Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15229] 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Following his answer yesterday that the $450000 “equity investment” into  
NZ Idol 
 was a “very normal contract for New Zealand On Air. It funds programmes in this way frequently.” how many loans has New Zealand On Air provided television programme makers and how many of those loans have been paid back in full? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 New Zealand On Air does not make loans. It is normal for New Zealand On Air to take an equity position in a funded project. Returns on a project come from a variety of sources such as overseas sales and merchandising. If a programme is profitable money will flow back to New Zealand On Air under those arrangements. Examples of these arrangements are the recent TV3 drama  
The Strip 
 the first 4 years of  
Shortland Street 
 and the recent movie  
Whale Rider 
. In the last two cases New Zealand On Air has made a return on those investments. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does the Minister explain this $450000 “equity investment” being needed as Jo Tyndall said as a “kick-start” otherwise “it is unlikely the programme could have been made in New Zealand” when the contract to provide this money was not signed until a week before the show ended? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that the relative cost of putting  
NZ Idol 
 to air was approximately nine times more than the cost of an overseas programme like  
American Idol 
. The reason the money was not paid later was not unusual: Television New Zealand understood that it had access to that money that arrangement was made it went ahead and started with the programme a number of changes were made later on—as we know there were add-ons to the programme as it went along—and the money was paid. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have this trouble with this particular Minister quite a lot. If you read yesterday’s  
Hansard 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member come to the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I would if I was not interrupted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the member being interrupted but he assures me that he was. He will not be any more. 
Rodney Hide 
: The question was not about when the money was paid; it was about when the contract was signed. There was no contract to pay the money. The Minister talked about when the money was paid. The question was about the signing of the contract which was not signed until a week before the production finished. That was the point of the question. He can burble on about when the money was paid until the cows come home but it is not addressing my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought he did in the last sentence he gave. 
Moana Mackey 
: How exactly does the New Zealand On Air system work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Producers seek the support of a broadcaster for a proposed programme and approach New Zealand On Air for funding. New Zealand On Air provides funding as an equity investment under a contract providing that if the programme generates unforeseen revenue from such things as sales or merchandising New Zealand On Air will receive a return on its investment. An equity investment is partly or wholly repayable to New Zealand On Air if certain conditions in the funding contract in respect of the programme’s profitability are met. In the case of  
NZ Idol 
—a fantastically successful programme—New Zealand On Air is entitled to repayments on a first-out basis against its investment. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the New Zealand On Air chief executive officer Jo Tyndall received the full reports that she was expecting “shortly” from TVNZ back in April; if not when are those full reports actually expected to be made? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said in the House yesterday all of the arrangements around that programme have not been completed yet such as knowing whether overseas sales will take place and the report has not been completed yet. But she will get one. It is a very normal process. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How does he square his answer yesterday when he said “… if  
NZ Idol 
 generates more revenue than it has cost to produce then New Zealand On Air is entitled to repayments on a first-out basis against its investment.” with a letter from the New Zealand On Air chief executive officer Jo Tyndall dated 15 August 2003 which states: “The board will contribute to  
NZ Idol 
 in the form of a loan with the requirement that this loan is first out in the event that any revenue results from the programme.”; and given that commitment why has New Zealand On Air not got its money back? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The arrangement made here is an equity investment which allows the organisation to get first-out status if there is money to be paid back. As I said that is something that has happened with other programmes. TV3 has two programmes currently running of that sort. Originally the question was one of a loan because of the difficulties of using the  
Idol 
 format in New Zealand. South Pacific Pictures which eventually made the programme could not get access to that format and make it itself because of contractual obligations. TVNZ asked for a loan to be able to do it. That did not work so it moved back to a normal contractual arrangement with the kinds of things we have talked about here today. In other words it reconciles extremely easily. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Which statement on the payback threshold is correct: his answer yesterday that New Zealand On Air would receive its money back if there were sufficient profits or an internal New Zealand On Air email dated 16 March 2004 which states: “The agreement was that it remains the same’’—that is the payback threshold—“regardless of the increase in the overall budgeted costs. Therefore the draft still refers to New Zealand On Air’s funds being repaid once the programme revenue exceeds [blanked out figure].”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: At the risk of trying the House’s patience let me answer again. The loan arrangement that was originally discussed did not go ahead. What did go ahead was an equity investment arrangement with a first-out arrangement. That is what I said yesterday that is what I am saying today and that is the arrangement that prevails. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it not the case that this $450000 of equity investment in TVNZ has been entirely eaten up by payments to the franchise holder Simon Fuller and that this money has just served to line the pocket of a multimillionaire international music tycoon or is this Minister prepared to say that New Zealand On Air is first out before Simon Fuller? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This money went to make a programme watched by 1 million New Zealanders. There were 300 performers and 10000 people were involved in the programme. It was fantastically successful. We back young people. That member may not but we will carry on doing so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now come to the question asked. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not going to speculate on the wild claims as usual made by the ACT leader. I am going to say that the money went towards kick-starting a fantastically successful programme. That is my answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an outrageous answer from a Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that member there can call out and I know she will get away with it in this House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I try to be reasonable over this. When the last point of order was raised comments were made from the other side of the House and I ignored them. I did not think there was an interruption at that point. The member will please come to his point of order because at present there is not one. 
