Wall Louisa: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wall Louisa: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18286] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the very clear and rational articulation of the Labour position on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill which is obviously to not support it. I have attended one Commerce Committee meeting which was this afternoon so I feel more than capable of contributing to this debate. 
The TVNZ charter is not the problem. Members on that side of the House want to make it the problem but the reality is that it is not the problem. There is no empirical evidence or clear rationale about what is broken. National just wants to dismantle our current broadcasting framework because it was a Labour initiative and because the Government wants TVNZ to make money. It is all about the money. On this side of the House we want TVNZ to make good-quality local programmes that provide the framework for our creative industry. We want to employ people unlike members on that side of the House who love to sack people. We want New Zealand - made programmes. That is what we want TVNZ to do and that is what the Television New Zealand charter instructs TVNZ to do. 
I will provide a little bit of history. The TVNZ charter came into effect on 1 March 2003. It established the principles of TVNZ as a free-to-air broadcaster committed to broadcasting content that includes all genres and that informs entertains and educates New Zealand audiences. TVNZ is supposed to “contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity”. We do not ask TVNZ to show us the money like they do over on that side of the House. We ask it to show us the depth and breadth of New Zealand. The charter does this by ensuring that New Zealanders see New Zealanders on television. 
How does TVNZ do that? It does that by fostering programmes that enable all New Zealanders to have access to material that promotes Maori language and culture by reflecting the regions to the nation as a whole and by promoting understanding of the diversity of cultures that make up New Zealand’s population. If we let the market do it I am sure the content will be very white and bland. We will not see Maoris we will not see Indians we will not see Asians and we will not see Pacific people because that party on the other side of the House does not care about representing all of New Zealand. It just wants to represent some of New Zealand—probably the part of New Zealand that receives $44 million every week in tax cuts. Those cuts do not go to the people Su’a William Sio and I represent. 
The leader of National John Key—let us get it right; he is the leader of National—has said those guys over there were abolishing the Television New Zealand charter because it was not working. He said there had been a number of inquiries. I will go immediately to an article by Peter Thompson. He is a senior lecturer at Unitec in the school of communication and he has been monitoring TVNZ since 1999 looking at how it balances its public service and commercial responsibilities. He said John Key has got his facts wrong. Oh what a surprise! John Key got his facts wrong. Mr Thompson said there was only ever one inquiry and that inquiry did not say the charter was not working. Actually it said that New Zealand content had increased. 
I love how National does not like looking at history all the time. Under the last Government the Commerce Committee which was chaired by National’s very own Gerry Brownlee actually did review the charter because there is a statutory requirement to do that. Unlike the 15 submissions that the current Commerce Committee received that select committee received 286 submissions—286 submissions that actually said the charter was working well. The charter was endorsed by the Commerce Committee. I love this quote: “any sensible Government in a democratic society should embrace not eschew the broad cultural and civic aims of the Charter.” But that is not what the other side of the House likes to do. They like to throw things out with the bathwater. That quote is from this particular paper. 
Peter Thompson also says in his paper that “National’s drive to dismantle the centrepiece of Labour’s public broadcasting initiatives appears to be motivated by ideology not empirical evidence”—surprise surprise—“and it is currently proceeding with indecent haste in the hope that the Charter will be dead and buried before anyone gets round to generating a rational debate on the issues.” I guess that is what we are engaged in at the moment—a rational debate. Well one would hope we are anyway. 
From our perspective I think we have been very clear in articulating that this legislation is very much about money which is what National is all about. This legislation is about privatising a State asset which we are obviously completely opposed to. Why are we opposed to it? Because for us the opportunities our State broadcaster provides are actually a framework for a whole industry that enables New Zealanders to reflect the diversity and the depth and breadth of our New Zealand identity. It encompasses Maori culture; it encompasses Pacific culture. In fact it is really interesting to look at some of the wonderful programmes the charter has delivered such as  
Face to Face 
  
Agenda 
 and  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson 
. 
Under the charter we have also—historically—been able to see the memorial proceedings for Sir Edmund Hillary. Imagine if we were to reflect the commercial imperative today. I wonder what corporate would actually want to publicly fund the Sir Edmund memorial for all New Zealanders to see. That is a really interesting question to ask. If this legislation goes ahead and TVNZ becomes a commercial entity who will pay for that? Who will pay for coverage of the Maori Queen or the Unknown Warrior? There have been many many opportunities for New Zealanders to see ourselves because of the charter. 
I will skip to the final paragraph in Peter Thompson’s very informative analysis. He says: “Ultimately then the shortcomings of the TVNZ Charter arrangements do not constitute an excuse to reject the desirability of the values and outcomes it aspired to. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The government may claim a mandate for change but its mandate is to fix the mistakes of the Labour government’s broadcasting policies not to abandon public service ideals and revert to the commercial excesses of the 1990s. The cheap and cheerful rhetoric about an exciting hi-tech media environment and policies for the future and the casual dismissal of academic objections as unworldly idealism is intended to stifle open public debate. Because National knows … that empirical evidence and reason will demonstrate that its broadcasting policies cannot deliver the public outcomes it claims and that the real impediment to establishing public service television in New Zealand is the chronic deficit in political vision and will.” 
We see that chronic deficit in political vision and will across that side of the House every single day. We have seen it in the Minister of Broadcasting; we see it in the Government’s leader. I love that term: “the chronic deficit in political vision and will”. The Government has no regard for who we are as New Zealanders. I do not think those members care. I do not actually think they care. 
That is me I think. I think I have given it a good go. Hopefully Trevor will be marking me highly. I’ve mentioned a few of the things that are very important to us. Thank you very much.