Coddington Deborah: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3872] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill in the third reading. I speak both in sorrow and in anger against this bill. What this Government is doing to Television New Zealand is appalling. How did we get to this? How did we get to this stage where we have come up with this sort of clone this hybrid which is not public broadcasting and is not commercial enterprise? 
Let us go back a bit further than 5 minutes in history. This bill stems from the personal desires of a few of the politically correct members of the Labour Government—the mountain-climbing tree-hugging  
The Sound of Music -  
watching socks and sandals wearing yodellers who want to force New Zealanders to watch what they think is good for them: a diet of nature documentaries endless reruns of films like  
The Color Purple 
 John Pilger documentaries and peace marches. [ 
Interruption 
]. As that member Jill Pettis said it is about time that New Zealanders watched on television what was good for them. I look forward to the day that we have a “Breakfast Bill” where New Zealanders are forced to eat for breakfast what is good for them too because that is about where we are going. 
As I am on the subject of food I want to say I cannot believe other members of this House who take no responsibility for their own actions and who say that if people get diabetes it is not their fault for drinking Coca-Cola and eating junk food—it is the advertisers’ fault for advertising them on television. Good grief! Whatever happened to taking control over what one eats and drinks? We should stop blaming everyone else. As for children parents have a responsibility to watch what they eat too. 
On Saturday this charter apparently comes into effect. Look at the nebulous ill-defined nonsense that we have in it! It states TVNZ has to be concerned with Maori interests. TVNZ will have to fulfil the objective of personal development. When I ask was the State ever responsible for the personal development of people? The State is responsible for protecting people’s lives and protecting their property not for directing where they should personally develop. The charter does not even state where they will personally develop; it might be backwards for all we know. Mass audience programmes must also deal with minority interests. What on earth does this mean? Does this mean that the  
Holmes 
 show which is a mass audience programme must deal with minority interests? What are those minority interests? Does it have to give voice to something like the “Takaka Floral Society” or the “Parliamentary Wimmin’s Knitting Club”? As for spiritual development this Government callously casts aside the constitutional conventions of the separation of powers. 
Be warned this is coming up again in the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill The State I remind members of this House is meant to be secular. 
What was wrong with TVNZ that this Government had to fiddle around with a State-owned enterprise that was making $60 million a year and as I said turn it into a Crown-owned company that has already sucked up $10 million of taxpayers’ money to implement the charter? What was wrong with leaving it to New Zealanders to exercise their right to push the off button? 
Labour Governments and I am afraid National ones too should hang their heads in shame that over the years they have appointed tame chairs to the board of TVNZ who have used TVNZ as a cash cow—$60 million in 1999. There was nothing in the State-Owned Enterprises Act or in TVNZ’s statement of intent that stated that $60 million had to be returned as a dividend to the Government. TVNZ could have given the Government $1 million and kept $59 million to make good programmes. 
And who are we going to see on the TVNZ board now? That will be interesting. What assurance can we have from this Government that there will be no political interference from the board? Can United Future assure us that no deal has been done whereby very very close friends of United Future are appointed to the board in return for that party’s support for this bill? Will Craig Boyce the current acting chairman a director of Industry New Zealand and a very very close friend of Jim Anderton be made chairman? Jobs for one’s mates? Cronyism? That is how Governments interfere and manipulate the media and that is why the State should not own the media. Stephen Franks managed to get an amendment passed thank goodness that strengthens the sanctions against political interference. But political interference I say has already occurred with the introduction of this charter. 
The bill is also a document that sets out this Government’s politics of envy. If we look at the clauses that deal with financial reporting we see that the remuneration and other benefits of employees must be stated. This type of clause I say is the “anti – Paul Holmes” clause. This is the Ross Armstrong influence. He was the Prime Minister’s very very close friend—not any more—who rollicked into the position of chairman assisted by his travelling companion Kristy McDonald and said that Paul Holmes earned too much money. Paul Holmes gets up at 4 o’clock in the morning and works until 8 o’clock at night which people on that side of the House probably would not know about. How much is too much money? That is what this clause is about. It is about lopping the heads off tall poppies. Well Paul Holmes had his revenge when he retaliated by describing the chairmanship of Ross Armstrong as creating a climate of fear and it was true. What went on when Ross Armstrong was the chair of TVNZ what he did in terms of morale was the worst kept secret in town. It shows this Government’s cavalier disregard of the integrity of a once-great media company. 
So what should be done? As I said the State has no business owning television broadcasting. The State does not own newspapers and neither should it. I would hope there would be an outcry if the Government tried to nationalise the  
New Zealand Herald  
or the  
Dominion Post 
. How do the employees of TVNZ feel now that they face a future in which there is a high probability they will be Government employees? Does this Government care about that? Has it even thought about it? I do not hold out huge hopes that TVNZ will continue to be supported solely by advertising revenue because if I were an advertiser and I read that charter I would run screaming from the room. 
This Government does not like business. It hates private enterprise. It forgets that advertisers are actually private businesses. But does the charter even mention business? No the charter talks about supporting the arts and featuring sport educational and personal development. There is absolutely nothing in that charter that deals with free enterprise and entrepreneurship. What about business programmes? Are they not as important as personal development? What about programmes on capitalism? And before Government members start criticising what I say I ask them to use their imagination for a moment and imagine if the ACT party were in Government and we drew up the charter. I am sure they would run screaming from the room too. 
The Minister of Broadcasting proudly said that TVNZ is no longer just commercially driven. I say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with media organisations being commercially driven. All that means is giving customers exactly what they want.  
North and South 
 magazine 
is hugely successful. It is totally commercially driven and it features serious current affairs articles. For those who believe that television cannot do the same I have just three letters—CNN.