Will the programming intended for the mass audience get so boring that it becomes the sort of Soviet, Pravda stuff? Will we get a little episode of how Hemi gets new shoes, whilst carefully studying the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? What exactly is meant by programming intended for a mass audience, and material that deals with minority interests?

I have a number of questions for the Minister.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Good luck!

My colleague wishes me good luck; I guess it is the record of this Government that it simply does not answer questions. If one answers a question there is a chance that one’s life of blameless excellence may be brought into question, or, further, that one will get off side with the Prime Minister for not answering the question appropriately. I suspect that the current Minister is particularly sensitive to any criticism that might come from the Prime Minister or from others in the Labour caucus.

I now come back to the bill. I want to talk about clause 26, and in particular 26(a) of the bill. I am told that there is a Supplementary Order Paper here that amends that clause, so I will fish through and find that particular clause. Clause 26 refers to the duties that are put upon Television New Zealand when it comes to reporting. The statement that I am particularly concerned about—and the Minister may be able to indicate that it has been dealt with and changed—is clause 26(a) of the bill, which states: “TVNZG’s statement of intent must include a statement of the methods to be used and the principles to be taken into account to ensure that, in the event that the functions or objectives of the TVNZG subsidiaries are or may be in conflict or competition, it will give those functions or objectives the appropriate weight:”. What does that mean? If the officials concerned with the presentation of this bill have decided that that paragraph should come out and be replaced, I would be very pleased.

But there is a new clause 26 in Supplementary Order Paper 57, headed “Additional information requirements for statement of intent”, which is exactly the same heading, but which states “(1) In addition to the information required to be contained in the statement of intent under section 41D of the Public Finance Act 1989, TVNZ’s statement of intent must include the following information: (a) its functions;”—putting its functions is certainly a wise thing—“and (b) qualitative and quantitative performance measures for measuring performance against its Charter;”. The Minister needs to explain to the Committee exactly what that means. If we let a bill go through this House without a clear understanding of its intent, we leave a whole lot of subjective judgments, without much direction, to those who will be required to run the organisation.

Paragraph (c) of clause 26(1) goes on to state: “a statement of how it will involve the public in measuring performance against its Charter.” I would have thought that the public involvement is measured every day or night, or every hour, that the broadcaster is on air. If people are turning their sets on to that channel, that is a vote of confidence. If they are switching off, then surely it is not. I would be very, very keen to hear from the Minister exactly what those particular requirements are.

Clause 26(3) is the simple statement: “From the commencement of this Act to 30 June 2003”—getting this bill through by 30 June of this year might be optimistic—“TVNZ must continue to operate under its statement of corporate intent.” From the commencement of this legislation, it must continue to operate under its statement of corporate intent, so I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that there is no conflict between the statement of corporate intent and the requirements of the charter. Here we have a State asset with a current value that is something short of $400 million, which was obviously once much more valuable. TVNZ was worth anything up to $1 billion, but under this Government its shareholder equity and value has been falling on a regular basis. We need to know that this charter will not get in the road of the statement of corporate intent, which was delivered to MPs offices today—late in the piece, as usual, and well after we started discussing the bill—and that the commercial aspect of the statement of corporate intent will not be overridden by the requirements of the charter.

I ask the Minister, again, to stand up and tell us what he thinks “qualitative and quantitative performance measures for measuring performance against its Charter” actually means. Is it simply an indication that there has to be a formula somewhere?

Transmission Holdings Ltd, as it will be known, will probably be the only State-owned enterprise that has ever been created as a stand-alone State-owned enterprise by an eleventh-hour amendment in the Committee stage of Parliament. The problem is that, by creating it in that very last-minute way, a rather great anomaly has arisen. Because Transmission Holdings Ltd has come about at the last minute after the select committee process, the Government has never been required to spell out the reasons for that quite radical change, which it most certainly would have had to do if that change had been included in the bill. The Minister has said he is happy to answer questions, but he has steadfastly refused to answer my questions. I will ask them one more time, because I want him or the Government to put on record, to explain, the reasons behind that last-minute change.

Why, at the very time that the Government is asking in this legislation for Television New Zealand to focus on programming instead of advertising, would it take away what the previous Minister of Broadcasting called the “golden goose” of TVNZ, the profitable transmission arm that has been quietly providing revenue for TVNZ? Why would that be taken away at the very time it is being asked to focus less on advertising and more on programming, leaving it even more vulnerable and dependent on advertising revenue?

We can predict that it will not earn enough advertising revenue. Members only have to look at the performance of TV3 until recent years to see how difficult it is for commercial free-to-air television to survive on advertising revenue alone—and we do not want it to, anyway, because we do not want TVNZ to be ratings-driven. That is what the bill is all about.

Will the Government then top it up and give it more direct funding to make up for the shortfall in advertising? What happens if there is a shortfall in advertising and a future Government refuses to give direct Government funding to Television New Zealand, as a future National Government almost certainly will do? What will TVNZ do then? What will happen to this charter? What will happen to all these pretty performance measures if there is no money to fund New Zealand television programmes, as there will not be because of the radical last-minute amendments to the bill?

