Heatley Phil: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3812] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for acknowledging seniority. Members can see the concern steaming from my eyes about Part 4 “Ministers and editorial independence”. I am angry and the Chair can see that and I am enthusiastically taking the call. 
Part 4 is all about Helen Clark looking good on television although the good news—and members should pay attention—is that this State control is not as serious as that in Zimbabwe by Mugabe. It is not as bad as that and that is good news. Members should celebrate that and we do. This is not as bad as what Mugabe has in Zimbabwe. 
I am very interested in what I would call circular accountability. I am interested in clause 31 “Powers of shareholding Ministers in relation to TVNZG” which states “(1) The shareholding Ministers may by written notice to the TVNZG board—(a) direct the board to include in ... its statement of intent any provision or provisions of a kind referred to in section 26;”. So the Minister may direct the board on issues to do with section 26. When one goes to section 26 one finds it is all about the functions or objectives of the TVNZG subsidiaries. When I go back to clause 31 I notice that in subclause (3) there is accountability for Ministers who interfere. It states: “Before giving any notice ... the shareholding Ministers must have regard to the objectives and functions”. In other words the Ministers may change the objectives and functions as outlined in clause 26 but must also have regard to them when they do that. It is a sort of circular accountability. They can change them with regard to them; with regard to them they can change them. I want to know what type of accountability that is. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: That’s the question. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is what Murray McCully wants to know. Clause 33 is interesting. It is headed: “Shareholding Ministers must not give certain directions” and states that nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister to give a direction to a board member with regard to programming or gathering or presenting news or programming standards. Yet subclause (2) states that no director of TVNZG can be removed for any reason relating to programming or gathering or presenting news or programming standards. I bet that he can be removed if he takes direction from a Minister. Surely if a Minister breaks the rules outlined in clause 33(1) and gets his or her head chopped off—if a Minister’s speeches have to be read by the Prime Minister and he or she is muscled—and a board member responds to him or her surely that board member can be removed. I would like the Minister to take a call on that. If that first rule is broken by a Minister giving direction to a board member then surely a board member responding to that direction can be removed. 
I am concerned about Ministers and editorial independence. I know that this is all about Helen Clark looking good on television. There is a message here: soft lenses and soft lighting will not help—one cannot airbrush television. The Minister in the chair may very well laugh but New Zealanders are very concerned about the independence that we get through our televisions hear through our radios and read in our newspapers. The Minister needs to answer some serious questions firstly about circular accountability and secondly about the accountability of directors who take direction from Ministers unlawfully.