Broadcasting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11665] 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Broadcasting 
: I move  
That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. 
The object of this bill is to bring New Zealand’s broadcasting funding agencies in line with the digital age. Internationally broadcasting is moving to digital transmission to the point where analogue transmission will be obsolete within a number of years. New Zealand too is moving with increasing speed to an era of digital-only broadcasts. At the same time broadcasting-like content is appearing on a variety of media and devices. Broadcasters and content creators are making use of these media or platforms to retain and expand their audiences and to serve them better. It is vital that our broadcasting infrastructure and ways of supporting local content remain relevant and effective in the new era. Our broadcasting funding agencies need to be able to respond to the opportunities and challenges of the digital world. They need to provide support and services to meet the changing needs and expectations of producers broadcasters and the New Zealand public. The bill will enable them to do so. 
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill will allow the broadcasting funding agencies New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho to fund the types of content archiving and transmission that are likely to be integral to digital radio and television platforms—platforms such as the Internet mobile phones and other mobile services—the common feature of which is that transmission occurs at the demand of the individual viewer or listener in contrast to traditional broadcasting. It is currently outside the scope of the Broadcasting Act 1989 for these agencies to fund content made or adapted specifically for such platforms. Nor are the agencies able to support the new platforms for the digital transmissions themselves or the archiving of content created specifically for digital platforms other than conventional television or radio. 
The Broadcasting Act’s definition of “broadcasting” simply does not extend to the increasing array of interactive and on-demand forms of distribution made possible by digital technology. Broadcasting is evolving steadily towards an era in which the audience will as a matter of course expect to access content through a choice of platforms and at times of their choosing. A range of broadcasters from national institutions like Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand to local access radio stations are increasingly using these platforms to reach their audiences in new ways. The exact pace and final outcome of this change in broadcasting are difficult to predict but experience to date indicates that the pace will be fast and the changes comprehensive. Our broadcasting agencies need to be equipped to respond to these developments. This bill therefore amends Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act relating to the functions of New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho—or the Broadcasting Commission and Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi to give their formal statutory names. It also adds certain terms in section 2(1) of the Act. A further important change made by the bill is to allow Te Mangai Paho to fund the archiving of Maori language and culture programmes in general. It has been anomalous that to date New Zealand On Air has had such a function in relation to general broadcast content while Te Mangai Paho has not. 
The Government’s public broadcasting policies collectively expressed in the broadcasting programme of action aim to maintain and strengthen the availability of public broadcasting content in the digital era. Public broadcasting content is broadly speaking content that a commercial market would not produce of its own accord and that serves the broadcasting needs of every section of the audience rather than only those of the most interest to advertisers. A rich variety of local content is of course a fundamental objective of any public broadcasting policy and it is crucial to its success. The key means of funding local content in New Zealand is the maintenance of distribution agencies allocating funding to producers and broadcasters on a largely contestable basis. 
The Government’s programme of action has provided for the re-examination of the functions of New Zealand On Air in order to identify where changes may be necessary to clarify its role and to permit it to support a more diverse range of content taking into account the new kinds of content made possible by the recent developments in broadcasting and communications technology. In collaboration with my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs this review has also embraced Te Mangai Paho the Maori broadcasting agency. The shift to a multi-platform world is a challenge for public broadcasting policy but it is also an excellent opportunity to provide the public with greater choice and richer content. Our re-examination of the two agencies’ functions goes hand in hand with our other policies to promote free-to-air digital broadcasting through the establishment of the FreeView platform and funding of the new non-commercial digital channels on TVNZ. The Government’s measures to improve New Zealand’s broadband capacity which will be vital to the development of Internet protocol television are another complementary area of policy. 
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill makes the changes necessary for our funding agency to be able to keep pace with these developments in broadcasting. It introduces a new definition of “content” and of “transmit on demand” in order to encompass types of content or producers of content intended for digital platforms that fall outside the Act’s current definitions of “broadcasting” and “programmes”. These existing definitions which also apply elsewhere in the Act will be retained but for the purposes of the two funding agencies they will be supplemented by the new terms. The bulk of the bill is concerned with permitting the two agencies to fund the desired forms of digital content transmission and archiving. It also extends to these new areas the Act’s existing provisions relating to the promotion of New Zealand content and the requirement for the agencies to consult various interests when making funding decisions. In addition it carries over the Act’s existing protection against ministerial interference in such decisions. 
The Broadcasting Amendment Bill is not intended to prompt radical change in the funding agencies’ operations or to expose them to a sudden increase in demand. The new functions are presented as supplementing and enhancing the delivery of their existing objectives which the bill deems to be primary. The aim is to allow the agencies themselves at their discretion to assess the way that broadcasting and other media are developing over the next few years and to adjust their own funding policies in a gradual and considered way. The bill has been developed in consultation with them. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 As the Minister has outlined the purpose of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is to amend the Broadcasting Act to allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programmes in a variety of formats for instance the Internet mobile phones video on demand etc. We still do not know what is coming down the line in any event so I suggest it is proper to be prepared. 