It is a mystery as to why that has happened, and why the Minister will not tell us why it has happened, but I have just found out what I suspect is the reason. Marc Alexander said in the House yesterday that members of United Future, he and Peter Dunne, had gone off to Michael Cullen, who had agreed at the last minute to separate off the transmission arm. I said to Marc Alexander, “Hang on a minute, Michael Cullen is not the Minister of Broadcasting. He’s the Minister of Finance. Surely this is broadcasting policy. This is policy driven by the Minister of Broadcasting. Why would Michael Cullen make this decision with his friends from United Future, and why not the Minister of Broadcasting?”. Marc Alexander said to me a few moments ago that there is no way that Mr Maharey, the Minister of Broadcasting, would ever have agreed to such a stupid idea as separating off the golden goose from Television New Zealand in order to leave it cash-strapped and unable to implement his charter.

That is what Marc Alexander told me, and I can only assume that he is correct. If he is not, I would be very, very happy for the Minister of Broadcasting to stand up and take a call to tell us whether that is true. It is important to know whether the Minister of Broadcasting is opposed to the last-minute changes in this bill. If he is not opposed to them, why on earth would he support changes that will kneecap Television New Zealand and that will prevent the charter from being implemented? Those are important questions and they deserve an answer. The Minister said he is happy to answer questions. Let him answer that.

I have another issue on reporting, because that is what we are talking about here. The memorandum of understanding, which I have obtained under the Official Information Act, between the Minister and TVNZ on the $10 million or $11 million that will be directly funded to TVNZ states that there will be no obligation on TVNZ for any additional charter performance reports.

I move, That the question be now put.

At the outset, having asked some questions of the Minister yesterday, I am delighted to have this opportunity again to put some questions to him. I will take him at face value and hope that he will answer them. I note that in clause 28 there is provision for the annual reports of the new State-owned enterprise and the new Crown-owned company to be packaged together. If one then looks at the statement of corporate intent, which has, as someone commented previously in this debate, been made available to members in the last 24 hours, one can see that there is a forecast of profit surplus of $17.9 million or thereabouts for the year ahead. It goes down to $17.8 million for the 2004 year. I ask the Minister whether he would break down that number, assuming that the $12 million or $13 million that the Government is giving the company to offset some charter costs is included, because the notes to the statement of corporate intent suggest that.

Could the Minister tell us precisely what sort of profit or loss those figures indicate as being forecast for the State-owned enterprise that is going to own the transmission arm on one hand, and for the television company on the other hand? I think it is important, if members are to vote intelligently on this bill, that the Minister should make that sort of information available to members.

I ask the Minister, in relation to clause 26, which is part of Part 3, where there is provision for qualitative and quantitative performance measures to be done—obviously to look at the charter, and the measure of success against the charter—who will have access to those qualitative and quantitative measures? Will all members of Parliament have access to them? The Minister is either asleep or looking at the floor.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: I’m studying.

Good. The Minister should do some studying. The Prime Minister will be very pleased to hear that. I ask the Minister those questions, and I would be pleased if he took some advice from officials on this. It is a matter of frustration to members on this side that in the other organisation of a similar type that he has responsibility for—Radio New Zealand—that same qualitative and quantitative work is being done. It is not made available to members of the House. I would like to know whether it is available to the Minister; if so, what does the Minister do with it, who does he get his advice from, and will it be made available to the select committee that does an examination of these entities on an annual basis so that they can do their work intelligently? If not, how can they do their work on the select committee assessing the performance of the State-owned enterprise and the Crown-owned company if they do not have this information made available to them? If it is going to be made available to them, will he then do something about the fact that Radio New Zealand does not make it available, because it would be appreciated if that could be attended to, as well?

Finally, I want to raise very interesting issues in regard to clause 29, which is headed “Protection from disclosure of sensitive information”. It always makes one’s nostrils twitch a bit when one sees a heading like that. That clause states: “Nothing in this Act must be construed as requiring in any statement of intent, annual report, or financial statement”—those are the documents referred to in the rest of this part—“any information that could be properly withheld if a request for that information were made under the Official Information Act 1982.” In other words, it is a blanket provision that says that none of the documents that are referred to in Part 3 as being the accountability documents require the company or the State-owned enterprise to provide any information that they might normally be able to withhold under the Official Information Act.

The first question I have to ask the Minister is whether that is a new provision. I have asked around, and nobody else can tell me that they have seen a blanket protection of that sort in a statute before this Parliament before. They would like to know whether that is a new precedent-setting clause. Secondly, I would like to know how it will work.

Members of this Committee will be familiar with the provision by which they can go to the Ombudsman to seek information that has been declined under the Official Information Act. Am I to take it from this clause that they are supposed to have the Ombudsman interposed as some sort of policeman in the reporting measures of this bill when it becomes the law of the land?

I move, That the question be now put.

I was listening last night very carefully to the debate on this bill. It is actually one of the Government’s flagship bills. It is one of the big things that it was elected to government for—to reform New Zealand’s public television system. In fact, it is why the Prime Minister is also the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. The Government puts great store and pride in all of this, but when I read Part 2 I noted that essentially it has turned parts of the organisation into a Crown entity, and other parts into a State-owned enterprise. Part 3 is about the reporting of those entities. I have asked my colleagues who are far more learned than me on television matters—Ms Katherine Rich and Murray McCully—when the Government is going to put more money into public broadcasting. Their answer is that, no, the Government is not going to put any more money into television. So what is the point of all of this?

