Kedgley Sue: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3745] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 This part deals not only with the charter but also with the structure and the Minister said that no one has asked any questions on it. So I would like to ask a question and it is this: could he possibly explain the logic for this eleventh-hour decision by Labour and United Future to split off the transmission arm of Television New Zealand which is called BCL Ltd. The former Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs described the transmission arm BCL as a wonderful golden goose. It has been a successful enterprise which has been contributing profits to TVNZ since its inception. So why would the Government want to split off the revenue-generating arm of TVNZ at this point in time? Why would the Government not allow the transmission arm to plough its profits back into the television business?  
The independent audit firm—Arthur Andersen and Co; an accounting firm I think—was asked by the Government to see whether there was a case for separating off the transmission arm BCL from TVNZ. The audit company studied this for some months—probably at great expense—and it came back with the advice to the Government that there is no compelling reason to do so. So why has the Government done it? The only compelling reason for splitting this off is to make it easier to sell off and to open it up to a future sale which of course is why the National Party and ACT support this particular clause.  
Selling off this BCL with its national network of 450 transmission sites built up over many years at taxpayer expense—is this what is the Government’s hidden intention? It obviously is—to sell off an asset to sell off BCL which will now be called Transmission Holdings Ltd. I would like the Minister to explain the logic of separating off the revenue potential of BCL at the very time when advertising revenue in the digital age is predicted to decline at the very time when we are asking it through the charter not to focus on ratings but rather on programmes. Where will this extra money come from? What is the logic? Would the Minister please explain the logic to me?  
The United Future member said what a great idea it was to split off this transmission arm. He said the people at TVNZ think that it is a good idea. Well here is what the people in the industry say. Not one person whom I have spoken to thinks there is any logic to it. The Screen Producers and Directors Association the industry body believes that the split will have a catastrophic effect in the long term and that it will irrevocably damage TVNZ’s potential to remain a strong national presence. It said: “We cannot see how such a move will do anything other than hobble TVNZ’s potential to deliver on charter obligations in a meaningful way.” So could the gentleman from United Future or the Minister please explain the logic behind this that so escapes the Green Party and all the members in the industry whom I have spoken to?  
I have a series of amendments to the charter. First of all there is one about adding the word “independent” to make it clear that when we talk about the film and television industry that we are referring to the independent industry. This is crucial because already the chief executive of this cash-strapped organisation TVNZ which is now trying to figure out how it will get its money for programming now that it has split off the transmission arm is flailing around and looking at the independent industry. It looks at it and thinks: “Oh ho! We can get some profits from the independent industry by revenue sharing with the independent industry.” Basically it means sharing in the independent copyright and so forth.  
This proposal of the chief executive would threaten the independent industry. Surely nobody here wants us to go back to obliterate this creative flourishing and independent industry of New Zealand—the television and film industry—and return to the days where TVNZ was an in-house basic enterprise. That is a very simple amendment and I hope that everyone here will support it. It means a great deal to the independent industry because it feels under threat from TVNZ.