Kedgley Sue: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11675] 
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.