Hutchison Paul: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3817] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Undoubtedly Part 4 of the Television New Zealand Bill deals with one of the most important aspects—“Ministers and editorial independence”. What we hear time and time again from reporters is that they are interfered with in terms of what they say by their Government. We hear that time and time again. It is worthwhile looking at the commentary on the bill and just re-going over the words that both ACT and National had to say in this respect. They said: “We are concerned that the new structure allows less independence from ministerial direction and a greater opportunity for ministerial interference.” Once the company is a Crown entity the Minister will be answerable to Parliament for the actions of the Television New Zealand Group and although not expected to manage the organisation the Minister will have a constitutional obligation to investigate and solve perceived problems with the company. The new structure will mean a greater amount of ministerial involvement and political interference in broadcasting than has been seen in this country for a very long time. Hence the appropriate name for this bill—“Ministerial Interference Television Bill”.  
It is important to realise the genesis of this bill—the sort of thinking that came about to have it encompass the various aspects that it does. I think it was probably from none other than the “mother of all control freaks”—the Prime Minister Helen Clark. Because in this bill we have a structure— first of all never before seen in this country; not a simple Crown entity but one that is sort of divided into three. We have a charter that affects all channels breathing down the neck of all sense of freedom and expression; and finally a signal of ministerial interference. No matter what is said in clause 31 giving the powers of the shareholding Minister in relation to Television New Zealand Group there can always be informal influences and I guess we have had that example with Dr Ross Armstrong who undoubtedly during the period of this Government went straight into the 
newsroom. So here we have a Government that on the surface has in clause 33 quite overt suggestions that there will be no formal influences. There is no way that informal influences from the board from board members from the chairman could not occur.  
In clause 34 there is really an example of just how ridiculous this bill has become in terms of the directions and the compliance costs. It states in clause 34(1): “Every direction given under section 31 or section 32 ... must be accompanied by a statement of the estimated expenditure to be incurred and revenue to be forgone by TVNZG or any of its subsidiaries.” That means that quantitative and qualitative performance measures must be incurred in looking at how well the charter is adhered to. When we think of the various combinations and permutations that are required by the charter to be quantitatively and qualitatively measured then the costs are almost infinite. If we take just one example the statement of intent requires that Television New Zealand will “provide independent comprehensive impartial and in-depth coverage and analysis of news and current affairs in New Zealand and throughout the world and of the activities of public and private institutions;”.