Currently the Broadcasting Act allows the two funding agencies New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho to fund programmes for television viewing only. This bill enables the change to allow them to fund new formats. The bill also changes Te Mangai Paho’s role to allow it to fund the archiving of Maori culture and language programmes. Currently New Zealand On Air is the only agency with the ability to do that. I acknowledge that that is a very important provision. Maori language and culture are key to New Zealand’s identity and it is very important that the proper archiving of Maori language and culture is accommodated. 
The bill was created to deal with rapid technological change in the broadcasting industry especially in terms of digital media. National supports the bill. We accept that in a digital environment there is a need to bring funding arrangements into line with modern and evolving broadcasting technology. It is sensible and proper to update arrangements. We also accept that publicly funded content needs to be available to the public whether through analog television the Internet or FreeView. However National would be concerned if this funding were used for programming that could be viewed only through a pay per view cellphone platform and we will be holding the Government to account on this issue. 
Of course funding for different formats is sensible but in the modern broadcasting environment content reigns supreme and until the Minister of Broadcasting gets his broadcasting policy online these provisions could be superfluous anyway. Minister Maharey’s performance to date has been woeful in National’s view. He was given a charter for Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to implement along with the commercial format and that has proved to be a disaster. This dual public broadcasting and commercial remit does not seem to have worked at all over the last 6 years and National on many occasions has pointed this out. Steve Maharey does not seem to have taken much note of it but as far as we are concerned in terms of content $80 million worth of public money has been seemingly going down a black hole every year. The proof of the pudding of course is that TV audiences are still dropping and at the same time the Government is trying to develop the digital platform. 
We acknowledge that that is a big job to do but the Minister has given very little real leadership to enable the public broadcaster to do this in a way whereby the viewing public of New Zealand who expect a decent public broadcaster—and whose money funds this development—can be confident that we in fact have a decent public broadcaster in our presence. So there is a lot of work to do and as I said the Minister has been a lacklustre leader in terms of the Government’s broadcasting policy. Although we recognise that these changes are probably necessary and make sense in terms of the bigger picture that needs to be addressed I think Steve Maharey for the short time he has left as the Minister of Broadcasting has a lot of work to do. So we are asking him what the plan is. What for instance will he do about improving local content on TVNZ? 
I recall the time when Rick Ellis came to the Maori Affairs Committee about 2 months ago. We wanted to know how he thought he was doing in terms of Maori programming on TVNZ in relation to his charter responsibilities and surprise surprise he thought he was doing great. He thought that programmes like  
Location Location Location 
 and  
Police Ten 7 
 and other programmes were satisfying the Maori content responsibility. What a laugh! What an absolute scandal! Just because there are Maori in prison on a TV programme he thought that that satisfied the Maori programme requirement on television. So as I said although the changes in this bill are sensible content reigns supreme when it comes to making them. The audiences will tell us that. They either watch or they do not and of course TVNZ audiences have been dropping away anyway. So there is another area in which the Minister has been very lacklustre.  
Game of Two Halves 
 with Mike King is a very funny sports programme that I watch and enjoy but I have to say that Mike King’s presence there does not a Maori programme make. 
There was nothing in TVNZ’s announcements 7 or 8 days ago about its new Maori programming format that gave me at least or I am sure any other Maori MP in this Chamber any confidence that it knew that tripling the number of hours is not necessarily improving local Maori content. Where is the funding for that anyway? It is all very well to announce that it will triple the hours for Maori programming but no funding is appearing to meet that. That is fine because as it says it will compete with Maori TV for the same putea so we will see how it does. 
Tripling the hours is one thing but getting decent local content is another. Perhaps TVNZ is going to triple the hours and have more ridiculous things. Maybe instead of one Maori family on  
Location Location Location 
 buying a house it will have two families; perhaps that is the way it is going to do it. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Kai Time 
 is on Maori Television I say to Dover Samuels. We are talking about TVNZ here. This is the broadcaster that gets $80 million worth of that member’s taxes and my taxes every year and has still to prove that it can properly manage its charter responsibilities and its commercial remit at the same time. So far it has not done that. 
Just to finish off in terms of Maori programming I say that TVNZ will be competing with Maori Television for the same putea the same pot of money. It does not deserve to get any if its content is not going to improve from the kinds of things it has produced in the past and that Rick Ellis has said was Maori programming. As I say it is scandalous that he should come to the select committee and sell those programmes as Maori programming. It is an insult to Maori audiences and it is an insult to New Zealand audiences actually. If the charter were working properly then every New Zealander and especially Maori would feel they were getting a perspective of the Maori world view that they might not otherwise get. That is what these kinds of changes are aimed at and that is what the charter funding is aimed at. Until the Minister of Broadcasting Minister Maharey winds the public broadcaster in the right direction then this is possibly designed to fail as well. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I think this Broadcasting Amendment Bill is a very good bill. It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker who was the one small voice in the National Party out of 48 who defended Maori Television when it was first established. As I recall National Party members are crystal clear that if they have their way Maori Television will be closed down. Have they made a clear and concise statement of apology to the people of New Zealand for their short-sighted criticism of what is now a wonderful television channel? I have to say that I find it absolutely ironic. Georgina te Heuheu was actually the best member in that caucus then. At least she raised one small voice in favour of Maori Television and I commend her for that. But please do not let me hear criticism of Maori Television content in terms of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) from the party opposite when those members themselves as I understand it have been dedicated to closing down Maori Television. Quite frankly I think their protestations with regard to Maori content on TVNZ ring hollow. 
