Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12965] 
4.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: How does he justify the Government giving Television New Zealand Ltd $12 million a year in charter funding when Television New Zealand Ltd is reported to be prepared to pay twice the market rate for  
ABC News 
 and the programme  
20/20 
 just so it can wrest it off TV3? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I should note that section 28 of the Television New Zealand Act specifically prevents me from involvement in programming matters. However I am informed that TVNZ’s bid for the programmes is part of a legitimate business negotiation process. I am further informed that no charter funding is spent on any of the network’s major news and current affairs programmes. It might interest members in the House to know that TVNZ does three times as much news and current affairs as TV3. For example for 1 hour on TV3 Television New Zealand does 3 hours. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can he justify millions of taxpayer dollars going into a State television channel whose charter duty is to “promote New Zealand culture and identity” and that less than a year ago was trying to shave $4 million off its current affairs budget by sacking staff when hundreds of thousands of dollars are going to US television networks like ABC and now NBC to get the  
Dateline  
programme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We can justify the money going to Television New Zealand because it has a charter and under that charter we expect that it undertakes programming it would not otherwise fund. I want to also point out that Television New Zealand has recently committed itself to lifting its New Zealand programming to 50 percent of its programming which is a major step forward for New Zealand programme makers. 
Mark Peck 
: Can the Minister elaborate to the House why the Government provides charter funding for TVNZ? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am glad to have the chance to be a bit more specific. The charter funding is funding for programmes that explicitly would not have been funded in a purely commercial environment. The broadcaster takes its charter responsibility seriously and is spending a lot more on local programming. More than half the programmes on Television One and a quarter of the programmes on TV2 are of a New Zealand origin with an increase of 75 hours in the past year for children’s programming—and I know that the Greens have wanted to promote that. Furthermore Television New Zealand uses its commercial revenue to pay for more than 80 percent of the total costs of those New Zealand productions. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Can the Minister advise the House what in the taxpayer-funded charter allows TVNZ to contemplate such high-spending proposals including plans for a new third channel and payments of the kind that led Mike Hosking reportedly to say: “One of the greatest ironies is that I’m indebted to Bill for giving me a cheque which means I get to stay at home and look after my kids.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There has been no business case put forward for a third channel. It is a purely hypothetical case at the present time so there is no way I can talk about something that does not exist. In relation to people who are paid off by companies that is obviously a matter between them and the management. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to make available to the people of this country within 1 week of today’s question—because I do not expect him to be able to answer it now—the total amount spent on programmes in all respects and in every way by Television New Zealand in the last year and in the last 3 years that it did not eventually run in full or did not run at all; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I cannot give that undertaking to do it in 1 week’s time but I can give the undertaking to do it. That is because Television New Zealand is required to report in full on its expenditure and it does so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very serious question of this Minister. I asked him “when” and he said “annually”. Frankly that is not good enough for this House. The public accounts of Television New Zealand are for the public but for Parliament a different standard is required. Surely I am entitled to an answer more immediate than that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That is the Minister’s answer. He addressed the question and I cannot comment on the quality of the answer. The member knows that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree it is ludicrous and contrary to Television New Zealand’s commitment to local programming that last year the broadcaster dropped its flagship current affairs programme  
Assignment 
 and sacked 14 senior current affairs staff allegedly to save $4 million of its news and current affairs budget and then this year paid twice the market rate allegedly $1.3 million to buy in Australian current affairs and news programmes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I need to remind the House that section 28 does not allow me to comment specifically on programming but I will say that Television New Zealand was not going through its current affairs and news programming to save money. Representatives informed me they were seeking to ensure they were spending their money as wisely as they possibly could on their programming and in relation to their efforts to try to secure sources of news around the world for the station they informed me that Television New Zealand is the public broadcaster and they want to ensure that New Zealanders have access to the best possible quality news and current affairs. 
Marc Alexander 
: Will the Minister now consider transferring charter money to the contestable NZ On Air fund rather than allowing the manifestly anti-competitive behaviour displayed by Television New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: No I will not consider transferring the money that is paid directly from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to Television New Zealand in return for charter programming that is carefully monitored by the ministry in the appropriate way. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why should the public not believe that this is yet another example of the Labour Government being unable to prevent a culture of extravagance—from the gross overspending on personal expenses by Television New Zealand’s former chairman Ross Armstrong to the payment now of double the market rate for overseas programmes just to eliminate competition from the private sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Television New Zealand may be a chartered company but it is also a commercial company. This transaction I am assured has taken place within the normal processes of business negotiations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister not prepared to answer a simple question as to the cost to the public and the loss to taxpayers in terms of dividends in respect of what programmes were purchased by Television New Zealand in the last year and in the last 3 years that were not shown in full or not shown at all; and does he think that it is a respectful way to treat Parliament when he answers by way of a retort across the House that “We will find out annually.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am sure that I would treat the honourable member with nothing other than the utmost respect given his long time here in the House. I know that the honourable member is awaiting his opportunity to have Television New Zealand once again before his select committee where I am sure he will canvass these issues in full with its representatives and they will assure him that they do at the appropriate time disclose all of their spending because they are required to do so. They may well do it on that day. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
New Zealand Woman’s Weekly 
 17 May 2004 which reports Mike Hosking’s indebtedness to Bill Ralston. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is.