The ambition of the Government is to reform public broadcasting, and some legislative changes are needed to do that. It says it wants to take off some of the commercial focus, so therefore the broadcasting parts will not be a State-owned enterprise, only the transmission part will be. Then I hear that there will be no mechanism, other than the charter, to achieve those goals. Clause 25 talks about the kinds of information that are required to be reported under the financial provisions and also in connection with the charter. I refer in particular to clause 25(2)(b) in regard to that. “So what?”, is what I say. What is the point of all of this if there is no extra money? Do they really think that television is essentially made free?

Opposition Members:Yes.

There we are. They think it will be made free. I have not seen any change in Television One or TV2 in the 3 years that the Government has been in office. It seems to be exactly the same as it was prior, and I assume that the Minister will take a call and explain the fundamental changes there will be in Television One and TV2 in particular, or else why are we doing this? What is the point of passing all this legislation unless some basic changes are expected to be achieved? Why change the broadcasting parts from a State-owned enterprise to a Crown entity? I believe that the public deserves an explanation. Otherwise, what we are really doing here today is passing legislation for literally no purpose. If there is no difference in the outcome, why are we even debating this legislation? That is the fundamental test that this legislation has to go through. I am prepared to bet that next year, or later this year, when the legislation is fully in force, there will be no difference from what the viewer sees on Television One and TV2 currently.

Many people around the Chamber would say: “Well if you look at Television One news and at TV3 news, they are two entities going literally head to head, competing for the viewers by the quality of their service, and in many instances TV3 is now getting a bigger audience share.” Therefore it must be being more relevant and more effective. At least the Government could not realistically argue that TV3 is an appalling service and that the only service that could really be relied on is Television One. The Government would not have the temerity to argue that, I presume, because it would know that that simply would not be true. Under the private market model offered fundamentally by TV3, one gets a genuinely competitive, up-to-date, informative news service. One has a whole range of programmes on TV3 funded through NZ on Air. Presumably some of that service will continue after this legislation, so I come back to the basic point and ask why we are even here passing this legislation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate today on this part, the Minister indicated that he would answer questions. He invited our questions and said they would be taken seriously. I ask, before we are called upon to vote, that the Minister be invited to address the questions that I put in good faith.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is entirely up to the Minister whether he takes a call. He has taken two calls, and perhaps the next part, Part 4, has greater reference to the Minister than Part 3.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is a quite important part because it deals with the issues of Ministers and editorial independence. If there was one part of the Government’s plan that really upset Television New Zealand and many in the broadcasting industry, it was the feeling they had that part of this bill was designed to interfere with the nation’s broadcaster. There is a feeling that this bill is just a cunning plan to ensure that Ministers and the Prime Minister can have greater involvement in programming, greater involvement in the way they are depicted on television, and greater involvement in determining what New Zealanders watch on screen.

Interestingly, the sponsors of the bill are people who have said they do not watch much television. Marian Hobbs stood in this Chamber and said that she is not a person who watches much television. It is the same with Dr Michael Cullen, and I suspect it is the same with Helen Clark. It is ironic that a bill determining what the rest of New Zealand should watch on television has come from people who do not really enjoy it as a medium.

With regard to the whole issue of editorial independence, I would like to spend a moment going back to the statement of corporate intent, which was distributed to our offices today. I would like to read from a section in that statement of corporate intent that is headed “Editorial independence”: “The company’s editorial protocol places obligations on the board and management. While this protocol’s primary focus is news, current affairs, and information programmes, its provisions extend to all editorial content produced or transmitted by TVNZ. It is intended each year that TVNZ’s chief executive and head of news and current affairs will provide a certificate to the company’s board of directors that, in their view, the company has during the previous year complied with the protocol. It will be their responsibility to obtain similar certificates from other company executives as they consider appropriate, to enable them to provide such a certificate.”

So staff are going to be bullied into endorsing this idea that they are not heavied in any way when it comes to the stories they put on screen. One of the questions I have for the Minister is whether he thinks Paul Cutler would ever have signed such a certificate, putting his name to a piece of paper that suggested that TVNZ had maintained its editorial independence. I suspect not. Would Heaton Dyer have put his name to such a certificate, indicating that TVNZ had maintained its editorial independence? I think not. Both those gentlemen know the grim reality of working within TVNZ at the moment. We all know the stories about the interference by the chairman when it came to talking about news stories that are appropriate on television. He openly discussed the sorts of programmes that he would personally like to see on air. We have all heard the stories about the development of the Late Edition concept, and how there was interference there. We have all heard the stories about the Prime Minister’s staff making calls to the TVNZ newsroom to discuss issues on the news and to discuss certain complaints.

That makes this part of the bill an absolute joke. Ministers will be ensuring that they have greater involvement in television than ever before. Editorial independence is something we hold very dear in this country. This part of the bill does nothing to put aside the concerns of National. That is why we are going to put some significant amendments.

Certainly, when I look at the whole issue of “corngate’ and the coverage that it received, I suspect that TVNZ would never have run a story of that nature. I suspect it would never have had the courage to interview the Prime Minister in that way. That is because of concerns that, I think, are embodied in this part; concerns that if TVNZ steps out of line, its funding is going to be at issue, now that it has to go cap in hand to the Government.