I compliment the dynamic and energetic Minister of Broadcasting Steve Maharey who is more than equal to all the 48 members—or however many—National has over there in his vision and leadership in this portfolio. I also acknowledge the previous Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs for her energy drive and vision. Obviously this bill is very very important. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Let’s talk about TVNZ failing financially. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Oh members opposite are asking questions about TVNZ. I challenge them to stand in this House and give an unequivocal public guarantee that TVNZ will survive as a public service broadcaster in this country. The secret agenda is absolutely obvious. National will hock it off. This is the National Party that when in Government as I understand it was going to allow the former Concert Programme on Radio New Zealand to be contracted out. We should look very closely at National’s agenda. Its agenda very clearly would be to get rid of public service broadcasting in this country and certainly to get rid of TVNZ. 
TVNZ is not perfect but certainly it is adapting to and evolving with technology. I think the TVNZ ondemand website is very very good. If we are overseas we can click in and watch TVNZ’s breakfast programmes and its news programmes. I think TVNZ is doing a good job. I do not always agree with some of its programming but so be it. I am one who along with 4 million people from time to time would not agree with some of TVNZ’s programming. 
But instead of the Opposition—including the Wellington-based member—slamming and slagging off TVNZ why do those members not for once in their lives give it a bit of praise? Why do they not acknowledge the enormous creative energy of our public broadcaster in this country instead of slagging it off? The reason they are slagging it off of course in my view is that they are secretly preparing TVNZ for sale should National ever lead a future Government. 
I return to the content of the bill. I am enthusiastic about this bill because it is talking about the new era of broadcasting the new era of communications in this country. I think it is an excellent bill that will take us a step forward in terms of funding mechanisms acknowledging that we are now in the digital age and acknowledging that our children and grandchildren will be accessing our broadcast programming on their cellphones. 
I acknowledge that we are on the edge of digital radio in terms of overseas satellite radio. It is very important that the public the community should be part of that. We should be making sure that public broadcasters community broadcasters are adequately resourced and that even the other free-to-air channels have adequate means to ensure that their content in their programming can be transmitted through this new format. 
The previous speaker correctly talked about audience. I think one of the important things is to make sure that we reach different types of audiences and that is where again digital programming and digital content gives us so much more potential to go for specific audiences. I am a very strong supporter of the wonderful Community Radio Hamilton. Indeed just the other day I clicked into its live-web streaming on the Internet. I say well done to Phil Grey of Community Radio Hamilton; what an excellent radio station it is. I was listening to a young woman doing a youth programme at about 4 o’clock while I was working in my office and I thought how wonderful it was to be able to sit in my office in Wellington and tune into my community radio station—our community radio station in Hamilton—and hear the content. [ 
Interruption 
] I hope  
Hansard 
 records the member for Coromandel’s interjection. Is it not sad that she pooh-poohs these wonderful local initiatives? Frankly she should listen to Community Radio Hamilton and hear what a great service it provides for the Waikato. It is a good example of community broadcasting and I believe that it is those broadcasters that this bill in the medium and long term will help. 
The other positive thing to note is how wonderful it is that Triangle Television is now going up on to the satellite platform so that its particular programming will go right across New Zealand. Again I think this bill will free up the flexibilities of our funding agencies to look at the appropriate assistance for these kinds of public service and community broadcasters—free-to-air broadcasters—to vary their content. 
I know that Georgina te Heuheu supports me in thanking Maori Television. What a wonderful television station it is. Georgina te Heuheu in her heart of hearts would say that she is so sorry that Gerry Brownlee and others pooh-poohed it and were negative about its creation and beginning because it has evolved into a wonderful public service. Even my mother watches  
Ask Your Auntie 
 and all those wonderful programmes. Maori Television is a wonderful example of a creative public service channel. So it is really important that the technology moves with what is happening out there. 
How has all this come about—Maori Television better content for Television New Zealand TVNZ ondemand the growth of community access radio and getting Triangle Television for example on the satellite? Under whose leadership in Government has this occurred? It has occurred under the Labour-led Government. What was the record of the previous National Government? It was maybe going to hock off TVNZ if it had enough time. Certainly it was starting to dismantle and underfund it. This was the crowd that led Radio New Zealand to the wall. We are the Government that has funded public radio that has improved Radio New Zealand funding that has backed community and access radio and that has backed the new technology to ensure that we see ourselves as a country on air through new technology. 
