McCully Murray: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
McCully Murray: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3816] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I am not surprised that members opposite are so anxious to shut this debate down before it has even started. I am delighted that we have several hours yet at our disposal before Part 4 is voted upon. This is a very important part. It is not physically a large part but it is a very important part as Ms Kedgley has just told the Committee. This is the part that provides the vehicle for political interference and it deserves proper scrutiny and might I say the courtesy of some answers to questions from the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey who I assume is still awake.  
I start by referring to the wording of clause 33 which is headed: “Shareholding Ministers must not give certain directions”. If we look at that we think that it is probably a replication of the provision that was in the previous legislation. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us whether it is because I would have been more convinced if that clause had started off with words like: “The Minister shall not” or “The Minister shall not under any circumstances”. But instead clause 33(1) starts off by stating: “Nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister”. In other words it does not prohibit the shareholding Minister from interfering in news or current affairs. It simply states that no authority is conferred on the Minister to interfere in news or current affairs in relation to the television company.  
I ask the Minister why we have that distinction. Why do we have a provision that does not prohibit such interference but merely stops short of providing any authority for such interference? The only explanation I can take from this is that the Minister actually has some intentions that he should disclose to the Committee before we vote on Part 4. Mr Franks gave the Committee the benefit of his very considerable expertise in relation to the Companies Act disciplines which would give the Minister a role to play in working some of the strings in relation to the television company. But I want to go a step further and look at some of the less formal opportunities.  
Before the Minister for State Owned Enterprises gets too excited about this I just say to him that this is by no means conjecture on my part. I am looking at things that have actually happened on that Minister’s watch in the last couple of years. The former chairman of Television New Zealand Dr Armstrong decided to go interfering informally in the newsroom driving the former head of news and current affairs overseas to a job at CNN. When challenged Dr Armstrong got a most expensive Queen’s Counsel—one of the most expensive in New Zealand—the favoured Kristy McDonald QC whose name has featured prominently in recent events. He also got an Oxford don who is a specialist in these areas to at vast expense to the company write opinions about how the board could find a way into the newsroom and about the propriety of the chairman and his fellow board members deciding to impose their own framework on the editorial shape of news and current affairs.  
That is the same chairman whom we have seen in the public arena interfering in the affairs of the company. What assurance can the Minister give that we will not see as a result of the open door provided by clause 33 a chairman of the type of Dr Armstrong deciding to issue his informal directions to the staff of Television New Zealand? What assurance can the Minister give? We have already seen the previous chairman of Television New Zealand initiate a complaint against the political staff of Television New Zealand resident in the gallery in this building and we all know that there were all sorts of levers working behind the scenes to try to find a technical means of upholding a small part of that complaint in order to try to find some sort of favour with the chairman. But I want to know from the Minister whether he can tell me of any part of clause 33 or any other clause in Part 4 that should give members of the Committee any comfort about the ability of any future chairman to work that same track.  
I am concerned that we have an open door for a board and a chairman to take private directions from a Minister of the Crown then go and put pressure on the editorial staff of Television New Zealand to deliver a product that meets the needs of their political masters. I challenge the Minister to stand and tell me how that is going to be prohibited by this bill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.