As Katherine Rich has just pointed out, Part 4 is an important part of the bill. It deals with what Ministers can do and what editorial independence will mean. As her comments have highlighted, this is one of the major issues for broadcasters all around the world, whether they are publicly or privately owned. How do they ensure that, on a day-by-day basis, they maintain their independence from the people who own them, if they are private businesses, or, if they are publicly owned, their independence from the direction, inevitably, of whatever administration happens to be in power at a particular time? I guess they do their best, and that is what this bill does in relation to public broadcasting in this country.

This bill does what we find in any country, in relation to public broadcasting. First of all, we establish a charter under which the organisation operates. That charter does not contain any direction whatsoever in relation to programme content. It does not allow for any interference from anybody outside the organisation. In fact, it gives the organisation the space to be able to say it will not respond to its advertisers who might want to direct it in terms of what programmes they want to see, in terms of their trying to get an audience for their advertisements, and neither will it respond to anybody who comes from a Government department, or a politician, because it has a charter that defines its role, and therefore it has independence.

Secondly, of course, we do what happens in this bill. If anybody does not get the message that the charter is giving independence to this organisation, the law says explicitly that Ministers have clearly proscribed and prescribed powers. They are never, in any circumstances, able to interfere in anything to do with choosing programmes, the content of those programmes, criticising those programmes, etc. More than that, nobody in the organisation, nobody on the board or a servant of that organisation, can be interfered with at all by a politician, can be told that he or she no longer has a job or a position, because of something that person might have done in relation to this organisation.

I know we are going to have a vigorous debate now, as we ought to, on the independence of public service broadcasting, but I think what we have done here is exactly what would be found in any public broadcasting organisation around the world. It is clearly set out in law that this is an independent organisation, and that it has a charter in law that guides its behaviour. Although we may discuss this over the next little while, I reassure members that what they have here is what would be found in any jurisdiction that has stand-up public broadcasting.

I had hoped the Minister of Broadcasting would wait until people had asked questions, so that when he did take a call there would be an opportunity for him to answer them. However, he got in first. He has already answered the question that I want to pose. He has just told us that in no circumstance ever will a Minister be allowed to do anything to interfere in programming. He claims that this bill is the Government’s best effort at this.

Clause 33 states: “Nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister to give a direction to TVNZG or to any of its subsidiaries, or to any director or officer or employee of TVNZG or of any of its subsidiaries, in respect of—(a) a particular programme or programmes ... (2) the gathering or presentation of news ... or (c) programme standards.” Is it deliberate, is it just cute, or is it simply incompetence that the whole clause begins with the words: “Nothing in this Act”? TVNZ is a company, and the Companies Act has a whole set of provisions allowing shareholders to interfere with the control of companies, for very good reason. It has provisions allowing shareholders to pass resolutions telling the company how they want it to be run. It has provisions allowing the removal of directors at will. It has provisions allowing the passing of resolutions to govern financial policy. The Companies Act—and this organisation is going to be a company—has everything that any Minister could ever want in order to control TVNZ. I ask the Minister whether it is deliberate that this clause starts with the words: “Nothing in this Act”. It could have said: “No minister shall”; it could have said: “Nothing in this Act or any other law”; or it could have said: “Nothing in this Act or the constitution of the company”. There are other places in this bill that refer to the constitution of the company. There are other places that contemplate the company requiring the Minister to do things, and to recognise that company law governs. But clause 33 states very explicitly “Nothing in this Act”.

It then goes on with some fairly limited things: “No director of TVNZG ... may be removed for any reason relating to—(a) a particular programme or a particular allegation”. What about a stream of allegations? What about a general tenor of programmes? What about a persistent series of complaints that the Minister or Cabinet has about promotion? What about appointments that are not popular? What about people who are responsible not for programme standards or the gathering or presentation of news, but media commentary? None of those things are covered. If this was a charter for independence, if the Minister was not deliberately misleading this Committee in saying, as he did in his last speech, that in no circumstances would a Minister ever be allowed to do anything to interfere, those provisions would be very different from what they are.

I can only say that the Minister is either deliberately misconstruing this, or is utterly incompetent. Clause 33 is no charter of independence. The very first thing that any lawyer wanting to interfere with TVNZ would ask is whether it has performed satisfactorily commercially, whether it has observed the charter standard, for example, to “provide shared experiences that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity;”. If someone wants to attack its new standards, that person just has to tell it that it has not been upholding New Zealand’s shared citizenship and sense of national identity. I certainly do not feel very identified with New Zealand when I have had a whole stream of news pointing out how incompetently something is being managed or run. It is very easy to decide to sack a director because he or she has not upheld one of these vacuous charter standards.