I think this Broadcasting Amendment Bill is a very very good bill. I have to compliment Georgina te Heuheu on her speech which was good until she started to talk a bit negatively and to get a bit negative. She does not actually believe in it herself—she actually likes Steve Maharey. But I think she was making a very good contribution and I compliment her on it. I join with her and Mita Ririnui who is a very good Minister in hailing this legislation and saying that this is a great bill. I envy the members of the Commerce Committee who will be able to get their teeth into this really good bill. This is taking us forward as a country enabling us to see ourselves through the new medium of broadcasting. I think that is very important. I commend this bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would just like to take up from where the previous speaker left off. I think his name is Martin Gallagher. What did he say? He said: “I join with her.” and he was talking about the Hon Georgina te Heuheu from the National benches. Clearly he is feeling the pressure of being part of this Government and already he wants to jump ship. Well we have news for him! 
I too would like to extend my congratulations to my most excellent colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. In spite of what the member Martin Gallagher said we have some contrary views here. Experts are saying that Labour’s broadcasting policy is in tatters with Steve Maharey failing to front up to the public. So why under Steve Maharey’s stewardship of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) are 160 people being laid off and why are experienced news staff expressing serious doubts about the quality of news and current affairs? 
This is a huge bill of about three pages which again is really indicative of this Government’s failing position. It is bereft of ideas bereft of initiatives and bereft of policy. Its members are constantly hammering us for policy because they have no ideas of their own. They have no ideas of their own so they come out with a bill that is tantamount to about three pages in length. 
Let us look at those three pages. I note that clause 9 “Commission to have regard to Government policy” amends in subclause (2) section 44(2)(b) by omitting the words “current affairs programmes” and substituting the words “any current affairs programme or content”. The commission is to “have regard to Government policy” and “any current affairs programme or content”. So now the commission has to have regard to the Government’s policy on content. I just wonder what that will really mean for us in the future given the very sound words from my most honourable colleague Georgina te Heuheu who talked about Maori programming in relation to programmes such as  
Police Ten 7 Dancing with the Stars  
and  
Game of Two Halves 
. 
When we look at that one clause we then have to start thinking seriously about what the Government’s policy is. Is it going to be robust? That is another area where Steve Maharey has absolutely failed. He is saying that the charter is under review. Well we know that there are plenty of reviews going on currently because all that this Government can do is to have review after review. I do not know how many documents are out there in the public forum for consultation. I read another one just recently that said: “Carers tell us what you need and what works.” Hello! How many times have carers been asked that question? If we look at how many documents are out there for public input under this Government we will see that they cover just about every single subject one can think of. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: The public are fed up. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The public are absolutely fed up. They do not want more of this sort of thing but this bill is the best the Government can do. It has no charter yet because that is under review. The Government has no policy in regard to that issue. Mr Maharey is not moving that forward. 
This Government has brought in this three-page bill and clause 9(2) will amend section 44(2)(b) and substitute the words: “any current affairs programme or content”. Therefore content has to be considered by the Broadcasting Commission in light of Government policy. But how can that happen if the Government does not have any policy? That is bizarre in the extreme. 
The member Martin Gallagher claimed that everything was all sweet and rosy at TVNZ despite the launch of digital television. I have to say it is great that New Zealand may be keeping up with technology but I am sure that technology will have moved on by the time we catch up. That is just the nature of these things. All the Minister said about redundancies—the 160 people being laid off—was that it is an “employment issue”. He has refused to front up on that issue even though he and Labour have made some very strong statements about the quality of television at the State broadcaster and its responsibilities to regional New Zealand. On the one hand we have Martin Gallagher saying everything is fantastic at TVNZ and what a wonderful job it is doing and on the other hand the Government has made some very strong statements about the quality of television at the State broadcaster and its responsibilities to regional New Zealand. 
Martin Gallagher said I was pooh-poohing the proposals in the bill. No we are supporting the bill such as it is. However we understand that the Minister gets things wrong sometimes. When Martin Gallagher said he would love to join with her he was referring to the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. It is starting to look as though he wants to be on this side of the House rather than the other side. This is the sort of pressure that the Government is under and we are left with this sort of bill—three pages pretty much. 
I read the definition of “content” in clause 4 because at times we have to come back to the actual content of the bill. That is really quite important and I am sure all members would agree. In relation to transmitting on demand content means programmes visual images that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text and so on. Do members know what that is? I do; I looked it up. It means alphabet and numbers! 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: You had to look that up? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I did and I am not ashamed of the fact. I love using a dictionary because the English language is absolutely important. Alphanumeric means alphabet and numbers. So will we be seeing more of the alphabet and numbers on television? That is content and that is what the bill states in relation to transmitting on demand. Content also means “software intended to—(i) inform enlighten or entertain; or (ii) promote the interests of any person; or (iii) promote any product or service”. 
