Ryall Tony: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3725] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and support my colleague Katherine Rich in opposing this appalling bill that dares to waste the time of this institution. I support the amendments that she foreshadowed about the re-titling of this bill. I agree with her that the bill should be re-titled the “Television New Zealand (Befuddlement) Bill” because it represents 4 years of studious thinking by Marian Hobbs. The reason that we think the title is not a fair reflection of this bill is that we are aware of the confusion and the delirium that has backed the bill. We are aware that the former Minister who wrote and was responsible for this bill stood up on her first day in Parliament and could not tell the difference between the chairman and the chief executive of Television New Zealand. I remember that. The reason I raise that now is that I want to ask how one can say that this is the Television New Zealand Bill when the promoting Minister did not know whether she was Arthur or Martha or who was the chairman and who was the chief executive of Television New Zealand.  
That is an important point because Television New Zealand used to be one of the best publicly owned businesses in this country. It generated substantial amounts of money that were used to pay for schools hospitals cancer treatment and all the public-good sorts of things that we in this House want to support. Television New Zealand used to generate tens of millions of dollars. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Could the member address the title please. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The point is that this company Television New Zealand used to generate so much money that the bill could be retitled the “Television New Zealand (Destruction of a Publicly Owned Cash Cow) Bill” because that is what this Government has done. That company used to generate tens of millions of dollars of dividends that were used to buy public-good services in the community and now that is wasted. Under the stewardship of this Government perpetuated by this legislation Television New Zealand is rapidly losing value and losing the premier position that it held in New Zealand broadcasting. It has ended up in befuddlement—a company that does not know where it is going and does not have any plans. All that it is focused on is its management. Does that not sound like the Government? Does that not sound like the very Government that is promoting this bill?  
So I support Katherine Rich. She single-handedly forced Marian Hobbs from the broadcasting portfolio. Katherine Rich is the person who should be in this House deciding on the future of Television New Zealand. I support her completely in her amendment to change the title of the bill. The present title does not reflect what this legislation will do. This bill is all about the continued destruction of value in Television New Zealand—so much so that the company has at times been running at a loss during the term of this Government and taxpayers have been deprived of tens of millions of dollars of dividend income that would have been much more appropriately spent and invested in other parts of the public service.  
During the rest of the debate on the title we will hear from my colleague the Hon David Carter. National intends to show why the bill’s title is a misnomer that does not fairly reflect the genesis or the progress of the bill. It is an absolute requirement for the title of any bill that it should clearly and fairly reflect the content of the bill. This legislation is not about preserving the value of Television New Zealand but about destroying the value of that company. It will deny the public an opportunity to receive those dividends and also deny them the opportunity of investing directly in a profitable broadcaster. This Government has destroyed the value of Television New Zealand. It is denying any future Parliament the opportunity to be involved in further capital investment.