Coddington Deborah: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3728] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party continues to oppose this Television New Zealand Bill which as Sue Kedgley from the Greens said is radically different from even the bill that we last debated in the House because of the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 57. It should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill at all because this bill will destroy what was once a great institution which was returning over $60 million in profit and which had more than adequate— 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very narrow debate. The bill has been to a select committee and members should be sticking strictly to the title. There has been a little bit of latitude I would suggest.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that matter. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I thank that member for providing guidance to a new member. As I said the bill should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill. In no way should what this bill creates be associated with what people in New Zealand know as Television New Zealand. People in New Zealand take pride in Television New Zealand. I think it should be called anything but the Television New Zealand Bill. As those members over there affectionately call their previous Minister of Broadcasting “Boo-Boo” we could call it the “Television New Zealand (Boo-Boo) Bill”. In fact that member has admitted that she does not watch television. She has not watched any television since the 1970s. 
We know why this bill is radically different. It has nothing to do with United Future members who say that it should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. We know that it has nothing to do with the “Thank God for United Future” party because the reason it is radically different is that the previous chairman of Television New Zealand has fallen from high favour in a very painful way. 
I will add to what the member from United Future said when he claimed that we have achieved separation of Television New Zealand into two. Well it is very prescient of him to say such a thing. I think he must have divine foresight because this bill has not been passed yet. It is not an Act. He has not actually saved the transmission arm from destruction. 
If he is so keen on saving the transmission arm why does he not also save the television arm? Why should we allow Television New Zealand to be reduced by what I say should be called the “What the Government Wants to See on Television Bill”? It should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill at all. That should not be the title. We have recorded in  
Hansard 
 the honourable member Jill Pettis saying that the Government wants to see more documentaries shown on television. Why does it not therefore call the bill the “What Politicians Want Everybody Else to Watch on Television Bill” or as I said the “What the Government Wants Everybody Else to Watch on Television Bill”? It is a bit like those words from that cunning linguist the Minister of Finance that “The Government is skiing.” or “The Government is climbing mountains.” 
But as I said the ACT party totally opposes this bill; it does not matter what the title is. The whole thing is a disaster and we will continue to oppose it.