In that sense perhaps we will get to see a little bit more of Mike Moore. That would be interesting! He could become a star in his own right. I think he could command a whole programme—a series if you like. It could be written produced and performed by Mike Moore. That would be fantastic. We could do with a sequel. His comments have been most amusing for many New Zealanders lately and very entertaining. 
I am interested in the words “predominantly of alphanumeric text”. That means that the alphabet and numbers will take predominance over other visual content. I thought that was very interesting. I am sure all these matters will be considered by the Commerce Committee in depth. I am sure it will give close scrutiny to those phrases and the real intent of the bill. The smallest details can often contain the most serious consequences in terms of change. 
I would like to mention the Television New Zealand charter where confusion reigns. The chief executive officer and the political masters are constantly at odds which really flies in the face of the sorts of proclamations being made by Martin Gallagher. I would be concerned that the New Zealand public are being misled on that score. If Dr Cullen does not think that  
Dancing with the Stars 
 is charter programming but TVNZ thinks it is then what confidence can the public have in any of the charter statistics that are bandied about from time to time by Labour? It behoves us all to keep a very close eye on this three-page Broadcasting Amendment Bill; it is a very serious matter. National will support the bill going to the select committee. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa te Whare. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill gives the House a good chance a good opportunity to look back on some of the first principles of broadcasting in Aotearoa. When I talk about principles I am talking about those Treaty principles that both New Zealand First and Labour with their large bands of Tontos voted to dump from legislation but that Maori up and down the country hold fast to as the only validation of the Treaty in legislation in this country. 
This bill arises out of the broadcasting assets case  
New Zealand Maori Council v 
Attorney-General 
 of December 1993 where the Privy Council noted in its decision that “The Treaty records an agreement executed by the Crown and Maori which over 150 years later is of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand.” It is such an important point that it is worth repeating: “The Treaty records an agreement executed by the Crown and Maori which over 150 years later is of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand.” The Privy Council decision also stated: “Foremost among those ‘principles’ are the obligations which the Crown undertook of protecting and preserving Maori property including the Maori language as taonga in return for being recognised as the legitimate government of the whole nation by Maori.” It further stated: “Again if as is the case with the Maori language at the present time a taonga is in a vulnerable state this has to be taken into account by the Crown … and may well require the Crown to take especially vigorous action for its protection.” 
That is the basis from which we need to consider this bill. Does the bill include the vigorous action by which Maori language and culture will be promoted and protected? Does it bear in mind the constitutional importance of the Treaty? Does it deal properly with the obligations of the Crown to protect and preserve Maori property? It is with those guidelines in mind that the Maori Party will support the proposal to amend the Broadcasting Act 1989 to enable New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho to fund digital broadcasting content archiving and transmission. 
But we still ask the question: “Does it stack up against those criteria established by the Privy Council?”. Well the Minister of Maori Affairs thought so when he said on 26 July 2007 that: “Without a dedicated Maori digital television service there is the potential for a diminished presence of Maori language and culture in the lives of all New Zealanders” and gave the assurance particularly in relation to Maori television that “there will be no decrease in the amount of Maori language programming on the first channel”. The Minister’s words are important because the debate over Television New Zealand (TVNZ)’s Maori programming strategy suggests that some clear direction about Maori language programming across all channels is needed. 
The Maori Party supports the current framework for purchasing programmes and broadcast services through New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho. Both agencies continue to have a focus on Maori programmes and services and archiving of those programmes is a positive step. But we also firmly believe that Maori must have a greater say about the way that resources are allocated for the promotion of Maori language and culture through broadcasting. The TVNZ Maori programme tragedy is a classic example of the need for that. When it was first announced the increase in Maori programming hours sounded great but when one looked at the scheduling one quickly realised what a sham it really was. 
For example if we take  
Te Karere 
 TVNZ’s Maori news flagship we find it has never ever been treated by TVNZ as a news programme and its timing has always reflected that. For years it played second fiddle to sport getting shunted back to midnight whenever cricket was on. Then when cricket shifted to Sky  
Te Karere 
 got left out in the boonies—out in the kids’ programming slot at 4.30 p.m. and replayed at 6.05 a.m. on the following day. Now with TVNZ’s new Maori programming tragedy being announced in a blaze of publicity we find that  
Te Karere 
 is—wait for it; drum roll and all the rest of it—being dumped into an even worse slot. It is going to be out with the soaps at 3.45 in the afternoon and replayed at midnight and 5.45 a.m. for heaven’s sake! Then we find that  
Waka Huia 
 and  
Marae 
 TVNZ’s major Maori documentary and current affairs programmes have just been slashed in half and that  
Waka Huia 
 has just been shunted back into Sunday morning after slowly building a solid audience in its Saturday morning slot. That is just another insult to Maori programming. I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs to take steps to ensure that Maori language programming is not downgraded by people whose ignorance of Maori programming is already clear for all to see. 
