Rich Katherine: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3823] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I stand to speak about Part 5 which is euphemistically called “Miscellaneous”. In other words everything in the bill that did not quite fit anywhere else has been lumped into this particular part. I will start off with a few questions for the Minister and I would like to pick up on an issue that has been brought up previously by Sue Kedgley. I would like to ask the Minister again why we are going through the massive change that is in this legislation. This bill has been through a select committee process in which many many thoughtful submissions from various industry groups were heard. We heard about the structure. Most people did not agree with the structure. As I recall the situation Jane Wrightson from the Screen Production and Development Association called it clumsy and unworkable. But why this sudden change? The Minister did say that the structure was set in stone that it would not be changed—BCL would not be split from TVNZ—and that that was basically a done deal never to be revisited. It is quite interesting that suddenly the Government has agreed with the Opposition that that would never have worked and has put these changes in place.  
The next question is why we should go through the change of renaming BCL. If BCL is to be split off from TVNZ and turned into a State-owned enterprise as a definite organisation on its own why go through the rebranding process given that more money will have to be spent on the development of a brand and new letterheads and signage? That just seems to be a waste of money when BCL was always running separately. It was always running as an entity on its own.  
This part also refers to the statement of corporate intent so I would like to make a few comments about that. The introduction to that document states that on or about 1 March 2003 TVNZ will become a Crown-owned company and then the television business will begin to implement its proposed charter. Now we know that but it also states that on or about 1 July 2003 TVNZ will transfer its transmission business to the Crown and that that business will then become a stand-alone State-owned enterprise. I ask the Minister what is to happen in the 4 months between those two dates to BCL which is supposed to be totally commercial and motivated to generate a profit under the umbrella of a Crown-owned company. The whole argument for not having BCL under the TVNZ structure was that there were conflicting objectives—that it would not work. Yet for 4 months we are to see that structure actually working in practice. So what is to happen? How are BCL staff members supposed to manage their business in that interim period?  
The next point I would like to raise is about what it is to be a good employer. There are some bits to this part that I feel are quite outdated and I have some more questions for the Minister about them. One provision states that as a good employer TVNZ has to recognise the aims and aspirations employment requirements and need for greater involvement of Maori employees. It then goes on to state that TVNZ should demonstrate equal opportunities practices that will both enable the development of women ethnic or minority groups and people with disabilities and also firmly discourage discrimination. If all the groups I have just mentioned are totalled up we will find that that pretty much equates to a significant part of the population. In fact I think that it covers almost every group except European males.  
So I ask the Minister if TVNZ is to be a good employer where Mark Sainsbury fits into those criteria. What about John McDermott in Dunedin where I am from? What about Ewart Barnsley? Even Richard Long does not fit into that category. What about Stuart Dennison whom we remember from  
Nice One  
on television when I was growing up? He is in the sports section. He does not fit into any of those categories. Even Ian Fraser himself does not fit into any of those categories. So it seems that Television New Zealand is trying to be a good employer for almost everybody except the poor group of much-maligned pale males.  
My final point about this part is that it repeals the State-owned Enterprises Amendment Act (No 4) 1988. That is one of the sad things about this legislation. TVNZ will no longer act as a State-owned enterprise.