Dalziel Lianne: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18276] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 “Good television needs faith. From everyone. The beginning is the most difficult part—finding the faith to have an idea to stick with it to believe in it—and believe that it will improve and endure. Then producers have to keep that faith not let it be diluted by doubters and skeptics nurture it give it time and respect—lead the crusade from the front. Once the idea is whole the commissioners and programmers need the faith to look outside the dogma that surrounds them and see the worth in the idea see a place for it—and believe other people will see that worth too. Then even when it finally gets on screen the spectators need more than a little faith to give it a first—and maybe a second and a third—chance before it can repay their trust by becoming something they value and love. 
And that’s the problem with the move to fully commercialise—then surely privatise—Television New Zealand. It shows that the government has no faith in local broadcasting no belief beyond that of its ability to make a profit. And without that faith everything else in the process becomes more difficult easier to avoid or refuse until eventually the faith is lost altogether. That is why the concept of the ‘State Broadcaster’ is still important in these fractured media days. It’s a symbol of the collective belief that local television is more than money-making space-filler. It’s a statement that the worth of New Zealand-made programmes is greater than the sum of the money that’s spent on them. It’s a belief that they are important to us belong to us. It shows faith—in ourselves our present—and our memories.” 
I wish I had said that. That was from a submission from Jonathan Brough director and editor and member of the Screen Directors Guild of New Zealand. He made that submission to the Commerce Committee which heard only 15 submissions on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. I think it is a shame that we heard so few submissions with only 55 submissions having been received. I think the reason the number of submissions was so low yet the quality of submissions received was so high was that the Minister had put his position at the outset of his comments on the second reading of this bill. Essentially the National Government has told the people of New Zealand that they are irrelevant that their views and input into the development of the charter that we had in place are irrelevant. The Government was progressing this legislation as the charter itself was being renegotiated with the people of New Zealand. This legislation is an absolute affront to democracy and I am proud of the fact that our party has taken a principled stance to oppose it—and oppose it we will. 
The reason that we oppose the legislation is also summed up in the reality of the functions of Television New Zealand that take over from the charter. We have heard two speakers from the Government say that it does not matter that the functions of Television New Zealand are “to be a successful national television and digital media company providing a range of content and services on a choice of delivery platforms and maintaining its commercial performance. In carrying out its functions TVNZ must provide high-quality content that—(a) is relevant to and enjoyed and valued by New Zealand audiences; and (b)”—and this is what replaces the charter—“encompasses both New Zealand and international content and reflects Maori perspectives.” 
I am sorry but that does not replace the charter which invites Television New Zealand—or in fact requires Television New Zealand—to “feature programming across all genres that informs entertains and educates New Zealand audiences”. It requires Television New Zealand to “strive always to set and maintain the highest standards of programme quality and editorial integrity”. It requires Television New Zealand to “provide shared experiences that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity”. Those requirements are somehow dealt with in the requirement that Television New Zealand “encompasses both New Zealand and international content and reflects Maori perspectives.” 
The requirement that Television New Zealand “reflects Maori perspectives” is replacing in the charter the requirement that it “ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice”. That is what Television New Zealand had to do under the charter. Now it simply has to reflect Maori perspectives. That is an embarrassment in this day and age especially with all of the debates that we have had in this Parliament around issues relating to Maori. I suspect that the Maori Party members will condemn this bill when they make their contribution to the debate. 
The Television New Zealand charter goes on to require that Television New Zealand “feature programming that serves the varied interests and informational needs and age groups within New Zealand society including tastes and interests not generally catered for by other national television broadcasters.” I do not see that requirement at all in this set of functions or the reference to its functions in the bill before us. 
In fact I find it rather interesting. The Screen Production and Development Association made a very interesting comment in its submission: “The current proposed wording of the Bill means that there is neither obligation nor commitment to the commissioning and screening of New Zealand local content. ‘Encompasses both New Zealand and international content’ does not mandate any actual commitment to significant local content. Given that international content is cheaper to purchase and those relationships with providers of offshore programming are contractually ongoing there is little or no need to legislate for the purchase of international product.” That is a very good point. If that was not written in the legislation do members think that Television New Zealand would stop buying international content? Of course it would not. It is local content that this legislation should be protecting because it does not happen just as a matter of course; it happens because there is a commitment to it. A number of countries of course have quotas through which those concerns are able to be addressed. 
The charter carries on to say that Television New Zealand has to “maintain a balance between programmes of general appeal and programmes of interest to smaller audiences” and “seek to extend the range of ideas and experiences available to New Zealanders”. Television New Zealand has to “play a leading role in New Zealand television by setting standards of programme quality and encouraging creative risk-taking and experiment”. It has to “play a leading role in New Zealand television by complying with free-to-air codes of broadcasting practise in particular any code with provisions on violence” and it has to “support and promote the talents and creative resources of New Zealanders and of the independent New Zealand film and television industry.” 
That is another point that was made very strongly in the Screen Production and Development Association submission. Basically it says: “A clear commitment to commissioning and screening of local content is imperative to the stability of the independent screen production sector.” I do not think that anyone could put that better. I think that is absolutely the problem in a nutshell. In fact the association goes on to say: “It is ironic that at a time when the importance of the film industry is being recognised and supported in New Zealand …”—well I saw the National Party bend over backwards to change the law of this country in order to support the film industry. At least that was the pretence that National used. It changed the law on that basis. We have large budget grants available for our film industry yet the bill we have in front of us can effectively undermine and remove support for the backbone of the film industry which is the independent television sector. The submission we heard loud and clear from the Screen Production and Development Association was that without a healthy vibrant television industry there is no film industry. 
I think the National members really have to take that message on board. I do not think anyone on the select committee was left with any doubt that this legislation is bad law. It stands in the way of the things we ought to be encouraging as a nation and it stops us from exploring all of the ways we can ensure our identity as a nation. I think this bill is a travesty and we will not support it.