The Sunday morning shuffle that TVNZ is engaged in with regard to  
Waka Huia 
 reminded me of a similar dance from a few years back so I had a look through the records and can members guess what I found? I found a  
Listener 
 article that described the time when  
Waka Huia 
 was pushed back from 11 a.m. on Sunday to 10 a.m. to make way for the life-changing New Zealand society - building revolutionary children’s programme  
Little House on the Prairie 
. It reported a comment from Hone Kaa a former presenter and co-producer of  
Waka Huia 
 who said at the time: “There are powers which determine when you might be seen … I think it’s about time those people started to realise that we are the indigenous tangata whenua and that maybe we ought to have priority over some of the American shit that we’re watching.” The date of that article was 28 March 1987—20 years ago—but it could have been written yesterday for all the progress that has not been made on Maori programming at Television New Zealand. 
The point is that this bill looks good and we support moves for video on demand interactivity reversioning and so on but it all means diddly-squat if the State broadcaster is using that process to relegate Maori programming to the twilight hours. That brings me back to the point of giving Maori a more direct stake in the growth of Maori language and culture through broadcasting. The Maori Television Service is an enormous achievement but the Government must continue to support the development of management and technical skills and experience within the industry and as well allow the service to grow its commitment to Maori language and culture. It is great that in its short life the Maori Television Service has taken prizes for best event coverage at the 2006 Qantas television awards awards for best documentaries people’s choice awards and other awards but we must not blind ourselves to the reality that TVNZ was fully absolutely and totally State-funded for 40 years whereas the Maori Television Service has only ever been part-funded for 5 years. Maori radio has not received an operational increase in its funding in almost 20 years. The Government needs to accept a great obligation to Maori broadcasting to ensure continuous and ongoing improvement in both radio and television. 
I also want to refer to the amendments in the bill to change Te Mangai Paho’s primary function by adding the archiving of Maori language and culture programmes to its role. I am reminded of a story from another trailblazing Maori broadcaster Ernie Leonard who said that while watching the elders walking up the steps of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art during the Te Maori exhibition the hairs rose on the back of his neck as he thought about what would happen if the plane carrying those people home crashed and they were all lost. Preserving and protecting our stories is absolutely vital to our future as a people and as a nation and is a development that we support fully. 
I leave us with one final comment. The Maori Party is gravely concerned that Maori language programme funding is already very tight in spite of the ruling of the Privy Council in spite of the statutory direction of the Broadcasting Act and in spite of the huge surpluses that TVNZ has run up. I have to ask the obvious questions. First what strategy does the Government have to provide annual increases in Maori broadcasting funding to support the development of management and technical skills and experience within the industry as well as allowing the Maori Television Service to grow its commitment to Maori language and culture? Second what funding increases have been determined to enable Maori radio and television to benefit properly from digital broadcast development? Third is Maori broadcasting expected to take on video on demand interactivity reversioning and digital broadcast content archiving and transmission without the funding to do so? Or will Maori broadcasting be expected to cut back even further to enable its funding to be used for mainstream digital broadcast development? Budget 2007 gave some money to Maori radio and the Maori Television Service but it falls well short of what is required to properly develop those services and their products and we hope to use the select committee process to raise those constitutional legal and financial issues to ensure that Maori broadcasting is not neutralised in this new digital era. Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker tena tatou katoa. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou. The Green Party will be supporting this bill although it must be said that we have not had any briefing on it. The bill seems to have been put rather hastily on the Order Paper today and we have not had the time to be briefed or to research it. Recently I asked the Minister some questions about its implications and he was not able to answer them. So with that caveat—that we do not fully understand the ramifications of this bill—we will seek to be on the select committee that considers it. We think this is a very important piece of legislation but we do not fully understand its implications. I will explain what I understand they are in the very brief time that we have had to come to grips with it and in the absence of any briefings. 
The digital revolution is well and truly upon us and it is good to see. Firstly Television One TV2 and TV3 are actually providing new digital free-to-air channels on FreeView and secondly the Government is recognising that in this bill by allowing funding for digital initiatives whether that is new digital platforms—and the bill outlines what some of those might be—interactivity or video on demand etc. The Minister did point out that there are rapid changes here so some new developments may be about to come upon us that we do not even know about today. It is good that the Government is responding proactively to the need to allocate funding and provide for the new digital initiatives and that it acknowledges we are well and truly in the digital age. The Minister talked about how we need to be ready to radically change and adapt to that. 
The positive from this as far as we can see is that the legislation will enable producers to apply for and get funding from New Zealand On Air for programmes that can be screened on these other platforms including the new digital channels—one of which is about to be launched very shortly. We think that that is a very positive development. But we understand that in so doing it will fundamentally change the way funding for New Zealand On Air is allocated. At present two things need to happen. Firstly a producer needs to have a good idea for a programme and secondly he or she needs to get a commitment from one of the main free-to-air broadcasters that that broadcaster will agree to screen the programme. Otherwise the producer will not be able to get funding from New Zealand On Air. So in our understanding this will radically change the process and there will no longer be a requirement as we understand it to get that agreement from one of the main broadcasters to fund a programme. 