This clause is not a standard for independence. Katherine Rich has some modifications. If I had been more aware of this bill earlier, I might have tried drafting some myself. I will vote for them. They make a very minor improvement. But I tell Ms Rich that I am afraid they do not deal with the fundamental problem, which is that this provision, very cutely, refers only to the powers exercisable under this Act, when TVNZ is actually controlled under the Companies Act. TVNZ actually is under control, because it will no longer have its own independent budget. When it loses the bit that is being carved out, TVNZ will go cap in hand to the Government every year, or every 6 months, depending on how much it gives it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call the next speaker, I point out that the speaker who has just ended his speech implied that the Minister had deliberately misled the Committee. All members should take note that that is not permitted in debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It was expressed as an alternative. I said he either deliberately misled, or is incompetent.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, you did say “if”, but still the implication could be there. I just mention it for everyone.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for acknowledging seniority. Members can see the concern steaming from my eyes about Part 4, “Ministers and editorial independence”. I am angry and the Chair can see that, and I am enthusiastically taking the call.

Part 4 is all about Helen Clark looking good on television, although the good news—and members should pay attention—is that this State control is not as serious as that in Zimbabwe by Mugabe. It is not as bad as that, and that is good news. Members should celebrate that, and we do. This is not as bad as what Mugabe has in Zimbabwe.

I am very interested in what I would call circular accountability. I am interested in clause 31, “Powers of shareholding Ministers in relation to TVNZG”, which states “(1) The shareholding Ministers may, by written notice to the TVNZG board,—(a) direct the board to include in ... its statement of intent any provision or provisions of a kind referred to in section 26;”. So the Minister may direct the board on issues to do with section 26. When one goes to section 26, one finds it is all about the functions or objectives of the TVNZG subsidiaries. When I go back to clause 31, I notice that in subclause (3) there is accountability for Ministers who interfere. It states: “Before giving any notice ... the shareholding Ministers must have regard to the objectives and functions”. In other words, the Ministers may change the objectives and functions, as outlined in clause 26, but must also have regard to them when they do that. It is a sort of circular accountability. They can change them with regard to them; with regard to them, they can change them. I want to know what type of accountability that is.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: That’s the question.

That is what Murray McCully wants to know. Clause 33 is interesting. It is headed: “Shareholding Ministers must not give certain directions”, and states that nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister to give a direction to a board member with regard to programming, or gathering or presenting news, or programming standards. Yet subclause (2) states that no director of TVNZG can be removed for any reason relating to programming, or gathering or presenting news, or programming standards. I bet that he can be removed if he takes direction from a Minister. Surely, if a Minister breaks the rules outlined in clause 33(1) and gets his or her head chopped off—if a Minister’s speeches have to be read by the Prime Minister, and he or she is muscled—and a board member responds to him or her, surely that board member can be removed. I would like the Minister to take a call on that. If that first rule is broken by a Minister giving direction to a board member, then, surely, a board member responding to that direction can be removed.

I am concerned about Ministers and editorial independence. I know that this is all about Helen Clark looking good on television. There is a message here: soft lenses and soft lighting will not help—one cannot airbrush television. The Minister in the chair may very well laugh, but New Zealanders are very concerned about the independence that we get through our televisions, hear through our radios, and read in our newspapers. The Minister needs to answer some serious questions, firstly, about circular accountability, and, secondly, about the accountability of directors who take direction from Ministers unlawfully.

Part 4 is really important as it deals with Ministers and editorial independence. New Zealand First will not be supporting this part of the bill. There is a general public belief that the Government will manage the content of what we see on television. We just wonder whether television will now be all smoke and mirrors, and we will not really know what we see. Will history dim our memories?

In particular, I want to look at clause 31(1)(b), which states that the shareholding Ministers may “determine the amount of dividend payable by TVNZG to the Crown in respect of any financial year or years.” We heard from previous speakers that Television New Zealand has a declining dividend. Of course, this clause will impact directly on programmes.

Members of New Zealand First, like most people on this side of the Chamber, believe that dividends should be invested back into the company. In particular, we would like to see quality programmes that assist the educational, scientific, and cultural development of New Zealanders, and I think we heard that phrase used last night. The bottom line is that the Government dividends impact directly on programme quality. If we have not got the money, we will not get the quality programmes we want to see. Some of the programmes that were really educational, which we like to see, were for children. Suzy Kato’s programme that was on in the afternoon was a really worthwhile programme for children. I know that the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith talked last night about his quiz programmes. Perhaps we should have a more modern, up-to-date version of that type of programme. His version may even be able to be retained.

The bottom line is that those types of quality programmes are preferable by far to the violent, cartoon-type programmes that are the diet of many of New Zealand’s children at the moment. They see programmes like that day after day. We appreciate that television violence is not the only source of aggressive and violent behaviour in children. However, all the research appears to indicate that it is a significant contributor.

This bill states that the Minister is to determine how much Television New Zealand will pay to the Crown. There is absolutely no requirement for a substantial dividend from Television New Zealand to be taken by the Government, even though it could be used to make quality programmes, if that is what Television New Zealand should be doing.

I will also look at clause 34, which talks about compliance costs. With a charter as broad and as far-reaching as this one for Television New Zealand, compliance costs will be large. The charter itself is philosophically cloudy, which means measurement challenges. Measuring the outcome of the charter statements will be a really important factor in the overall success of this bill. Television New Zealand will need to develop some measurements so that issues of compliance can be resolved. I know that the Minister said there are already external agencies that do this for Television New Zealand, but it is not sufficient to rely solely on an external agency for regular auditing of this particular charter. We all know that regular auditing will ensure that the result at the end of the year meets the requirements of this bill.

