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:3732] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to be able to speak in this debate along with Katherine Rich the National Party broadcasting spokesperson. I want to echo the comments she made about Part 1 of the Television New Zealand Bill. Part 1 lists the purposes of this Act and they have changed quite remarkably from when the bill was first introduced. When the bill was first introduced it was all about providing Television New Zealand with a very complex three-board structure with two subsidiaries with various people having various cross-directorships. 
Katherine Rich 
: Dr Armstrong would have been on all three. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Dr Armstrong would have been on all three. But we now find that a Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled late in the day that provides for the splitting up of Television New Zealand into a television business and a transmission business. This is a quite fundamental change and about-face from the Government in recent times. Katharine Rich was the first person in the whole Television New Zealand debate to say that the transmission arm should be split off from the broadcast arm and she has been proved correct but I would like the Minister of Broadcasting to stand up and explain the remarkable about-face that we have seen in his tenure of the broadcasting portfolio. He was asked on the Media Watch television programme: “So the elements of the structure that we have now two commercial channels with BCL part of the same entity that’s set in stone?”. Mr Maharey replied: “Yes.” He said it was set in stone. He said that on the Media Watch programme on 25 August 2002. What a remarkable turn-round! 
The reason he has changed his position is the logic and the weight of the argument that Katharine Rich and the National Party in Opposition have brought to this bill. The Government simply could not withstand the weight of the argument. 
I would also like the Minister to stand up and explain the very generous references to Maori in clause 4. We are spending oodles of taxpayers’ money on a Maori television channel and now we find that the alternative channel will have to take lots of notice of Maori interests as well. Not only will there be a Maori television channel; the public service television channels will be dominated by Maori interests as well. Maori are not getting one channel; they are getting three. That is not what the Government promised the people of New Zealand. I want the Minister to stand up take a call and explain why Television New Zealand will have to take into account the aims and aspirations of Maori more than any other group in the community and where that sits with the fact that tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will provide a special channel for Maori. Why does Television New Zealand have to accept that responsibility which this Government has decided will be met through an independent television channel for Maori? I would like the Minister to get up and explain why some people can get two bites of the taxpayer cherry while others are shut out and get none of what is going on as a result of the segregationist approach that this Government wants to pursue throughout this country. 
I acknowledge the debate led by Katherine Rich that has led to the about-face by the Government. It is extraordinary that only 4 months ago the Minister was saying that the previous structure was set in stone. It is now a few months later and the Minister has done a complete 180-degree flip on that issue without giving any explanation to the people of New Zealand. We used to have a thing called the “Maharey principle” which refers to things people say when in Opposition that they do not really say when in Government. Now we have the “Maharey principle 2” which refers to things people say when in Government that they do not really say when they are in Government! Beat that! What a flip! Clearly this Government owes Parliament an explanation of why it has changed its position.