McCully Murray: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
McCully Murray: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3746] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Members of the public who are following this debate will know that Part 2 which is before the Committee as I speak has been completely changed in substance since the bill was introduced. Those interested members of the public particularly those who participated in the industry will be saying to themselves right now how remarkable it is that the bill could be so different in respect of Part 2 and that the Minister responsible for the bill could be silent as to the reasons for a complete change to the character of Part 2. The Minister should take call. I will give members of the public who are interested and members of the Committee the benefit of my distilled wisdom on the reasons for the change. If the Minister wants to dispute my analysis then he should take a call. He is taking the Committee and the public cheaply in making these sweeping changes to Part 2 and not even having the courtesy to take a call to tell members of the Committee and members of the public why these significant changes have been made.  
I join with my colleague Katherine Rich in applauding the changes that have been made in relation to the structure. They are changes that were advocated by this side of the House when the bill was introduced. First of all for those who have difficulty recalling the history we were to have a parent company and two operating subsidiaries. It was a formula that had its genesis in one feature and one feature only—that was the chairman. The chairman of TVNZ at the time Dr Ross Armstrong was a very close friend of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. He was also the chairman of several other Government enterprises. That chairman decided that he wanted to formulate the structure in this bill to suit himself. He established a formula that saw a parent board of which he could be the chairman and two subsidiary boards of which he could be the chairman of both.  
I want the Minister to tell the Committee tonight whether he had any advice or his predecessor had any advice as to whether that was a good thing. I know and he knows that the officials who sit in the Committee tonight told him his predecessor and the Prime Minister that that was a loopy structure it was open to abuse and it put far too much power in the hands of one man Dr Ross Armstrong Helen Clark’s little friend and helper. That is what the officials told this Minister and his colleagues. I want the Minister to tell us tonight that that was the case.  
It was only after Dr Ross Armstrong Helen Clark’s little helper was fired by Dr Cullen while Helen Clark was out of the country that we saw this bill change. The Dr Ross Armstrong section of the bill Part 2 was only there for his benefit. It was only there so he could do the bidding of the Prime Minister in the most powerful medium in this country. I say to the Minister that he owes this Committee an explanation as to why Part 2 has changed in this dramatic way. I regard this as a very significant change to the bill yet the Minister has been silent.  
Clause 8 provides for a separation of the transmission arm into a State-owned enterprise. Clause 10 provides for a process of Order in Council for that State-owned enterprise to be established. I want the Minister to explain why it is that we have the unique occurrence of a State-owned enterprise being established by way of an Order in Council. Previously when we have looked at major changes of this sort they have been legislated more specifically. It is important that the Minister explains why this particular structure has been sought particularly when there is no certainty about the people who are to drive these changes.  
I have some questions that the Minister needs to answer. Who was to be the chairman of TVNZ who is to make these changes proposed in clauses 8 and 10? Will it be Mr Boyce the acting chairman who is there today; and who will be the two new board members who will have such a powerful position as a result of clauses 8 and 10? These are important matters.