Rich Katherine: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3742] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that has been essentially gutted by the Supplementary Order Paper—but it has been gutted for good reason because the Minister and the Government have come round to the Opposition’s way of thinking. One of the things that was quite clear and which we communicated very strongly was that the proposed structure as presented was never going to work. Nobody said it was going to be a good option for Television New Zealand. I remember when Jane Wrightson of the Screen Producers and Directors Association came before the select committee and described the structure as clumsy and designed to fail. We argued quite strongly that there was no other similar structure anywhere to be found in the public sector or in the private sector. Treasury confirmed this view when it presented its information to the committee. So it was really a structure made up by the Government and by Ross Armstrong and imposed on what is already a failing business.  
So why change the structure? Often this Government concentrates on changing structure but “bustle” is not necessarily “industry”. At the moment what we have seen is a few changes being made but in the meantime a lot of good programming has been put on hold at Television New Zealand. If we look at the amount that has been spent just on putting this bill through the House and through select committees etc. we see that this money could have funded at least 100 documentaries or at least three or four dramas. We could have seen a lot more content on television.  
One might have thought there would be some progress in broadcasting in the last 3 years so when Marian Hobbs the previous Minister was justifying why there had not been any delay she used to say that a lot of changes had been made “in anticipation”. It was interesting to hear the Minister on  
Media Watch 
 asked: “Do you think public television has become better in the not-quite-3-years that you’ve been here?”. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What was the answer? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: “Ah no I wouldn’t actually claim that.” So we are beginning to wonder what changes have actually been made. We are into the fourth year of the Labour Party’s election policy and we have not seen any changes.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No more  
Montana Sunday Theatre 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Quite right and no more  
60 Minutes 
. No more  
Backchat 
; that was one of the first changes made under the new charter regime. Perhaps that was because a lot of negative political comment came out of that show that the Government did not like. One of the changes that I have seen is the picture of our Prime Minister on the new opening blurb for  
One News 
. I am wondering whether that is part of the charter as well.  
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
:  
Backchat 
 was on TV3.  
KATHERINE RICH 
: That Minister obviously has not watched much television! We had a confusing logic being used. We had excuses being made when there were delays in getting this bill through the House. We should remember that the start date for this whole thing was supposed to be 1 July 2001. Of course Part 2 is the part that introduces the charter and this is where we get into an exercise in creative writing—in the extreme. We have about six different clauses which are all designed to say the same thing. We all want to see a diverse range of programming on television but this charter says it in about six different ways. Somehow or other we are now to look at that square box in our lounge and see something that is going to add to our personal development. We are supposed to look at the square box in our lounge and see something that is supposed to add to our “ethical and spiritual understanding”. I say that it is a very very sad world when we expect a television to do all those things.  
In looking at the charter we see there are two ways it could be used—firstly for those suffering from insomnia it would probably put them to sleep and those suffering from depression would probably find that parts of it make them laugh— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If one was suffering from diarrhoea— 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I could not comment on that. Some of the things that have been overlooked are subjects quite dear to New Zealanders. For example sport barely gets a mention. We have all these different parts of the charter that deal with a lot of other different subjects but sport was an add-on at the end. Of course “independence of the media” was an add-on. That was something that really upset Television New Zealand because the independence of the media is something that it holds very dear to its heart. It was not until there was an absolute uproar that that was included and made clearer. We have a number of amendments on the Table which we will be asking people to support.