Kedgley Sue: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18678] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Television New Zealand Amendment Bill is shameful legislation. It strips all the public service purposes from Television New Zealand (TVNZ) which will now exist for one purpose and one purpose only which is to return a dividend to the Government. So we are left with the dubious honour of being the only country in the OECD aside from Mexico that does not have a national public service mainstream broadcaster. Every other self-respecting democracy understands the importance of public service broadcasting to a healthy democracy and an informed society. There is public service television in the Middle East in Africa and all through Europe but in New Zealand it seems we do not need it. 
People are asking why this Government is so hostile to public service broadcasting. Why does this Government have an agenda? Why is it setting out to demolish public service broadcasting across New Zealand by firstly in this bill stripping TVNZ of all its public service responsibilities; secondly refusing to fund the last two remaining channels—TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7—so there will be no public service channels left; and thirdly deliberately starving Radio New Zealand of funding so that it will stay in a weakened state on the back foot and will ultimately be forced to commercialise? 
People are puzzled. What is the Government’s agenda in trying to demolish—actually not trying but demolishing—public service broadcasting? I want to speculate on the reasons. First of all the Government does not seem to understand the importance of having a truly independent impartial broadcaster that is free from commercial pressures and can speak out without fear or favour. In fact I do not think the Government wants a public broadcaster that can speak out without fear or favour. Government members do not seem to understand that if an entity is beholden to sponsors to advertisers then it is beholden to them and it will not bite the hand that feeds it. “Mazda Morning Report” for example will not turn round and criticise Mazda for any potential failures. Government members do not seem to see that. 
What Government members do understand extremely well is that they are committed to helping their mates in commercial broadcasting. Their mates in commercial broadcasting—two of whom have become Ministers; Steven Joyce and Maurice Williamson started their lives as commercial broadcasters—see public broadcasters as a threat. They resent the idea that Radio New Zealand for example should get taxpayers’ money. Commercial radio broadcasters do not want competition from a public broadcaster like Radio New Zealand. Brent Impey has been very upfront about this. They do not want the competition from them for market share but they do not want them competing for the advertising dollar either. 
What Government members want to do as far as I can see is try to remove as much public service broadcasting as they can—which is almost everything—and if they have to in the short term put up with Radio New Zealand they want to starve it of funding weaken it and keep it on the back foot. What they do not seem to accept is that public service broadcasting if it is not completely driven by television ratings can look at different ideas and different perspectives. It can look at the public interest and not just at ratings. People in TVNZ will tell us that basically the sole criterion of whether a programme will screen particularly in prime time on TVNZ is purely whether the sales department thinks it will produce ratings. That is the sole criterion of programmes on TVNZ. 
Here we have a Government that is intent on destroying public service broadcasting and helping its mates in commercial broadcasting. Clare Curran has spoken at some length about the fact that the Government has rushed to rescue MediaWorks the company Steven Joyce set up and a commercial competitor of TVNZ and is funding it. Actually it is subsidising it; not funding it directly. It is effectively funding it by subsidising it on a $43 million loan deferral scheme. So the agenda is quite blatant. The Government wants to do everything it can to help its mates in commercial broadcasting and it wants to do that by destroying public service broadcasting. 
There is one other matter I want to raise and it is the rather puzzling aspect of TVNZ’s strategy at the moment. Since TVNZ has been stripped of all its public service obligations it now exists only to make money. It told the recent financial review at the Commerce Committee that the main growth area for TVNZ’s business is now expected to be in pay television and it is planning to pitch even more channels to Sky television. Already it has two channels on Sky television and now its main growth focus is on pitching more channels. What is clear is that the Government also has an agenda to switch New Zealand away from free-to-air television to pay TV. Really it wants all of us if we want television to pay for it. The Government’s clear objective is to move away from free-to-air television and move to pay TV and I believe that it will use the whole digital switchover to move along this agenda. So I predict that not only will we not have public service broadcasting but we will not have free-to-air broadcasting; we will have only commercial broadcasting pay TV—that is the agenda. 
What would happen if for example TVNZ were to be sold which is clearly the Government’s agenda if it can find someone to sell it to and TV3 were to go bankrupt? We would be left simply with Sky television. What would happen? We would effectively end up with Fox Television in New Zealand. We would effectively end up with one commercially driven broadcaster owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox Television in America. We would end up with one broadcaster having a channel on which it can ensure a particular bias a particular right-wing bias. Anyone who has watched Fox Television knows that quite unequivocally. We can see the bias of Fox Television. We have to be realistic and say this is where we could end up in New Zealand now that the Government has succeeded in demolishing public service broadcasting is assisting its mates in commercial television and trying now to roll out the red carpet for Sky television. I notice that Sky television is now going to be able to compete— 
Paul Quinn 
: You are rich enough to be your own broadcaster. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Mr Chair could you please do something about that ridiculous backbencher Mr Paul Quinn who cannot do anything in this Chamber it seems except shout and seek to intervene. I request your protection from his shouting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Are you raising a point of order? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I am raising a point of order. I am sorry—thank you Mr Chair. I am asking you to protect me from the constant shouting— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —of that ridiculous member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. The member on her feet has made some comments that might be more political than specifically about Part 1. Firstly we have had a somewhat philosophical speech which is more a first reading speech shall we say. It has not dealt with the detail of Part 1 so there has been something of a response. I cannot control what the member says and the member then asks me to control what the interjections might be. I make that point. Secondly I make this point to those people who are interjecting. There is a decorum about “rare and reasonable” and I think the members did overstep that mark. 
Clare Curran 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have ruled on the point of order. I now ask Sue Kedgley to continue. 
Clare Curran 
: Can I— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is this another point of order? 
Clare Curran 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand there is a Standing Order that relates to a member who moves seats in the Chamber and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. I can help the member. Yes there is. There is quite a suite of Speakers’ rulings. It is not actually a Standing Order; it is a Speakers’ ruling. The one of pertinence is about members moving specifically to give themselves an advantage. I think it could well be argued in this case that if Mr Quinn was in his usual seat he would have a greater advantage— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is also the custom of the House that members coalesce into two groups on either side so I do not think we could say that the movement of the member is to enable a more effective interjection programme. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I believe that because the purpose of this bill is to strip TVNZ of its public service functions. I was speaking to that point. I was saying that having stripped TVNZ of its charter of its public service functions no doubt with a view to readying it for sale we could end up with effectively a foreign-controlled broadcaster running all of the television channels in New Zealand.