Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3802] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am delighted that the Minister has undertaken to answer questions. My first question is in relation to clause 25(1)(a) where the financial report must state the “fees (including consultancy fees) received by board members in any capacity from TVNZG”. When we look at clause 25(1)(b) we see that the statement of remuneration for employees simply states: “remuneration and any other benefits in their capacity as employees”. Is that deliberate? Is that a result of an unhappy experience with the John Hawkesby affair? Is that deliberately intended to shelter employees who are also contracting as service providers in another capacity which I understand is not uncommon in the television field? Is that intended to ensure that TVNZ does not have to be hounded or will not be hounded for meeting market rates?  
The Minister will be well aware that the Prime Minister made capital 2½ years ago by joining the hue and cry against TVNZ and by joining the uproar against what was called excessive incomes—incomes of course that would have barely been seen as competitive with those paid in Australia let alone with the incomes for top professionals in this field anywhere else in the world. However the Prime Minister joined the hue and cry. This Government essentially said that it would hit those fat cats where it hurts and cap their salaries in order to make sure that they could not be paid like that.  
I then find a sneaky little paragraph that states that we will only report income in the capacity of people as employees. To me as a lawyer when I see something that is so clearly different between the two paragraphs I know there must be intent in that. Here it appears to be a little device to make sure that the Government can get away with paying people their market value in TVNZ but by doing so under the table. The Government will pretend to disclose people’s earnings but will make sure that the disclosure is essentially a subterfuge. I am not surprised at that.  
I have another question for the Minister in the chair Mr Maharey. When we get into clause 25(2) we see that the annual report must report on the reconciliation of functions and objectives where they are in conflict or in competition and it must tell us how it ensured those functions and objectives were given the “appropriate weight”. At first sight that looks to be Parliament simply ducking its responsibility. We have approved a charter full of politically correct nonsense such as: “enable all New Zealanders to have access to material that promotes Maori language and culture” without it telling us which bits are to be given weight—whether it is the Alan Duff bits the  
Once Were Warriors 
 bits the historical bits the contemporary bits or the religious bits that other Ministers are now so keen to inflict on us all through our local authorities and elsewhere. Which bit has to be given weight and how does Television New Zealand do that in competition with the fact that for most New Zealanders Television New Zealand will be so boring that they will turn to TV3? How does Television New Zealand decide to weigh up an objective of haranguing us all about Maori culture and at the same time being commercially viable? Parliament should be telling Television New Zealand what priority is to be given to those things; instead that is left up to TVNZ through its hand-picked politically correct directors. What is “appropriate”? Why would a drafter be obliged to use the term “appropriate” in a context like this if it was not to duck responsibility and to hide?  
Let us go over to another one. We see the same sort of thing in clause 26 which states that TVNZ will tell us that it has ensured that it has given the functions or objectives “appropriate weight”. What is for example the appropriate weight between—and I am looking at the charter; I refer to clause 10(2)(b)(ix) in Supplementary Order Paper 57—including in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests? What is to be included in programming intended for mass audiences? Does the rugby now have to be interrupted to show us some ballet or is that provision more sinister than that? Will the programming intended for the mass audience get so boring that it becomes the sort of Soviet Pravda stuff? Will we get a little episode of how Hemi gets new shoes whilst carefully studying the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? What exactly is meant by programming intended for a mass audience and material that deals with minority interests?