Tisch Lindsay: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3737] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I have followed this debate with interest particularly the contribution that has been made by National members who were on the Commerce Committee. It is interesting that Tony Ryall and Katherine Rich are the only two members who have spoken in this debate who have an understanding of what this is about. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Do you think we don’t know what this is about? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I know that other contributions have been made. I am saying that from a National point of view it has been really really important that two members of the Commerce Committee have made a valued contribution to the debate. They understand all the issues that have come forward. I am not decrying some of the debates that have come from our ACT friends and from New Zealand First because they have been substantial. 
Deborah Coddington made a very good point which I have written down. She was asking why the Government is involved in television at all. That is a good question and I would like the Minister of Broadcasting to answer that. 
Hon David Carter 
: Sky does a good job! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: As my colleague says Sky does an extremely good job. In the short call that I have I want to ask the Minister to take a call and explain why clause 3 “Purpose of Act” has been completely changed by Supplementary Order Paper 57 which has been promoted in his name. What we see now in clause 3(a) is a split to “provide for the existing State enterprise Television New Zealand Limited to be split into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business;”—a complete split. That is one of the points that Katherine Rich has talked about and promoted for some time. Yet it was not in the original bill. It has only come about now in a Supplementary Order Paper that has come forward at the eleventh hour. 
I want the Minister to take a call and explain why this change has just happened. Why were the recommendations of Tony Ryall and Katherine Rich from National who were on the committee and looked at the whole of the Television New Zealand Bill not taken heed of? What we see now is that at the eleventh hour the Government has decided to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that splits out the two arms of Television New Zealand. That is something that Katherine Rich has promoted and something that National supports. 
But the issue now is that a once very profitable organisation—a State-owned organisation—has over recent times lost shareholder value. It has been losing it for some time. At some stage it was worth about $60 million; that is a figure that has been talked about tonight. What we will see now under the charter is a $12 million taxpayer injection into the making of programmes. What happened to the commercial model? We had a television station that worked extremely well yet in recent times it has been muddled around by this Government. That commercial model could have worked. With the split and the charter we are now seeing an injection of $12 million of taxpayer money into the production of television programmes. 
We find that that is not necessary. We are not supporting it and I doubt that that is surprising to members at all. 
Dail Jones 
: I am not surprised. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is not a surprise is it! The other point I would draw members’ attention to in the Supplementary Order Paper—and I once again ask the Minister to take a call on this—comes under clause 4 which states that “shareholding Ministers means the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the time being responsible for TVNZ”. I want to know from the Minister and I ask him to take a call on this what he means by “the Minister for the time being”. Is this an ad hoc approach? Is this just a temporary arrangement for the time being for TVNZ? I want to know whether that Minister will be the “Minister for Social Responsibility” or the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Stephen Franks 
: That is all they are! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well it could be. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us. What does “the Minister for the time being” mean?