Ardern Jacinda: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19651] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I believe this might be my first opportunity to speak on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. I will come back to the commencement date for this bill given that we are currently debating that clause. The current commencement we are looking at is post the Royal assent. I propose and I would be interested to hear the views of other members of this Committee that the good people of New Zealand should get the opportunity to vote on this matter via the general election.  
My rationale is that the Government has said that in terms of for instance its policy on asset sales it should go to the country and get a mandate for that particular policy. I would like to see a mandate for this policy. Why? Because ultimately there is such a significant change to our national broadcaster and to the mandate it is given from the Government that I think people should be given the opportunity to vote on this change in the same way as they are given the opportunity to vote on asset sales. There are some similarities. For instance the Government is proposing assets for sale that deliver I believe a 17 percent dividend roughly to the Government. We also require a significant dividend of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and have done so at the same time as we request that it fulfil its requirements under the TVNZ charter. 
Chris Hipkins 
: They’re selling Avalon. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Despite that they are still selling Avalon Studios—another similarity to the asset sale argument.  
As well as removing the charter basically this bill ensures that the primary focus of TVNZ—it was always a focus but the primary focus—will be its commercial priorities. The charter will be essentially replaced by a statement of functions which will include to “(a) provide for the functions of TVNZ the Crown entity responsible for conducting a television and digital media business; and (b) ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial performance;”. That is the purpose of the new legislation in a nutshell. That is it. There is not much wriggle room. It is very clear that the purpose now is solely commercial. That for me is an absolute tragedy.  
My colleagues have already pointed out the role of TVNZ as a place-shaper and there are additional flow-on effects. TVNZ in the past has had a role in providing programming that otherwise might not be provided if we were looking at a purely commercial role such as children’s programmes for instance. We have seen recently in fact that TVNZ has sold one of its most popular children’s programmes to Sky television which is a service that Kiwis have to pay for if they wish to access it.  
There are flow-on effects that are not just about place-shaping and are not just about what will be lost via the removal of the charter. Those flow-on effects are economic. The Government may have entrenched commercial priorities but I think it has actually neglected economic opportunities via TVNZ as a public broadcaster. What do I mean by that? Currently with regard to the film industry the Government is fine with backing a tax incentive regime that basically means that film companies will come to New Zealand to produce their films. Why? Because there is a natural flow-on effect when producing a film in New Zealand via employment of technical teams and of people working in computer generated imagery and animation not to mention the flow-on effect of crews finding accommodation in places where they are filming. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Caterers. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Caterers and so on. There is a long long list. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Key grips. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Key grips. I can see that my colleague— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Gaffers. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Good boys. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Gaffers and good boys. I can see that my colleagues are well versed in the various career opportunities in the film and television industries.  
Of course this effect is not unique to film. The flow-on effects of the screen industry are significant. Yet we do not seem willing to acknowledge that the Government is willing to invest in and incentivise film but it is not willing to invest in and incentivise television. For instance TVNZ 7 cost—what—$17 million over the run of its life. The flow-on effect through the screen and television industry according to some people working within TVNZ 7 is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  
Television also sustains the film industry—it sustains the film industry. We are not in a continual state of foreign film production in this country. We need an ongoing industry in order to keep all of the production people that my colleagues have named in full employment in between the filming of some rather large productions. What industry does that? Television. By narrowing the focus of TVNZ—