Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3747] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have some questions for the Minister who asked why there were no questions. I will run quickly through those. In clause 9(4) there is a statement that the conversion is to take place for a consideration equal to the book value of the equity of the transmission business. I take it that that is a tax-driven clause. I take it and ask for confirmation that someone has had a look at this to decide whether the current book value is actually anywhere near what was expected when this set out. These book values may have changed to such an extent that instead of being a tax benefit which this was intended to confer it could go the other way around. I see that a poor representative of the Treasury has to be along here to watch this final symbolic act in the destruction of half-a-billion dollars’ worth of value to New Zealand taxpayers as we put this bill through. 
My next question concerns clause 10(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 57 which states “In carrying out its functions TVNZ’s principal objective is to give effect to its Charter … while maintaining its commercial performance:”. We know that this Government cannot stand to see the word “profit” does not like “return” or “contract” and goes for “agreement” and talks waffle about “partnership”. What is “commercial” in this context? Does “commercial” mean “not lose money”? Does it mean something good or something bad? Usually this Government refers to things commercial in terms that show it has that arrogant academic sneer towards grubbying one’s hands with commerce. Is that what is intended in this bill? Does “commercial” have its usual socialist left meaning of something undesirable? Could it be?  
My next question concerns clause 10(3)(b) on Supplementary Order Paper 57: “to develop and publish for itself an equal employment opportunities programme each year and to ensure that that programme is complied with:”. What does “to publish for oneself” mean? Is it vanity publication? How widely does one publish it? Who is being published to when one publishes “for itself”? Does it mean stick it on a website? Why is Parliament bothering with such tripe?  
Then subclause (4) states: “The Charter must be reviewed by the House of Representatives at least every 5 years.” Can someone please explain what that review would consist of? Does it mean that the charter would fall into abeyance? Is it a sunset clause? Does it simply mean that we will all have a look at it? What does a 5-yearly review by the House of Representatives mean I ask the Minister and if he does not know and cannot tell us what that means why is this crap in the bill?  
I go on to look at the careful provisions in the bill to govern really important things about TVNZ. Before changing the name of those poor new entities the Minister must consult the board and make sure it agrees. Changing the name is such an important matter! There are no provisions in the bill to govern the independence of the board appointment process or to ensure that board members who are uncomfortable cannot be thrown out at will or to make sure that board members be selected on merit and not politics.  
In most countries that is regarded as a vital constitutional provision. Here we have the most powerful organ in the fourth estate under direct political control—and there is not a thing here about controlling the exercise of those discretions except a provision carefully setting out consultation requirements on the change of the name.  
The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. This is a piece of absolute drivel. For a civilised modern country to put its most powerful media organisation so nakedly under political control with members of its board effectively removable at will without any compensation with no kind of independence requirement and with a whole set of charter requirements that put them under politically correct domination is a disgrace.  
It is a disgrace that will hurt New Zealand because people with pride will not want to work on an outfit like that. People with professional pride will not want to work on an outfit that is an organ of State propaganda. How do we distinguish the drivel in the charter from the sort of group-think stuff that Orwell wrote about which we saw from  
Pravda 
?