Alexander Marc: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3748] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to speak on a few things. First of all we remain unhappy with some of the wording of the provisions contained in the charter and we acknowledge some of the comments made from right throughout the House. We believe— 
Stephen Franks 
: Well why vote for it? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I ask the member to hang on. We believe that this was an opportunity to provide for TVNZ not only to set standards in the protection of young children in particular from exploitative advertising and violent programming but also to pull other broadcasters in the same direction by being a leader.  
I have an amendment that addresses some of those concerns about children who are the ones most easily exploited by the media. We are well aware of the Advertising Standards Authority and its guide to standards and of TVNZ’s adherence to the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s codes of practice but we remain unconvinced that that is sufficient. We view the imposition of this charter as an opportunity to compel TVNZ to lift its game and become a leader in those areas. The Commerce Committee in considering those matters held that they might be better achieved outside the charter with an external monitoring regime. Yet at the same time committee members acknowledged how expensive such an undertaking would be—in other words how difficult it would be to find funding for it and to show its effectiveness.  
We further support the Greens’ amendment to add the word “independent” to subparagraph (x) of clause 10(2)(a). That is a much-needed addition in order to ensure the development and long-term stability of our small but excellent film and television production industry. With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 57 and the comments before about family-friendly programming I say one does not necessarily have to use the word “family” in order to achieve the same ending and objectives. I hope that my amendment will go through because that addition will help to protect those who are the most vulnerable at the hands of the media.  
The question as to why TVNZ will be split up in this way is fairly simple. We had an overall board that oversaw the TVNZ board and the Transmission Holdings Ltd board which made absolutely no sense at all especially when one considers that someone like Ross Armstrong was in fact thinking in terms of having an office at each of those organisations. We got rid of the overseeing board; it was an additional cost that did not make any sense. Liberating Transmission Holdings from the rest of TVNZ made good sense because that insulated it from the financial cannibalism that could have occurred had a potential Minister in charge of TVNZ decided at great expense on politically correct programming that three people in New Zealand would watch and by subterfuge accounting for the expense of that with Transmission Holdings money—money that should rightfully be left in that company in its own business interests. Therefore it seemed a good idea to split the two organisations up and to have any Minister with a conflict of interest who wished to pump money from one into the other being required to stand up and be held accountable for those sorts of decisions instead of leaving them in the back rooms and allowing the kind of financial cannibalism that could have taken place. We have liberated the business of Transmission Holdings and ensured its survivability and profitability.  
We have allowed TVNZ through the charter the opportunity to be a leader. United Future is unclear about some of the goals in the charter. We are not happy with some of the language used in it and in particular with clause 16(2)(a)(iv) which states: to “ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice;”. What on earth does that mean? I have absolutely no idea. I defy anybody to tell me what that means. There are quite a few politically correct phrases in the charter and a lot of them will undoubtedly be duplicated in the efforts to put together the Maori Television Service. I am unclear as to why we need that duplication unless we are of the opinion that Maori television will not go ahead and this legislation is the back-door way of bringing it to the public. 
Stephen Franks 
: So why are you voting for it? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Because overall this bill in conjunction— 
Stephen Franks 
: You are voting for something when you don’t know what it means. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The member should hang on. In conjunction with Supplementary Order Paper 57 the bill makes sense.  
Stephen Franks 
: Oh yeah? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Yes it does. We have liberated the business aspect and allowed it to flourish without the interference of Ministers who could potentially cannibalise it. We also have a charter that has the potential to lead this country in broadcasting.