Rodney Hide 
: My point of order is quite simple. The Minister is required to address the question. He never attempted to. In fact he started off by saying he would not and what you do Mr Speaker is allow that to happen. What is the point? The question was quite simple: is it not the case that this has happened? The answer was: “Look I am not prepared to speculate on that.” and then he went on to say what a great show the programme was. He should address in this House the questions that MPs have of this Government and you should be enforcing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes—I am. Let me just say first of all that that is why I asked the Minister to go further with his answer and he certainly addressed the question at that stage. 
Rodney Hide 
: He went no further. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did. He addressed that question. It might not have satisfied the member but it satisfied me as far as his addressing the question was concerned. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it your ruling that a Minister after being directed by you to provide a fuller answer can stand up and say: “I am not prepared to speculate. I am not prepared to comment on the wild speculations of that member.” and that is a fuller answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am saying that it adequately addresses the question. It does not mean it is satisfactory as far as any member in this House is concerned. That is not my job. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So it is quite possible in this House during question time for a Minister to stand up and say: “Look I am not prepared to comment on that question.” and sit down and you would accept that day after day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I would not. I will judge each case on its merits. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table a letter from New Zealand On Air dated 16 August 2003 and an internal email from New Zealand On Air dated 16 March 2004 which set out that the payback threshold is different from what the Minister claims. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to pick up a little on the point Rodney Hide was making. I know that you have given your rulings but I am asking you to take some time to consider whether the Speakers’ rulings to date are satisfactory for the House at the present time. While it might be that a Minister does not have to give an answer and that a Minister can simply stand and recite a nursery rhyme or some other such thing and can consider that to have been addressing the question the reality is that the public has an expectation that when questions are asked about a matter where there is a public interest an answer that is consistent with that public interest will be given—and our Standing Orders do require that. I think that over a period of time particularly this year it has been evident that Ministers are simply tired of the process cannot be bothered or in the worst cases just do not want to give the information that is being sought by the Opposition. I think that in order to protect and preserve the dignity of this House and the integrity of question time some reconsideration of Speakers’ rulings at this point is necessary with perhaps some new guidance from you about how members’ questions should be dealt with. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am always prepared to consider requests such as the member makes. He has made a proper request and I will certainly give a considered opinion. As far as I am concerned I have been ruling in much the same way as I have been since I was appointed Speaker. If I go back to previous Speakers I think they did much the same. I refer the member to pages 144 to 147 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is exactly what I was asking you to do— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will consider the matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We just ask you to consider whether in this day and age the Speakers’ rulings are adequate because anybody can get on the Internet and find out anything in 5 minutes but Ministers cannot come to the House and give an answer to a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member is now debating. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Referring to the point of order raised by the member I draw to your attention Standing Order 370(1)and also Speaker’s ruling 145/6. It would seem to me that as part of the consideration you are about to give to the point Mr Brownlee raised you might also want to reflect upon the appropriateness of the Speaker being set up in the way he would have you set up—to be effectively the ultimate judge and arbiter of the merits of any reply. It is one thing to address a question but another thing altogether to determine who decides the merits of the answer being given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I could not have put it better myself.