Television New Zealand Bill

I stand to speak about Part 5, which is euphemistically called “Miscellaneous”. In other words, everything in the bill that did not quite fit anywhere else has been lumped into this particular part. I will start off with a few questions for the Minister, and I would like to pick up on an issue that has been brought up previously by Sue Kedgley. I would like to ask the Minister again why we are going through the massive change that is in this legislation. This bill has been through a select committee process in which many, many thoughtful submissions from various industry groups were heard. We heard about the structure. Most people did not agree with the structure. As I recall the situation, Jane Wrightson from the Screen Production and Development Association called it clumsy and unworkable. But why this sudden change? The Minister did say that the structure was set in stone, that it would not be changed—BCL would not be split from TVNZ—and that that was basically a done deal, never to be revisited. It is quite interesting that suddenly the Government has agreed with the Opposition that that would never have worked, and has put these changes in place.

The next question is why we should go through the change of renaming BCL. If BCL is to be split off from TVNZ and turned into a State-owned enterprise, as a definite organisation on its own, why go through the rebranding process, given that more money will have to be spent on the development of a brand, and new letterheads and signage? That just seems to be a waste of money when BCL was always running separately. It was always running as an entity on its own.

This part also refers to the statement of corporate intent, so I would like to make a few comments about that. The introduction to that document states that on or about 1 March 2003, TVNZ will become a Crown-owned company, and then the television business will begin to implement its proposed charter. Now we know that, but it also states that on or about 1 July 2003, TVNZ will transfer its transmission business to the Crown, and that that business will then become a stand-alone State-owned enterprise. I ask the Minister what is to happen in the 4 months between those two dates to BCL, which is supposed to be totally commercial and motivated to generate a profit under the umbrella of a Crown-owned company. The whole argument for not having BCL under the TVNZ structure was that there were conflicting objectives—that it would not work. Yet, for 4 months, we are to see that structure actually working in practice. So what is to happen? How are BCL staff members supposed to manage their business in that interim period?

The next point I would like to raise is about what it is to be a good employer. There are some bits to this part that I feel are quite outdated, and I have some more questions for the Minister about them. One provision states that as a good employer TVNZ has to recognise the aims and aspirations, employment requirements, and need for greater involvement of Māori employees. It then goes on to state that TVNZ should demonstrate equal opportunities practices that will both enable the development of women, ethnic or minority groups, and people with disabilities, and also firmly discourage discrimination. If all the groups I have just mentioned are totalled up, we will find that that pretty much equates to a significant part of the population. In fact, I think that it covers almost every group except European males.

So I ask the Minister, if TVNZ is to be a good employer, where Mark Sainsbury fits into those criteria. What about John McDermott in Dunedin, where I am from? What about Ewart Barnsley? Even Richard Long does not fit into that category. What about Stuart Dennison, whom we remember from Nice One on television when I was growing up? He is in the sports section. He does not fit into any of those categories. Even Ian Fraser himself does not fit into any of those categories. So it seems that Television New Zealand is trying to be a good employer for almost everybody except the poor group of much-maligned pale males.

My final point about this part is that it repeals the State-owned Enterprises Amendment Act (No 4) 1988. That is one of the sad things about this legislation. TVNZ will no longer act as a State-owned enterprise.

I took care when going over Part 5, and I refer to new clause 41, “Savings of certain transactions” on Supplementary Order Paper 57, which has changed a little from the original clause. I cannot find any offence provisions anywhere else in the legislation. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and point them out, if I have missed them. But new clause 41 seems to be the only clause that touches on any consequences of a breach of the legislation and, in essence, it states that it does not actually matter if there is a breach. So I ask the Government where the guts of its convictions are, if it is to have a clause 10 in this legislation. New clause 41 states: “A failure by TVNZ to comply with section 10, section 12, or section 22”. Basically, if TVNZ does not comply with those provisions, it does not matter. So why have clause 10, which covers this absolutely abhorrent charter that deals with things like having to feature programming that supports the learning and personal development of New Zealanders? How can we have public broadcasting, which is what this is trying to be—it is actually not public broadcasting but a sort of hybrid; it is a clone from a State-owned enterprise and is not real public broadcasting, because it still has to depend on advertising and try to return a dividend to the Crown—that deals with the personal development of New Zealanders? How abhorrent that is! That could mean anything. It could mean the sexual development of New Zealanders. What business is it of the State to deal with the sexual development—the personal development—of New Zealanders?

