Jones Dail: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3736] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall consider this legislation from a New Zealand First point of view comparing its original purpose with its new purpose which is to split the company into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business. The previous speaker made an excellent point. Unfortunately for me he stole my thunder to some extent. I had also noticed that the original paragraph (c) in clause 3 made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was to “ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operate as a successful business:”. Whatever happens however it might be owned we can only say that that is an excellent proposal. But on Supplementary Order Paper 57 thrust upon us on 20 February there is no requirement that whatever is formed operates as a successful business. United Future says it is a party of business people. From time to time we have heard from Gordon Copeland about his business past. I would have thought that United Future members would insist that that provision be inserted in the bill. 
Again New Zealand first objects to the split of anything that would enable the Government of the day whatever one it might be to sell part of it. It might not be the immediate Government but if there is a change and those members become the socialists they really are they would possibly sell off this business or if they go back to the Roger Douglas style they might sell off the entity that has been created. If it is not created if there is no split it cannot be sold and New Zealand First opposes the split. 
I would have thought that United Future which so boldly said that the title should be the “Thank God for United Future Bill” would include in the purpose of the legislation—in keeping with what it says is its philosophy—that all future television programmes should be of a family nature supporting the family and the development of family life in New Zealand. There is nothing in this bill that promotes family life. United Future talks a lot about family life. In its coalition agreement discussions with the Labour Party I would have expected that United Future would insist that family life be referred to in the purpose of this legislation. New Zealand First will be putting an amendment at an appropriate time to require that the programming feature programmes of a family nature that support the family and development of family life in New Zealand. That is consistent with my member’s bill the Commission for the Family Bill which is waiting to be drawn in one of the ballots that are forthcoming. I expect United Future to support my amendment. That is the basis on which those members are here in this House. I expect the United Future members to stand up and vote for the amendment along with whoever else cares to vote for it ensuring that family life is given full status in this legislation and ensuring that the legislation is not silent on the subject as is the case with the charter at the present time. If United Future members were strong they should have in all their negotiations for which they are taking credit and with all their talk about family life insisted that a purpose of the Act be that family life is given priority in television programming. But they have failed to do so. It goes to show that they were really not thinking of this much. To utter what I regard as almost a profanity in saying that the bill should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill” and not to have the purpose of the bill take into account family life shows how little regard United Future really has for family life in New Zealand. 
The Government has thrust upon us Supplementary Order Paper 57. It could have done the dog legislation in the same way by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2). But no we see in relation to the Television New Zealand Bill a Supplementary Order Paper that makes a dramatic change to how this bill will operate and to the future of television in this country. The Government is prepared to do that for this television legislation but on a relatively minor issue the dog legislation it was not prepared to take the same course. Instead that bill ended up back at the Local Government and Environment Committee from which it will never arise again. 
That shows how the Government tries to impose its will on us by way of this Supplementary Order Paper to which the Minister of Broadcasting has not spoken. We have had no explanation from any Government speaker as I recall during this Committee stage as to what this Government intends by this bill. Maybe the Government does not really know what it intends. Has this legislation been drafted by United Future? Does only United Future know about this? Is the Labour Party totally ignorant of what is in it? The Labour members who are in this House might want to take the next call and explain to us what is meant by the various amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper and how they work. Surely Parliament is entitled to know what is in the mind of the Labour Party.