Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): There was one point that the member who's resumed her seat Ingrid Leary has made that I can agree with and that is that independent media is extremely important. It's a cornerstone of our democracy. That's why it actually needs to be independent. I don't think that the sort of charter and the sort of rule-making that this Government has shown itself capable of doing particularly around the public media fund otherwise known as the media slush fund of $55 million a year is actually something that we could say is indicative of independent media. We've seen blog-sters getting it we've seen it all the way through and we've seen a recurring theme of control of the media and this bill will not lessen that. In fact it will increase it because instead of having two publicly owned entities in TVNZ and Radio New Zealand it will now be one. So there is actually another removal of another source of information.I don't agree with the previous speaker that this is the biggest shake-up in media that we've seen. The biggest shake-up in the media is actually social media and there's a reason that people go to YouTube; there's a reason that people go to social media. It's that there is now a general distrust of the mainstream media information. When the member cited—what was it?—48 percent of people who replied to a poll said they trusted the news well that's not 50 percent or 58 percent or 100 percent; it is actually 48 percent. It's less than half. That is actually a damning indictment on the fact that mainstream media has lost a lot of credibility and particularly during the last few years. It has been incumbent on social media to provide alternative views. And it actually gives me almost the chills to hear the member speaking about misinformation. Well I've heard a lot of misinformation this week in the House. I've heard misinformation on mainstream media on Radio New Zealand on Television New Zealand other media attacking and saying what the National Government would be doing around certain laws. Well that's just absolute garbage and they know that and yet they still repeat it and that's your mainstream media for you.When we look at things like for instance Radio New Zealand how many people now listen to Morning Report people under the age of 30? How many people under the age of 40 listen to Morning Report? In my office I might have coined the phrase Moaning Report" but that's actually because most people want to have a more upbeat view of the world and they want to be able to see about all the wonderful things in New Zealand including our wonderful environment our mostly lovely people and our opportunities that we don't have in many other parts of the world. And yes they might be wanting to complain about the current Government but generally most people in New Zealand are a pretty content lot in terms of their acceptance that we have a three-year election cycle and that they can actually do something about it if they don't like it. They don't have to riot; they can just go off and wait a few years and sort it all out. But does this bill really come back to what the purpose is which is creating this new fit for purpose—I mean looking at Moaning—Morning Report I should say; I correct myself. Morning Report on TV is not going to do it. Does this mean that there is no more Morning Report? Does this mean that we won't have to have that? That's not that bad I suppose. That's a good side! But is there going to be something worse? What is going to be the result? Does that mean we're not going to have breakfast TV—absolute trivia that gets popped out on that?Who are these people that people mostly trust in the media? Well actually Mike Hosking. I find him good to listen to in the morning. I find him good to listen to and the thing is he has the ability and the people who pay to listen to him—in other words the commercial providers—can tell him they don't like him and he loses his job if they don't like him. That's not something that this new entity at the vast cost of over $300 million is going to do. I mean who's in this? I just heard before that nobody is going to be made redundant in this merger. Actually Melissa Lee has said that she's not sure that that could possibly be true but I think she's possibly wrong. Yes nobody will be made redundant; in fact more people will be employed to service the new entity because they absolutely could not bring any discipline that the private sector would. When we look at most mergers and acquisitions they actually fail and they fail when we take two dysfunctional organisations and put them together and then expect that magically a better culture and work environment will result from that. It doesn't work like that. Two negatives will not make a positive; they will make another negative and that's what this will be.And we like to think an idea of Clare Curran's might actually have had its time—a long time ago possibly and it didn't go very far. Now it has come back again finally after—what?—five years of talking about it into this new thing. And we'll always remember the Carol Hirschfeld - Clare Curran thing about this which Melissa Lee did a very good job of highlighting. Then apparently this is going to be truly independent. Oh really? A board appointed by this Government? I see even the working group thing—whatever it is they call them these days—setting it up. There's so much vested interest in there—so much vested interest in what's going on. It is really important for people to remember that media if it wants to be relevant has to be modernised. This is not modernising it. It has to be something that people want to watch. When people who are 30—40 even—get their news off Aljazeera or some of us a bit older than that also and other overseas—Hon Member: Sky TV?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —yes Sky TV and all of those; the BBC even—it's because we actually want to have real stories like actually news not trivia not what somebody's child did today not what somebody wore today. I don't care about that. I don't think many people do. What I do want to know is what's going to happen to our country what's happening in the economy what's happening for opportunities what's happening in technology—you know really interesting stories.Is this going to deliver it? You look at the charter—no. The charter that this Government has put through in their public media fund—aka the slush fund—what that has actually done is even more trivialise the media. Look at the rubbish that we see in Stuff. Look at the rubbish we see in the New Zealand Herald. Look at that. And yes there are some shiny examples of brilliance that we see with people like Anne Gibson and a few people like her but when we have the sort of nonsense that we see as media where are they looking at some of the big issues that the Government could be confronting? When are they asking about child poverty? When are they asking about housing? Why are they not putting the blowtorch on the Government? Why are they always putting the blowtorch on the Opposition? It's very hard for people to say that there is any independence in the mainstream media currently paid for by the taxpayer. And the only way to get it—and I'm pleased that they're going to be able to apparently now sell some commercials. Good luck with that! It's really important though that people understand that—why should they be able to sell commercials and still get backed up via the taxpayer? I don't understand that. They're competing on an entirely unlevel playing field.And I know that the Labour Party is all upset because they think it's a brilliant idea. If it was so brilliant why didn't they try it five years ago? It shouldn't just be because it was the Hon Clare Curran's.Dr Deborah Russell: Let Clare Curran go.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member Deborah Russell suggests that I let Clare Curran go. Well I certainly have and so did they. That's fine. She's a lovely human being but let's just focus on this.Dr Deborah Russell: Move on—move on.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Move on? All right I'm moving on. This is a ridiculous bill. It is a solution looking for a problem and the problem in this case is the fact that the mainstream media particularly those owned by the taxpayer the public sector—New Zealanders have left them. And the reason that they're leaving them is because they're no longer seen as relevant because they're not seen as unbiased because they are seen as being basically puppets to the Government and when they consistently and totally go down those lines they're going to continue to lose more people. If they're not relevant now to 20-year-olds or 23-year-olds or 26-year-olds or 36-year-olds they're not going to be relevant in another 20 years' time."