Members might laugh at that, but this is a serious matter. I would have thought that the United Future party would be seriously concerned about provisions like that. What if TVNZ breaches the charter, by not concerning itself with personal development? Well, it does not matter, anyway. So why does this Government have such a charter in the bill, if it does not have some sort of consequence for breaching it? I come back to clause 41, because that exempts TVNZ from sticking to any of the conditions it has in the charter. New clause 41 on Supplementary Order Paper 57 cites sections 10, 12, and 22. I am dealing with the consequences, which are nil, of a breach of part of that clause. I refer to the provision in the charter about programming that is intended for a mass audience and material that deals with minority interests. What will be the consequences if TVNZ breaches that part of the clause? The consequences will be zilch, so why put that in there?

I see that the Minister in the chair is restless. Could he please explain why clause 41, “Savings of certain transactions”, has been tacked on at the end of the bill in Part 5, “Miscellaneous”—the clause that deals with the consequences of a breach of the legislation. Why have a clause that is ineffective and that basically states that if it is breached, that will not affect the validity or enforceability of any deed, etc.? Why have that, if it will not mean anything? Why insist on programming for a mass audience? Presumably, the news should be intended for a mass audience. If a news item does not include in it material that deals with a minority interest, what will happen?

💬 Hon Member: The effect on whales.

Exactly, the effect on whales—the whale-saving brigade. The term “qualitative and quantitative” is used in clause 26, meaning how much and how effective. How many times does material to cater for a minority interest have to be there? If it is not there once a week, is that a breach of the charter? If it is not there every day, is that a breach? I call on the Minister to take a call and explain why we have clause 41 at all.

I want to follow that speech made by Deborah Coddington, because there is an issue around clause 41 that needs to be broadened. I have been a member of this House for longer than any of the members who are sitting in the Chamber, other than the Chairperson himself. I think he has been here for the same length of time as me. I often wonder, when we pass legislation such as this, why we are doing it at all. I have read through the bill tonight, and I am perplexed about what we are trying to achieve. What is the purpose of this bill? When I look at the current Act, and then at this bill—Part 5 in particular, and clause 41 specifically—I wonder why we are passing it. This Parliament has a bad habit—not just this Government but past Governments, as well—of passing legislation because that is what we do, and there does not seem to be any real reason for us to pass this bill. I have not heard the Minister take a call in the Committee stage of this bill—although he may have done, when I was not in the Chamber—to explain to us the need for, and the purposes of, this legislation. Obviously it has purposes, but there does not seem to be any absolute rhyme or reason for us to pass it.

The only thing that I can think of when I look at clause 35 in Part 5, which enacts the amendments to the enactments listed in Schedule 1—and that schedule pretty much covers the whole of the bill—is that that allows, if a Government wanted to exercise it, the opportunity for there to be political direction of TVNZ. I know the Minister would say that that is not the Government’s intention, and in his mind that may very well not be the intention. However, I would love the Minister to take a call and say that is not what is intended—

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: That’s not what’s intended.

The Minister should take a call and say that so that we can actually have it on the record, not just as a little wee interjection. If the Minister will not take a call we will have to get Mr Tamihere to make a speech to tell us what the Minister is thinking. That may be a way round it. Mr Tamihere might say it more directly, or perhaps he might agree with me on this bill—that is, that the bill does not achieve much, at all. Mr Tamihere has some quite eloquent terms with which to describe legislation such as this. I am sure the Minister would not want Mr Tamihere to talk about this bill in the way that he has spoken about other bills and other various policy matters that this Minister is in charge of.

When I look at some of the things that are already in the legislation, I see that there already seems to be some political interference with TVNZ, so one then wonders whether this bill is not a wider opportunity for that to occur. Other members have already commented about the possibility that a party with some influence may ask for a particular direction to be taken by TVNZ. As has been said, it could be that somebody will decide it is the State’s duty to use TVNZ as a way in which to pass information around to young people about the consequences of sexual activity, and so on. That could be a possibility under this legislation. I am sure that is not what is intended, but a whole number of things could happen as a consequence of that. We could get a party that has some influence on the Government asking for a particular direction to be taken. We must not forget that at the end of the day, every year TVNZ will have to come to the Government for funding, and there could be some tags tied to that. That really does concern me.

When I looked at the issue that relates to the schedules and the bill itself, I wondered why the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendments put in the previous part by Stephen Franks. Those seemed to be logical amendments.

It has been very interesting to partake in this debate. In speaking to Part 5 Katherine Rich took the words right out of my mouth when she talked about this being the miscellaneous part of the bill; obviously, everything that could not fit into the other parts has been thrown into Part 5.