Under this bill, we expect that the compliance costs in the first few years of operation will be really high, until effective measures are locked in place. As the Minister has pointed out, there are already some measures in place, so perhaps he will tell us that we will be getting more of the same. That is a real concern to New Zealand First, because we know that the new structure will create a lot of opportunities for consultants and external agencies continually to audit Television New Zealand. There will also be many opportunities for interference by the Minister.

It has been a long and lonely road to getting an opportunity to debate Part 4 of the bill. I will now use my 5 minutes to make what I am sure will be a very valuable contribution. I have a very heavy heart indeed as I debate this bill today, because Part 4, which is the guts of this bill, essentially condemns to destruction one of New Zealand’s better corporations. Under a National Government, that corporation had a value of $1 billion. It earned $295 million in advertising, and paid a dividend of $60 million. Clause 31, “Powers of shareholding Ministers in relation to TVNZG”, will render all that good work lost. I have a very, very heavy heart. If ever I have seen an organisation in our country that has led a life of blameless excellence, it has been Television New Zealand. In particular, I find it very ironic and sad that the Minister, who has led his life under the same conditions, is now shepherding this through the Committee. It is a very, very sad day.

I will turn to clause 31 in particular, which talks about the power of shareholding Ministers, and what they may and may not do. It states that the shareholding Ministers may, by written notice to the Television New Zealand board, direct the board to include or omit a whole load of things in the statement of intent. That refers to section 26, which really talks about qualitative and quantitative performance. That is all about ministerial excuses for the failure and destruction of shareholder value. The Minister will be able to write on his ministerial notepad to the Television New Zealand board, and commission the further destruction of one of New Zealand’s finest companies. That is what will happen.

I find it somewhat amusing that in clause 33 we have had to legislate that shareholding Ministers have to write down and talk about the things they want or do not want in the statement of intent. There is then a whole list of rules ensuring that the shareholding Ministers cannot give certain directions to programming. What I find ironic is the very fact that we have to legislate for it. Clause 33 tells this Committee there is a real risk that that will happen. When Television New Zealand was run as a proper company under a National Government, we put on television what mum and dad wanted to watch. We did not put the Labour minority Government’s socialist agenda on television, which is exactly what will happen under clause 31 of this bill. It is very, very sad. No one on this side of the Committee believes that clause 33 will be observed, because we know that when this Government did not like the way the “little creep”—as the Prime Minister called John Campbell—conducted an interview, it commissioned a couple of senior Ministers to take out members of the press and talk to them about what can and cannot be recorded. None of us should believe that clause 33 will be followed. It has not been followed in the past, and it will not be followed now. It is a very sad day.

I will raise a question for the Minister. I was not on the Commerce Committee, so I guess I really have to refer to this as both a member of the public and a member of Parliament. One of the things the select committee has recommended within the charter is that programmes should contribute towards the intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethnic development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders. Where does Coronation Street fit in within that? Where does Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? fit in with that? Where does Friends fit in with that? No one has any millionaire friends in Coronation Street—that is for real! The real reason I asked those questions is that they are the programmes that sell the advertising that runs the network, and none of them will be on television when the socialist agenda is rammed down our throats. The Minister may want to take a call to tell us what we will be watching. It will not be Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, Friends, or Coronation Street. It will be a whole lot of programmes from a socialist agenda. That is what we will be watching.

I move, That the question be now put.

Part 4, which deals with editorial independence, is an extremely important part. We are talking about the fourth estate, and television is probably the most powerful medium of communication, so there is always the temptation to somehow influence the direction of a television station, particularly when one owns it. So this part is crucially important, and we are very pleased that it is here. But we do think that it needs some strengthening.

I note that Katherine Rich has an amendment spelling out, for the avoidance of doubt, that no direction can be given, etc.—and that, I think, does strengthen the clause somewhat. So we will support that amendment and withdraw our amendment in that particular area. We are worried, however, that nothing in here prohibits the board of Television New Zealand from interfering in the editorial content of a programme or programmes. This, I think, should be spelt out. We are also concerned that, as Stephen Franks has said, although nothing in the bill enables a Minister to give directions, the Companies Act will enable him or her to give directions. So I think that perhaps we ought to be covering that, as well, because it really is crucially important that we do not have a perception of interference in our State-owned broadcasting channel.

We are concerned, of course, that there should not be interference with editorial content or direct programmes, but I am equally concerned about the fact that now that there is a direct Government grant, that may be always at the back of the mind of the people who run Television New Zealand, the chief executive and so on. My concern is that it may always be a little bit of a nagging worry for them that if they were to do something that the Government of the day did not like, maybe they would not get the same amount of funding the next year.

That, of course, is exactly what happened in 1975 when the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, refused to raise the licence fee, as a way, quite explicitly, of punishing the broadcaster for what he thought was expressing independent or dissident views. So it would not be impossible at all for a future Prime Minister who was irritated, perhaps, by something that happened on television—its election coverage, for example—to suggest that the next year the direct Government funding would somehow be reduced.