We think that that probably is a very good idea. At the moment the requirement to get approval from—normally—Television One or TV3 to screen a programme has actually been something of a stranglehold for many small producers who have not been able to get that commitment. So we think it could help smaller producers to get the chance to develop ideas that have not yet had funding from New Zealand On Air. The thing is that it sounds reasonable to ask: “Well why not give publicly funded money—taxpayer-funded money—through New Zealand On Air only if a programme is going to be screened?”. That does seem fair and reasonable. The problem is that the people who are deciding what they are going to screen on television are not driven by what is high-quality intelligent programming; they are driven by what will maximise their profits what will please their advertisers and what will drive up their ratings. 
That has effectively been the driver for all programming on Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and explains why we have  
Agenda 
 on Saturday mornings  
Marae 
 in some obscure—I cannot remember what—time slot and  
Tagata Pasifika  
at 11 o’clock on a Thursday night; why we have the charter-funded programmes screened in very obscure time slots; and why we have New Zealand On Air funding going mainly to programmes such as  
Dancing with the Stars 
—programmes where the programmers above all are concerned with the advertisers. So this may usher a change—we do not fully understand—and if it does we think that is good. 
We note that the Minister has reminded us that—and it is referred to in the bill—one of the purposes of New Zealand On Air and indeed of public service broadcasting is to increase the amount of New Zealand content. Sadly this has not happened. We have New Zealand On Air and we have a charter. We were told that all of this would usher in a new era of quality New Zealand programming that would reflect New Zealand to New Zealanders. Instead what has happened since the charter was introduced is that the quality and the amount of New Zealand programmes have steadily declined. TVNZ does not appear to feel the need to even give lip service to the charter any more. TVNZ particularly TV2 has become almost indistinguishable from any other commercial television channel. Indeed I think TV2 is screening some absurdly low amount of local programming—something like 19 percent. So 80 percent or the vast majority of programmes on TV2 are foreign programmes such as repeat action programmes from America. We have to wonder what the point is of having public service television if all we are going to do for 80 percent of the time is screen inane foreign action programmes almost all from America. How does that reflect New Zealand to New Zealanders and how does it do all the other things that Television New Zealand’s statement of corporate intent and the charter say TVNZ should do? 
Of course the problem the fundamental flaw at the heart of TVNZ causing this terrible dilemma for the broadcaster is the dual conflicting remit on the one hand to make a profit and on the other to somehow or other be a public broadcaster. I think we are the only public broadcaster in the world other than Ireland that has this absurd dual remit. We know full well that producing commercial revenue is the overriding objective. We are even returning dividends to the Government—how absurd! The consequence is that on New Zealand television we have the lowest levels of local content of any country in the Western World by a country mile. England has 91 percent of local programming Italy has 83 percent and Canada has 75 percent. Even America has well in excess of 90 percent. And what do we have? We are down on something like 30 or 35 percent across channels and down to 19 percent on TV2. [ 
Interruption 
] 
These details are causing conniptions for Mr Mapp but I want to assure him that New Zealanders share the Greens’ dismay about the state of television in New Zealand about the lack of New Zealand programmes on New Zealand television and about the fact that we are swamped mostly with inane action-adventure programmes from America. Many many New Zealanders are questioning why TV2 the channel our young people watch has barely any local content whatsoever. Why is it that TV2 when it does have local content plays it almost in the middle of the night? 
These are fundamental questions and they are what we should be asking ourselves as we contemplate this Broadcasting Amendment Bill. The Green Party will certainly be raising these and other questions in the select committee. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand to take a call on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
I would like to refer to the purpose of this bill for the benefit of all those Aucklanders stuck in cars going along at 5 kilometres an hour who have another hour to go before they get home tonight. I want them to understand the purpose of the bill. I also speak to those mothers in their cars in Auckland tonight who have kids in the car and who have been in the car for half an hour. They have food they have drink and their cars are a bit of a tip because they do this every day. They are tuning into the radio because there is nothing else to do unless they put their iPods on and listen to music in their cars because we are in a technical age now—or if they were members of the Labour Government they would have their Walkmans on in the car and they would be listening to music and driving along with only another 48 minutes to go now that I have spoken for 2 minutes until they arrive home to make dinner for their families only to start all over again tomorrow in their cars taking an hour to get to work because the roads are so poor in Auckland. So I thank anyone who is tuning in this afternoon. 
The purpose of this bill—not many people have actually spoken to the purpose—is to allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programming in a variety of formats. Many of us around my age and even up to the age of 50 understand that digital programming is extremely important in New Zealand. It has actually been around for quite some time now. If I were just to go into the background of this bill briefly—for those still in their cars with their children who are just handing Moro bars into the back seat or apples whichever type of food they have in their car at the moment depending on whether they have come from sport or from picking up their children from after school— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Stop mumbling. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Russell Fairbrother is over there taking the mickey out of those poor mothers in their cars who are driving along listening to this tonight. That is what he thinks of those poor people in Auckland—not much. 
