McCully Murray: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3877] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 This is a sad day for New Zealand broadcasting. It is a day on which we see in Television New Zealand the era of the bow-tie-and-ballet-tights brigade being ushered in and the day when we see the framework established for our State broadcaster to become a simpering and compliant player in the New Zealand media.  
The third reading stage of a bill is of course the opportunity for members to recount the previous consideration of the legislation in its various stages. That is quite a saga because when this bill was originally introduced we had a very different structure in Television New Zealand. We had a structure consisting of a parent board and two subsidiary boards which was the result of some very considerable work and expense. At that stage the Prime Minister’s very good friend Dr Ross Armstrong was the chairman of Television New Zealand and he went to very considerable lengths to make sure that the structural change sought by officials was substantially modified in order to give him the position of absolute power he demanded. So at very considerable expense a major consulting firm and consultants were wheeled in and the former chairman’s very good friend Kristy McDonald QC was wheeled in to deliver at significant expense to Television New Zealand an opinion about how a format could be devised that would see a parent board and two subsidiaries and why it would not be too bad an idea for the chairman of Television New Zealand to become the chairman also of the two subsidiary companies.  
That was a structure that was put in place in the original bill for one reason and for one reason only—to meet the requirements of the previous chairman the Prime Minister’s very good friend Dr Armstrong to be the chairman of everything that moved in the State broadcaster. This was the “Ross Armstrong structure” in the original bill. Why would it suit the Government so much to accommodate Dr Armstrong’s requirements? Well members should ask themselves about the answer to that question—it suited the Government very well to have its very good friend in the controlling position of every component of the most powerful medium in the country. Miraculously Dr Armstrong left us this bill came back from a select committee and a Supplementary Order Paper emerged that was very different from the format that was introduced. Miraculously the United Future party decided that it would accommodate the Government’s wish to see this particular measure through the House.  
The Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage told us that this bill enjoyed broad support in the House. I want to correct her on that; that is very far from the truth. The simple facts of the matter are that the Greens have told us today that they oppose the bill the ACT party has told us it opposes the bill the New Zealand First Party has told us it opposes the bill and the National Party has said it opposes the bill.  
I want to ask the question again at this final stage: why is it that the United Future party is the only party prepared to help the Government get this bill which will distort the media through the House today? The answer is because it has been bought. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot say that. He will withdraw that comment. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I withdraw. The members sitting in the House who represent United Future have another chance today to answer the question I asked them at the Committee stage. Have they been promised any directorships on either of the two entities that are being formulated as a result of this bill? Will any United Future persons miraculously pop up on either of those two boards? [ 
Interruption 
] Are those two members saying that that will not happen? Is Mr Smith telling me that that will not happen? Mr Smith is not telling me that it will not happen because Mr Smith knows very well that it will happen. Mr Smith knows that once this bill has been passed we will no doubt see an announcement from the Government that shows what the price tag has been to get United Future to vote for this bill. I say to those two members— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have already pulled up this member for saying that another party’s vote has been bought. He is now saying that we will know the price tag for this vote. I cannot accept that that is within the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first comment was outside the Standing Orders. The second one is right on the edge but I thought I heard Mr Smith’s comments being made very clearly to the member. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am a quick learner. I have a long enough memory to be able to recall in a week or two’s time when the board members are announced the discussion we have had today and on the previous phases of the bill. If there are United Future people—people associated with that party—on either of those two boards then the members who are sitting in the House today will be held to account for their silence on this matter.  
I want to take the opportunity of rehearsing some of the arguments that were made available to the House in the earlier stages of the bill and in particular I invite members of the public who are interested and members of the House who are here to consider some simple arithmetic. We have been told that as a result of this bill we will see the transmission arm of Television New Zealand BCL turned into Transmission Holdings Ltd and become a State-owned enterprise. We have separately seen a statement of corporate intent from the Government which makes it clear that the projection is that the two arms the transmission and the television arm together are going to make a profit of $17.9 million next year and $17.8 million in the year after. We have been told that that includes the $12.5 million that is being delivered to cover charter costs from the Government. In effect we have a $5 million profit being forecast by those two entities combined.  
It is not rocket science to work out that on those numbers the television arm of Television New Zealand is going to be running significant losses. Look at the profits of the transmission arm over the last few years. The Television New Zealand arm is going to be running very substantial losses. I ask members opposite to tell me how those losses are going to be made up. There is only one answer to that question. Television New Zealand will have to go cap in hand to the Minister of Finance on an annual basis. It simply cannot survive on any other basis than the goodwill of the Minister. I ask members opposite: do they really expect members to believe that Television New Zealand’s directors and management will not feel under the slightest degree of pressure that they should earn the $30 million or so they will be asking the Government for to survive each year by appeasing the Government with the quality of their news and current affairs coverage?  
Why is it that in terms of this legislation we have the weakest possible provision as far as editorial independence is concerned? Have United Future members thought about the reason for that watered-down provision? Do they not understand that we are about to enter an era where our State broadcaster the most powerful medium in our country is about to make an annual visit to the Minister of Finance who will no doubt have a conversation with the Prime Minister about whether it can get the $30 million or so it needs to survive? I have worked it out. Members on this side of the House have worked it out. I am surprised that United Future people tell me they have not worked it out. Members of the public are going to work it out. The result of this legislation being passed today will be a very sad very compliant simpering State broadcaster.