The Government does not need to interfere directly in a programme for that sort of implicit threat to have a very specific effect on the board of Television New Zealand. That is one of the reasons that the Green Party would so much prefer, instead of direct Government funding—which makes the organisation beholden to the Government and to annual grants—to simply relax the dividend. Why could the Government not say that it does not require a dividend? Why not have the existing arrangement in the bill, which said that the transmission arm could make a transparent cross-subsidy to the other section of TVNZ, the programming section?

That, in our view, is far preferable because it would avoid the fact that every year the board, the chair, and the chief executive of TVNZ will be worrying about whether the following year they are going to get that $10 million or $11 million grant. That, to my mind, is the greatest threat to the editorial independence of TVNZ, and it is why the financial arrangements that underpin Television New Zealand are so crucial, and it is why we are so passionately opposed to this eleventh-hour splitting of the golden goose from Television New Zealand, particularly since the Minister has yet to answer our question. The Government has never publicly stated why it is doing this, other than to get the transmission arm of Television New Zealand ready for sale—putting it into a separate State-owned enterprise to ready it for sale.

So I think that this is a very important part. We are very glad it is in the bill; we will be supporting it, and we will be supporting various amendments that seek to strengthen these provisions. But, ultimately, the real editorial independence of Television New Zealand would have been guaranteed if TVNZ was financially independent and had a number of ways of generating its own revenue without having to go cap in hand to the Government every year.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am not surprised that members opposite are so anxious to shut this debate down before it has even started. I am delighted that we have several hours yet at our disposal before Part 4 is voted upon. This is a very important part. It is not physically a large part but it is a very important part, as Ms Kedgley has just told the Committee. This is the part that provides the vehicle for political interference, and it deserves proper scrutiny, and, might I say, the courtesy of some answers to questions from the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, who, I assume, is still awake.

I start by referring to the wording of clause 33, which is headed: “Shareholding Ministers must not give certain directions”. If we look at that, we think that it is probably a replication of the provision that was in the previous legislation. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us whether it is, because I would have been more convinced if that clause had started off with words like: “The Minister shall not” or “The Minister shall not under any circumstances”. But instead, clause 33(1) starts off by stating: “Nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister”. In other words, it does not prohibit the shareholding Minister from interfering in news or current affairs. It simply states that no authority is conferred on the Minister to interfere in news or current affairs in relation to the television company.

I ask the Minister why we have that distinction. Why do we have a provision that does not prohibit such interference but merely stops short of providing any authority for such interference? The only explanation I can take from this is that the Minister actually has some intentions that he should disclose to the Committee before we vote on Part 4. Mr Franks gave the Committee the benefit of his very considerable expertise in relation to the Companies Act disciplines, which would give the Minister a role to play in working some of the strings in relation to the television company. But I want to go a step further and look at some of the less formal opportunities.

Before the Minister for State Owned Enterprises gets too excited about this, I just say to him that this is by no means conjecture on my part. I am looking at things that have actually happened on that Minister’s watch in the last couple of years. The former chairman of Television New Zealand, Dr Armstrong, decided to go interfering informally in the newsroom, driving the former head of news and current affairs overseas to a job at CNN. When challenged, Dr Armstrong got a most expensive Queen’s Counsel—one of the most expensive in New Zealand—the favoured Kristy McDonald QC, whose name has featured prominently in recent events. He also got an Oxford don who is a specialist in these areas to, at vast expense to the company, write opinions about how the board could find a way into the newsroom, and about the propriety of the chairman and his fellow board members deciding to impose their own framework on the editorial shape of news and current affairs.

That is the same chairman whom we have seen, in the public arena, interfering in the affairs of the company. What assurance can the Minister give that we will not see, as a result of the open door provided by clause 33, a chairman of the type of Dr Armstrong deciding to issue his informal directions to the staff of Television New Zealand? What assurance can the Minister give? We have already seen the previous chairman of Television New Zealand initiate a complaint against the political staff of Television New Zealand resident in the gallery in this building, and we all know that there were all sorts of levers working behind the scenes to try to find a technical means of upholding a small part of that complaint in order to try to find some sort of favour with the chairman. But I want to know from the Minister whether he can tell me of any part of clause 33, or any other clause in Part 4, that should give members of the Committee any comfort about the ability of any future chairman to work that same track.

I am concerned that we have an open door for a board and a chairman to take private directions from a Minister of the Crown, then go and put pressure on the editorial staff of Television New Zealand to deliver a product that meets the needs of their political masters. I challenge the Minister to stand and tell me how that is going to be prohibited by this bill.

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

Undoubtedly Part 4 of the Television New Zealand Bill deals with one of the most important aspects—“Ministers and editorial independence”. What we hear time and time again from reporters is that they are interfered with, in terms of what they say, by their Government. We hear that, time and time again. It is worthwhile looking at the commentary on the bill and just re-going over the words that both ACT and National had to say in this respect. They said: “We are concerned that the new structure allows less independence from ministerial direction and a greater opportunity for ministerial interference.” Once the company is a Crown entity, the Minister will be answerable to Parliament for the actions of the Television New Zealand Group, and, although not expected to manage the organisation, the Minister will have a constitutional obligation to investigate and solve perceived problems, with the company. The new structure will mean a greater amount of ministerial involvement and political interference in broadcasting than has been seen in this country for a very long time. Hence the appropriate name for this bill—“Ministerial Interference Television Bill”.

