Rich Katherine: Points of Order — Member’s withdrawal from Chamber ; Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Rich Katherine: Points of Order — Member’s withdrawal from Chamber ; Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
[Volume:609;Page:6215] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 In rising to speak in this debate on State-owned enterprises Crown-owned companies and Crown entities I would like to speak today about a former State-owned enterprise very dear to New Zealanders that is now a Crown-owned company also known as a “CROC”. I refer of course to Television New Zealand. I suppose that because many people or most New Zealanders have a television sitting in their lounges they feel they have a greater sense of a relationship with that organisation than perhaps with a large number of other organisations that the Government has an involvement with. 
I have read Bill Ralston’s article this week and he made the comment that one of the major report-card comments that no Minister wants to get is an “FTD”—a failed to deliver comment. I think that is a fair comment aimed first at the previous Minister Marian Hobbs but now at the present Minister Steve Maharey. If one looks at some of the changes that have been imposed on TVNZ over the last 3 years one sees they have been very much driven by the Ministers involved and not driven by the organisation itself or by officials. In fact the changes made to TVNZ do not make sense. I recall having Treasury officials in front of our select committee to talk about some of the changes being made to TVNZ and they pointed out quite reasonably that the structural changes being imposed on TVNZ were unique. Rather euphemistically the officials said the changes were quite unlike any changes that had been made anywhere else not only in the State sector but in the private sector. But the changes were made and while initially the Government was looking at an unusual three-board structure which would have been both administratively cumbersome as well as expensive it was finally decided to split BCL from TVNZ. 
Rather optimistically I had thought that the work would have been done on that particular restructuring but we found out at the eleventh hour that the Minister had not taken into account the fact that there would be implications for the Australian business. I wonder what the Minister was thinking or what advice he had been given particularly when one considers the Arthur Andersen report which members will recall cost the taxpayer $400000 and dealt with the wide range of issues to do with splitting BCL from TVNZ. One wonders how the Minister could have overlooked something as fundamental as the tax implications of that in Australia. If one looks at the Television New Zealand Act itself one sees it is a bit like a panzer tank—it rolls on until December 31. Unless the Minister wants to change that legislation there is provision for the split to take place between BCL and TVNZ. If that split is not to take place the Minister has to bring that back to the House because as I have said there is provision for the split to take place. 
An estimate has been made that the potential cost to the taxpayer could be— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very sorry to interrupt the member. I wonder whether it might be possible to check the sound system. Members on the Government side of the House are having some difficulty in hearing the member’s wise words. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The engineer will have heard that point of order. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: We have seen of course a great divide between the rhetoric that the Government has used to describe what it has done to TVNZ and what has actually occurred. This was supposed to be a sea change in the approach to broadcasting and yet the Government has stumped up with a mere $12 million to pay for additional programming. That is hardly enough to pay for one drama with a few documentaries thrown in for good measure. That is not even one-third of what the Government has offered for an America’s Cup challenge. 
The next point that the Government made was that there would be a huge increase in local content. If one looks at the celebration that this Government made of the announcement of local-content increases one sees there too an overstatement of what has actually occurred. Pretty much all the increase in local content in the last year can be attributed to coverage of the America’s Cup. If one actually looks in the figures and looks particularly at the genres that we thought we would see more of as a result of the TVNZ charter one sees there has been a reduction in first-run documentaries and current affairs. So once again the rhetoric does not match was has actually occurred with regard to TVNZ. 
We need to remember that when this Government took over TVNZ it was a jewel in the Government’s crown. TVNZ was one of the most valuable organisations that the New Zealand taxpayer owned. One valuation had been set at a level of $1.2 billion. Now we have an organisation that would be lucky to be valued at half that as a result of the changes the Government has made to what was once a valuable organisation. It is aptly named a “CROC” which most members would argue is a pretty unfortunate abbreviation. 
We need to look at where TVNZ is to go to from here. If it is to have any relevance as a public broadcaster within New Zealander then it needs to be able to be a successful one. At the moment it has been pretty much hamstrung by the changes the Government has made not the least being the uncertainty created as a result of this latest stuff-up of monumental proportions. I am referring to the failure to see the tax implications of the split wanted by the Minister. Once again taxpayers are to be asked to put their hands into their pockets to pay for a mistake that has been made. Can members imagine what would have happened if that $20 million had been put straight into local content? We could have funded a large number of documentaries with $20 million. 
If we look at all the reports that have been done by officials about the split we cannot find any comments that support the split or any comments that show that there are to be some long-term benefits for the company as a result of those changes being made. Quite clearly the Minister is driving those changes for the sake of wanting to look as though he is doing something that will make a difference. Let us remember that the Minister said that the legislation was required because none of the charter could be implemented under the previous legislation. That turned out to be absolute rubbish because when delay followed delay when it came to the implementation of the charter we saw that TVNZ was able to conduct its business as a State-owned enterprise plus achieve a number of socially responsible objectives at the same time. 
What has happened to TVNZ is a national scandal and a monumental stuff-up of huge proportions. All New Zealanders should be concerned that what was once a very fine and successful organisation that screened a huge amount of local content is now in the position of having been severely weakened to the point that if it is weakened any further it become irrelevant within the broadcasting environment. We need to get Steve Maharey down here into the House to explain to the New Zealand public how something as fundamental as a $20 million tax implication could have been overlooked. He has glossed over a huge mistake. We will watch very carefully to see what happens with the legislation. At the moment there is no provision for a split not to take place. If Mr Maharey does not go ahead and do that then he has to explain to the New Zealand public the reasons for those mistakes.