Culture and Heritage, Ministry—Confidence

Does she agree with Dr Cullen, who told a broadcasting conference last week that Trevor Mallard needs to look at accountability issues with regard to Television New Zealand (TVNZ), because as Dr Cullen said: “They receive funding for their charter programmes, but at the moment it’s not clear where the money goes.”?

Yes.

How can that answer mean anything other than that the Minister has been failing to do her job, given that accounting for TVNZ charter money is a specific responsibility of her ministry; and is not the confusion and mess around the spending of charter money the result of her not doing her job properly?

Fenton Darien Fenton Link to this

The Ministry for Culture and Heritage answers to five Ministers, and the confusion is in that member’s mind. What Dr Cullen clearly said was that Trevor Mallard as Minister of Broadcasting is responsible for portfolio matters relating to broadcasting, including the monitoring of the charter. There is deep confusion—a bit like Dr Brash not knowing about the Exclusive Brethren spending on his advertising.

Has the Minister seen any reports on the great work that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is doing?

Yes. This is a wonderful ministry, which does an enormous amount of work. It was recently reviewed by the Government Administration Committee, which had no matters to bring to the House’s attention. In addition to that, the ministry monitors and supports over 19 agencies, and does work on a wide range of sports, cultural, heritage, and other issues, including digital and book-form publishing. It is a wonderful ministry that is doing a lot of good work.

How can her answer to the first supplementary question mean anything other than that she is failing to do her job, because she cannot agree with Dr Cullen that the funding is not being monitored, then turn round and say that her ministry does monitor the funding; and is Labour not hopelessly confused on the issue of charter funding and broadcasting in general?

No. What Dr Cullen actually said was: “Broadcasting Minister Trevor Mallard needed to look at accountability issues with TVNZ.” What we do in this Government is look after our own portfolios.

Would the Minister say whether TVNZ is wrong when it says Dr Cullen is “confused” and his comments are “interesting, given that TVNZ has commercial dividend obligations to the Government”; if TVNZ is actually wrong, what does that say about the confused relationship between this Minister, TVNZ, the TVNZ shareholding Minister, and the Minister of Broadcasting?

I would say that TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards was wrong when she said Dr Cullen was confused. What he was talking about was charter funding; what she was talking about was Te Māngai Pāho funding. I think she is deeply confused, and TVNZ should, indeed, in my view—and, I believe, in Dr Cullen’s view—be doing more about Māori broadcasting other than through Te Māngai Pāho funding, using its charter funding.

Would the Minister explain to the House just exactly what the difference is in the television content on our screens after the charter compared with that before the charter; and how will it be different again after the so-called revised, redrafted charter, which is currently being worked on, is adopted?

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

I am searching for the ministerial responsibility, but we can have a general answer, perhaps.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to apply some consistency. Earlier in the questions in the House you allowed questions of the Minister of Revenue about student policy of over a decade ago, you allowed questions from a Government member to another Minister in respect of issues that were well outside his ministerial responsibility, in respect of an energy question that was actually about a different area, and now when it comes to a question from a National member there is a different set of rules. I simply ask for some consistency.

No, I am sorry Dr Smith. As I said, this is a difficult area, because there are several ministerial responsibilities. I have allowed all the supplementary questions so far, though they have strayed over the boundaries, because I think it is important that answers are given. But the last supplementary question was specific to TVNZ and broadcasting. I also said that the Minister could give a general answer, but she is not responsible for that particular area.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is responsible for monitoring charter funding. That is what this whole question is about, and all those supplementary questions have been relevant and directed to that Minister.

I have given my ruling, Dr Coleman.

I think these questions indicate the extraordinary lack of experience that that member of Parliament has about how the Government operates. He does not understand, for example, that the Ministry of Economic Development does consumer affairs, commerce, tourism, and telecommunications, and it does not answer to one Minister for all of those areas, just as the Ministry for Culture and Heritage answers to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, to the two Associate Ministers for Arts, Culture and Heritage, to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, and to the Minister of Broadcasting. Responding to ministerial portfolios is a very normal Government operation.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What this question actually illustrates is the Minister’s complete confusion about her responsibilities, and it is reflected completely in the confused broadcasting policy that the Government has.