It is important to realise the genesis of this bill—the sort of thinking that came about to have it encompass the various aspects that it does. I think it was probably from none other than the “mother of all control freaks”—the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. Because in this bill we have a structure— first of all, never before seen in this country; not a simple Crown entity, but one that is sort of divided into three. We have a charter that affects all channels, breathing down the neck of all sense of freedom and expression; and, finally, a signal of ministerial interference. No matter what is said in clause 31, giving the powers of the shareholding Minister in relation to Television New Zealand Group, there can always be informal influences, and I guess we have had that example with Dr Ross Armstrong, who, undoubtedly, during the period of this Government went straight into the newsroom. So here we have a Government that on the surface has in clause 33 quite overt suggestions that there will be no formal influences. There is no way that informal influences from the board, from board members, from the chairman, could not occur.

In clause 34 there is really an example of just how ridiculous this bill has become in terms of the directions and the compliance costs. It states in clause 34(1): “Every direction given under section 31 or section 32 ... must be accompanied by a statement of the estimated expenditure to be incurred and revenue to be forgone by TVNZG or any of its subsidiaries.” That means that quantitative and qualitative performance measures must be incurred in looking at how well the charter is adhered to. When we think of the various combinations and permutations that are required by the charter to be quantitatively and qualitatively measured, then the costs are almost infinite. If we take just one example, the statement of intent requires 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 of public and private institutions;”.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate the call and I recognise there has been a considerable amount of debate on this matter. I wanted to explain the amendment I have proposed to clause 31, and the way in which it relates to the amendment proposed to clause 33. I recognise that the Minister in the chair inherited this portfolio some way through the progress in the development of this matter It is obvious that the bill has a series of prohibitions, constraints, and procedures built around the idea that there is political impartiality or neutrality in the State broadcaster. But there is nothing that actually states that the State broadcaster should be impartial or neutral, and there is nothing that states that there is a positive role for, or a positive responsibility on, the political masters of this body to protect its integrity and its reputation for neutrality and impartiality.

So what I have tried to do with that amendment is to pick up on some of the passages in the parts of the bill that we have already gone past and, in particular, the references to the charter, to the functions and objectives, where the board of Television New Zealand is given the role of deciding what the appropriate weighting is, and to indicate that, so far as politicians are involved, they can positively uphold neutrality and impartiality. So the proposed amendments to clause 31 are two new subclauses, which are simply general directions. If they are agreed in those terms, they will be the only places in this bill where the words “impartial”, “political impartiality”, and “political neutrality” appear. They should not constrain the board. They should not be a problem, because the Minister was at pains to assure us before the break for dinner that he expected and intended this body not to be subject to political direction or influence. Those words would be a signal and a statement of the objective that the State broadcaster should be impartial and should be politically neutral. So the idea in those two subclauses is to state what others may see as implicit, to be a safeguard.

For example, in appointing board members, I would see there to be no reason not to appoint someone who has a strong political background, but it would be wrong to do that where the person was appointed to a board where there was no counter to that. So the idea would be to make sure that we had strong, vigorous characters with firm ideas about where to go, but that a balance was created. That should be an instruction. I admit that it is imperfect. It is very hard to enforce. It is patching at the last minute, but there would be an indication that the Minister’s exercise of powers would uphold the tradition that we really need for an enduring arrangement for State broadcasting. It must be seen to have political neutrality.

If it is to endure past the next change of Government, then we need to give it this kind of surrounding. At this stage in this bill, putting it into a qualification to the Minister’s powers is a statement of what is intended. I do not know whether there has been enough time for the Minister to consider it. I would very much appreciate if the Minister had amendments to it or if the Minister wanted to qualify the wording, because there has been so little time. I would be very happy to accept amendments. But political neutrality and impartiality should have been built into this bill. They do not appear anywhere. This is a very late fix for it, but it is a fix. If there are problems with that fix, we should hear what they are, because it is a statement of what I think most New Zealanders would think is the obvious. The references in subclause (5) and draft subclause (5) to the functions and objectives, and to the weighting, reflect parts in subclause (3), where at the moment it is left up to the board to weight the various conflicting or competing objectives as it likes. All it has to do is try to tell Parliament, and the people, how it has decided to weight them. There is no reason the board could not weight them in favour of a strong pacifist party; or if it wishes, it could choose to weight them in favour of an anti-abortion party, or any other current ism, because at the moment there is nothing that requires the board to be objective and neutral.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is considerable confusion around here about which of the many amendments we are voting on. I really would appreciate if you could read out at least the first sentence of any amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Could I just remind the member that the amendments are all on the Table. Members have had ample time to look at the amendments, and there is no provision for me to read out all of the amendments. I invite the member to come to the Table if she so wishes.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 31 be agreed to:

to add the following subclauses:

(4) Any notice given under this section must be tabled in the House of Representatives within 5 days of dispatch.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, no direction can be given to the board on any matters of programming or editorial content.

Before I put the next amendment, I need to inform members that Katherine Rich had put an amendment to clause 33(1) to insert words after “the shareholding Minister”. That amendment is now out of order because the amendment from Stephen Franks has been agreed to, so the amendment is inconsistent with the previous decision.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 33 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(d) performance of any employee.