Coddington Deborah: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3733] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Television New Zealand Bill deals with the purpose of the bill which has now been totally changed by the Supplementary Order Paper we have just been given. The purpose of this bill is interesting because for the first time it brings in the dreaded word “charter” which we will get to later on in the Committee stage. Paragraph (b) of clause 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 57 states that the legislation will “ensure that the Crown entity responsible for the television business gives effect to its Charter while maintaining its commercial performance:”. Commercial performance is defined later on in this part but a tension is developed here. How can this Crown entity give effect to a charter that is trying desperately to please every single little sector of the public and at the same time maintain its commercial performance? There is absolutely no way that it can do that. 
Under the old bill before Supplementary Order Paper 57 came in there was a slight chance that that might happen. But now that BCL has been separated out and taken away the only way that Television New Zealand will get any funding is from the advertiser or from the taxpayer. We have already seen the Government commit $12 million to implement the charter. That $12 million has going to a business that was once a proud enterprise returning over $60 million a year in 1999. The Government already has to give it $12 million and that will increase because an enterprise like this cannot both be dependent upon advertising and try to be a public broadcaster. 
The ACT party would do away with this whole bill and sell Television New Zealand. Why do we need public broadcasting? What is the purpose of a public broadcaster? What is so special about television? Why does Labour not buy back all the publishing companies in New Zealand? There are many people who read more books than they watch television—probably including most of the people in this House. Books are enormously important in terms of seeing one’s own culture of seeing the Kiwi identity reflected—whatever “Kiwi identity” means; it is something defined by politicians. Why does not Labour buy all the publishing companies and deliver a charter to get rid of for one thing the secularisation of the State? That is a dangerous slippery slope that this bill goes down as we will see later. 
I see that the Minister of Broadcasting is not in the chair any more but perhaps the Minister who is now in the chair Jim Sutton could take a call and explain to us why Supplementary Order Paper 57 proposes to change the definition of “shareholding Ministers”. At one stage shareholding Ministers were defined as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Broadcasting but now that has changed to the “Minister of Finance and the Minister for the time being responsible for TVNZ”. What on earth does that mean? I call on the Minister to take a call and explain to us what that means. It is another one of those nebulous sorts of phrases that creep into legislation like this. For instance does it mean Parekura Horomia who might want to increase taxpayer funding for Maori programmes on Television New Zealand as well as the mythical elusive Scarlet Pimpernel - like Maori Television Service? Perhaps the Minister could take a call and explain to us what that means if indeed he knows. 
I will conclude by supporting Katherine Rich’s comment that the Minister of Broadcasting must be ashamed when he sees that the commencement date has changed from 1 July 2001. We see that time and time again with legislation that comes before this Committee.