The Minister has said that the bill would keep Government funding up to pace with the move to digital technology by allowing agencies to fund such things as video on demand on the Internet and to adapt programmes and other content for alternative platforms like the Internet and mobile phones. I find it intriguing that this has not happened until 2007. I know we have had a history lesson today from Martin Gallagher. As always he referred back to 1910 1920 1940 1970 and especially the 1990s. He gets stuck on the 1990s when he speaks in the House and on what National did in the 1990s. Instead of talking about what the Labour Government is doing now or about its vision he continually goes back to the 1990s. 
But I do not want to give members a history lesson; I want to tell them that this bill is addressing the technical age that we are in today—the digital age that we are in today. That is a good thing. But I have to ask myself why after 8 years in Government this Government is addressing this now. I think I have had a cellphone for 10 years. I think I have had digital television for about the same amount of time and most people had it a lot earlier than our family because in our family we are a bit slow in catching up with technology compared with some of our friends. I am wondering why it has taken this Government 8 years to get this legislation here. Surely it would have been more relevant earlier on. It seems to take a while for this Government to get up to speed. But once Government members take off their Walkmans and put on their iPods they might come into the technology age with the rest of us. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What’s an iPod? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Labour does not know what they are yet. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: We realise that iPods are cutting edge for this Labour Government but some of us have had iPods for a little while now and understand the need for legislation to stay relevant with technology. 
 So that is basically the background of why this legislation is here. That is all very good. 
I spoke last night in the debate on the second reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. That legislation was brought about by the good National Party person Dr Jackie Blue who made this Government realise that once again it has been on the Government benches for 8 years. She put through a little tiny bit of legislation only 2 pages long but very concise and very well written by Dr Jackie Blue and by the select committee—because obviously that member’s bill went to the select committee. That bill was about making legislation relevant and current to the environment we are in now and was very very similar to this Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2007 which is a bill that could have happened 8 years ago when technology was moving but no the Walkman era and the Walkman Labour caucus were not quite there. But it is good to see it. 
We support this bill because it is actually good legislation. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Where were you in the 1990s? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Where was I in the 1990s? I say to Martin that I was just talking about the history lecture that he gives us every day he speaks in the House. We are talking about vision. We are talking about New Zealand’s future. We are talking about the people of New Zealand. Are the people of New Zealand really interested in Martin’s history of 1990? 
I say to those mothers who are in their cars in Auckland driving along the motorway with their children in the back handing back the drinks the apples and the oranges because the traffic is so horrific in Auckland that I know exactly how they feel when they have a car full of kids especially if they have been to a sports event and have half the soccer team in the car. Mothers give so much to our communities. They are out there in the sports clubs and schools. They have a car full of children. They are taking them from a soccer practice back home again and they are listening to this now on their radios. They are not interested in the 1990s; they are interested in 2007 in the future and in our vision. 
This National caucus has so much vision. In 2008 when National is sitting on the Government benches Labour will see our vision and how good we really are. We will not sit back and talk about what happened in 1910 1940 1970 or 1990—like the members over there do—because we have vision and we will go forward. We will be producing legislation that is relevant in the period in which it is actually produced and we will be moving forward with society and being relevant in people’s lives—unlike this current Labour Government which does not seem to understand what relevance is. 
I must say I am really concerned about the type of legislation that is coming through this Parliament. It is not about volume; it is about the quality of legislation. This bill is three pages long and it does not seem to be too bad. But what really concerns me is what happened about a month ago in this Parliament when for the first time in 12 years the Standing Orders were suspended. For those mothers in their cars who are absolutely intrigued to know what happens when the Standing Orders are suspended I can tell them that we have a process for legislation to make sure it goes through a system. It is a robust system to ensure that the public gets to understand and to make submissions on legislation before it is made into law. That is when it goes to a select committee. What people are listening to today is the debate on the first reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2007. From here it will go to a select committee. Then at the select committee those mothers in their cars who will be in traffic for the next 43 minutes I would say if they have been listening for the last 8 minutes will have an opportunity to give their opinion on this legislation. But when the Government suspended the Standing Orders last month it bypassed the public’s right to have input into legislation and bypassed the way we make law in New Zealand. 
It frightens me that something might happen to this bill before it gets to its third reading that it might go to a select committee—[ 
Interruption 
] It might. It might not go to a select committee. It might get submissions heard it might go to the second reading it might go to the Committee stage—but no the Government might want to whip it back attach another bill to it and sneak it through like a Trojan Horse just like it did with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill only 1 month ago. The senior whip over there is rubbing his head and scratching his hair—not that there is that much hair left; it is starting to disappear a little bit I have noticed—thinking: “The weathertight homes amendment bill … did we really suspend Standing Orders? And is that really important?”. I can tell members that it is important and that it brought this House into disrepute. It actually happened. I hope this legislation goes through without those problems. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.