Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3811] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I had hoped the Minister of Broadcasting would wait until people had asked questions so that when he did take a call there would be an opportunity for him to answer them. However he got in first. He has already answered the question that I want to pose. He has just told us that in no circumstance ever will a Minister be allowed to do anything to interfere in programming. He claims that this bill is the Government’s best effort at this. 
Clause 33 states: “Nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister to give a direction to TVNZG or to any of its subsidiaries or to any director or officer or employee of TVNZG or of any of its subsidiaries in respect of—(a) a particular programme or programmes ... (2) the gathering or presentation of news ... or (c) programme standards.” Is it deliberate is it just cute or is it simply incompetence that the whole clause begins with the words: “Nothing in this Act”? TVNZ is a company and the Companies Act has a whole set of provisions allowing shareholders to interfere with the control of companies for very good reason. It has provisions allowing shareholders to pass resolutions telling the company how they want it to be run. It has provisions allowing the removal of directors at will. It has provisions allowing the passing of resolutions to govern financial policy. The Companies Act—and this organisation is going to be a company—has everything that any Minister could ever want in order to control TVNZ. I ask the Minister whether it is deliberate that this clause starts with the words: “Nothing in this Act”. It could have said: “No minister shall”; it could have said: “Nothing in this Act or any other law”; or it could have said: “Nothing in this Act or the constitution of the company”. There are other places in this bill that refer to the constitution of the company. There are other places that contemplate the company requiring the Minister to do things and to recognise that company law governs. But clause 33 states very explicitly “Nothing in this Act”. 
It then goes on with some fairly limited things: “No director of TVNZG ... may be removed for any reason relating to—(a) a particular programme or a particular allegation”. What about a stream of allegations? What about a general tenor of programmes? What about a persistent series of complaints that the Minister or Cabinet has about promotion? What about appointments that are not popular? What about people who are responsible not for programme standards or the gathering or presentation of news but media commentary? None of those things are covered. If this was a charter for independence if the Minister was not deliberately misleading this Committee in saying as he did in his last speech that in no circumstances would a Minister ever be allowed to do anything to interfere those provisions would be very different from what they are. 
I can only say that the Minister is either deliberately misconstruing this or is utterly incompetent. Clause 33 is no charter of independence. The very first thing that any lawyer wanting to interfere with TVNZ would ask is whether it has performed satisfactorily commercially whether it has observed the charter standard for example to “provide shared experiences that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity;”. If someone wants to attack its new standards that person just has to tell it that it has not been upholding New Zealand’s shared citizenship and sense of national identity. I certainly do not feel very identified with New Zealand when I have had a whole stream of news pointing out how incompetently something is being managed or run. It is very easy to decide to sack a director because he or she has not upheld one of these vacuous charter standards. 
This clause is not a standard for independence. Katherine Rich has some modifications. If I had been more aware of this bill earlier I might have tried drafting some myself. I will vote for them. They make a very minor improvement. But I tell Ms Rich that I am afraid they do not deal with the fundamental problem which is that this provision very cutely refers only to the powers exercisable under this Act when TVNZ is actually controlled under the Companies Act. TVNZ actually is under control because it will no longer have its own independent budget. When it loses the bit that is being carved out TVNZ will go cap in hand to the Government every year or every 6 months depending on how much it gives it.