Jones Dail: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3879] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I say at the outset that we will be opposing the bill. I immediately take up the point made by David Benson-Pope the senior Government whip. He talked about a long gestation period for the bill. The gestation period for this bill began on 20 February 2003 barely a week ago. The bill we are being made to pass by the Labour Party the Progressives and United Future is a totally different bill from that which was introduced into the House on 11 December 2001. It had its first reading in December 2001 it was reported back from the Commerce Committee on 23 April 2002 and its second reading was on 16 October 2002.  
The bill has had no gestation period. I could describe it in many ways that would be totally out of order but clearly it has not been gestated in any way whatsoever. The bill deserves a gestation period and when the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced it should have been referred back to the Commerce Committee so that submissions could be heard and we could hear what the public really thought about it. For the Hon Judith Tizard to say that the public support this bill is an absolute nonsense. The public do not know what is in the bill because largely it has been here only 7 days. The Hon Judith Tizard has absolutely no idea what is in it. She knows as much about the bill as she does about the people of Auckland and their needs—absolutely nothing. No opportunity has been given to the public to consider this legislation. In fact I remember the days when if one behaved like that Geoffrey Palmer would get up and talk about  
Unbridled Power 
.  
This is a clear example of unbridled power by the Labour Party and the United Future party. In less than a year—almost 6 months—the United Future party has taken part in one of the greatest examples of unbridled power one will ever see. A Supplementary Order Paper was brought in changing the bill dramatically from what the select committee suggested and the bill has been ripped through the House in 7 days. That is unbridled power. Of course it is to do with the fourth estate—the most important part of our constitutional process. We would have expected anything to do with control of the fourth estate to go back to a select committee. But no Mr Murray Smith—a lawyer in the United Future party—is not concerned about constitutional matters. The United Future party in general has no regard for the way in which this minority Labour Government is pushing this bill through the House. We are sure that United Future stands to gain something by passing it through the House.  
In fewer than 7 days we have seen a dramatic change in the way in which the bill will operate and the United Future party and the Labour Party Government do not give two hoots about it. We have gone from the provision of a Television New Zealand Crown entity group consisting of a Crown company holding company with two subsidiaries one of which conducts a television business and the other a transmission business to a situation whereby the legislation provides for the existing State enterprise Television New Zealand to be split into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business. I believe that is a dramatic change in the legislation and I believe that the people of New Zealand were entitled to make submissions on it. Those people have been deprived by United Future and by the minority Labour Government of having the matter properly considered by a select committee. Why was that the case? Were they concerned? I cannot use other words to describe the way in which they might think about it. Were they so greatly concerned that there would be a public uproar about it that they did not want it to go before a select committee? One can only wonder because that chance will not be given to us now.  
One of the interesting things about the bill when it was introduced was that it stated in clause 3(c) that the purpose of the bill was to: “ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operates as a successful business:”. That provision has been deleted from the bill. There is no requirement that either part of those new organisations should be commercially successful. Well we know that the one that will not be getting any funds will not be commercially successful. It is doomed from today. They will be going to the respective Minister and the Prime Minister with their hands out asking for more money.  
Someone has mentioned the situation of the Muldoon administration of which I was a part. It came into power only at the end of 1975. For many many years the licence fee through many many Governments was a political hot potato: “Oh no you haven’t been good to us so I don’t think we’ll increase it this year.” That would go on for ever. Various Governments of various hues were involved in what to do with the licence fee. Finally of course it was removed. But whenever a State organisation is dependent in some form or another on the Government for funds one cannot say that the Government will not have some influence on how the media the fourth estate would operate—in this case the television industry.  
The minority Labour Government supported by United Future is leaving our State television system wide open to Government abuse based on the facts as we already know them in New Zealand over many many years. It is an absolute disgrace. Constitutionally it is a disgrace. State television is not meant to be run commercially and it is leaving itself wide open to Government influence. [ 
Interruption 
]  
During the course of the Committee stage which the Hon Judith Tizard who is trying to interject had little influence upon New Zealand First supported a catholic range of amendments to the charter. We felt that it was important that all the ideas put forward by members of this House should be incorporated in the charter. Essentially the charter is just a load of baloney. It will do absolutely nothing. The charter is just a load of baloney. It uses some fancy fancy words but at the end of the day it is a load of baloney. The charter contains some very interesting things but most of it is just absolute rubbish. For example it states that TVNZ will feature programming that contributes towards intellectual scientific cultural spiritual and ethical development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders promotes informed and many-sided debate and stimulates critical thought thereby enhancing opportunities for citizens to participate in community national and international life. That is one of about 25 things that are incorporated in the charter. Another one states that it will include in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests. How does one possibly do something like that in the one programme? It is an absolute nonsense.  
One of the things that New Zealand First was very concerned about was that there is nothing in the charter that promotes family life. I am disappointed that United Future which has made such a feature of family life when it took so much credit for the new legislation that was introduced last Thursday and when it took credit for its dealings with Michael Cullen failed in all of those dealings to ensure that family life was included in the charter. Despite the fact that the charter is baloney one would have thought that United Future members might have given at least some consideration to having family life included as one of the things that the charter must consider—the promotion and the support of family life.  
I moved an amendment stating that the charter would feature programming of a family nature that supports the family and the development of family life in New Zealand. Regrettably that amendment was lost. One can only try.  
It was opposed by the Labour Party. Darren Hughes the new Labour Party member for Otaki who was the Labour Party whip at the time who voted for the Labour Party saying no he did not support family life. I wonder whether the people of Horowhenua know that their young new member thinks that family life should not be included in something like this. ACT opposed it and the Green Party opposed it. I raised the matter of family support specifically because it is something that is dear to my heart and it has been since 1976 when I first became a member in this House. I supported a Green amendment that included the need to give regard to the environment which was defeated by all other parties in the House. Only the Greens and New Zealand First supported it. I also supported an amendment from Mr Alexander from United Future about violence.  
We are concerned that those organisations have been set up so that they can be sold off. That really is one of the 15 foundation principles of New Zealand First. The way in which those two entities have been set up and established is a prime way for this New Zealand minority Labour Government to sell off anything that is profitable as it has done in the past. I did not hear the Minister Mr Maharey deny that point when he spoke. That is our concern as well. I predict that this minority Labour Government will try to do that in the future.