She also made a very good point when she talked about, as far as equal employment opportunities are concerned, the aims and aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for greater involvement of Māori as employees of the employer operating the policy. The bill goes on to talk about other parts of society, such as opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees, and recognition—and it goes on and on. Katherine Rich made a very interesting and very good point, which basically underpinned what I was saying when I spoke earlier in this debate. It is very important that we realise that this bill is trying to be all things to all people. That is the problem with it.

We all laughed, and I must admit I had a bit of a chuckle myself, when Deborah Coddington talked about the personal development of people. She also talked about the sexual development of people. I must admit that I did laugh because it was quite funny and she was quite amusing. But, at the end of the day she had an interesting point. The bill is too expansive. It is trying to be all things to all people. That is really what we are talking about.

Mr Carter, a National MP, had a very interesting point, as well: is there any reason to pass this legislation? We all know that, basically, under this set-up a Government will be able to flog off, to sell off, part of this business. That is a concern to New Zealand First. One of the 15 fundamental founding principles of New Zealand First is to make sure that New Zealand assets stay in the hands of New Zealanders. We can see this business getting into the hands of a party that does not have those philosophies and does not have the best interests of New Zealanders at heart, and it will just flog it off. In New Zealand First we are very concerned about that issue.

At the end of the day, we have a bill that is far too politically correct for it to be of use. In one of my earlier speeches I mentioned that this is the exact same wording that is used in the State Sector Act. This is the same kind of stuff that we saw when I was a young lad, in the David Lange years—that is, the same politically correct mumbo-jumbo, as my leader would say. This is one of the many reasons that New Zealand First asks whether there is any need to pass legislation such as this. Katherine Rich over in National agrees with me, and I am glad that she does. That is exactly what parties like New Zealand First and members like Katherine Rich are saying. We are saying that there is no need for this legislation to be passed. It is far too politically correct. It enables the flogging off of parts of this business in the future.

I move, That the question be now put.

At least we are to be allowed some small debate on this part, which is a relief, instead of it just being rammed through. Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the opportunity.

I have a couple of points. First of all, I would like to mention the fact that one of the consequences of this bill is that TVNZ will be cash-strapped because it will no longer have the transmission arm. The golden goose will have been split off. Therefore, TVNZ will have to get direct funding from the Government. The Government has already indicated that it will give about $11 million to TVNZ. I would like to make it clear that I am all in favour of State funding of TVNZ, but I would like it to be indirect, not direct so that it can be used for political purposes.

My concern is that the memorandum of understanding—which I have obtained under the Official Information Act—that discusses how this $10 million will be allocated, and the reporting mechanisms, makes it clear that TVNZ will not have to report on the per programme expenditure. In other words, the Government will be giving $10 million or $11 million, and, whereas the money that TVNZ receives through New Zealand On Air is transparent, and has to be accounted for on a programme by programme basis—the public can read about it every quarter—that $10 million or $11 million will just go to TVNZ, and it will have no obligation to say how much money it has allocated to particular programmes, and how it has been spent. Effectively, the money can go into a black hole. Why should money going directly to TVNZ, rather than going indirectly to it through New Zealand On Air, be in any way less transparent? Why should there be different reporting mechanisms? Why should one be lax and the other transparent?

That is one of many concerns I have about this bill and the fact that we will now see a cash-strapped TVNZ go with its begging bowl to the Government every year for funding. Every single chief executive and programmer will worry whether, if he or she speaks out or if TVNZ does a difficult current affairs programme that really puts the Prime Minister or someone else on the mat, it will find the allocation of direct funding reduced in the next year. Nothing needs to be said, and there does not need to be any direct political interference; there just needs to be that constant threat to keep TVNZ in line and stop it from being a truly independent entity—a fourth estate whose independence we should be jealously guarding. I believe that the new financial arrangements will erode that independence.

The most extraordinary thing about this bill is that with its passage we are creating a new State-owned enterprise. The new transmission arm will be separated out into a stand-alone State-owned enterprise. Not only has it been created at the last minute, after all the select committee hearings have been completed, but no reason has ever been given as to why we are, at the last minute, separating off the transmission arm of TVNZ into a State-owned enterprise. No explanation has been given.

💬 Brent Catchpole: To sell it off.

The member for New Zealand First has pointed out that the only reason that would be done would be to prepare it for sale—to sell it off. So why does the Government not come clean and tell us that that is the reason the Minister of Finance, Mr Cullen, intervened at the last minute, with the assistance of United Future, and suddenly decided that we should split it off into a State-owned enterprise? It is because the Government wants to sell it. It wants to make it a nice, separate little entity that is ready for sale. Why does the Government not come clean and tell us, instead of a hidden agenda being buried in the bill, and an amendment coming out of the blue at the last minute?

I move, That the question be now put.