6. Question No. 6—Broadcasting and MediaDAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister for Broadcasting and MediaQuestion No. 6—Broadcasting and Media6. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Can he name any new services which can be provided under his public media merger but cannot be provided without it; if so what are they?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): The bill ensures that current TVNZ and RNZ media services will remain. But I thank the member for catching up and realising that there will be new services that come from a new public media entity. That could not occur within the current funding and structure. As that member has identified the new entity will be able to create new services that ensure our stories our news and our voices can continue to be told in a changing media landscape. What these new services are won't be determined by me—as the Opposition know—as the Minister because we wouldn't want to interfere in things; they will be determined by the new entity. That is only right.Damien Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very specific and on notice asking what new services specifically were able to be provided by the merger but can't be provided without it. It was not asking about what they will do which I'm aware is up to the entity to decide but what this merger enables them to do that they can't do without it.SPEAKER: Yeah I'm going to agree with you and I shall give the member two extra supplementaries to examine the Minister.Damien Smith: So Minister if it can't provide new services that you can't outline why are you spending hundreds of millions of dollars as well as creating huge uncertainty for employees and the industry all for an entity that can't even provide any new services as specified?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There will be new services. I cannot stipulate what the programmes are going to be. I'm not the programme director. That will be the role of the management and the new entity. Why we are spending on this merger is because the Opposition have underspent on media for decades as they have underspent on health education employment and everything.SPEAKER: Order! That was a straight-up question and the Minister went totally political on it; he shouldn't do that.Damien Smith: In light of not answering that why does the Minister repeatedly refer to the need to compete with international streaming services as justification for the $360 million merger and has the Minister been briefed that TVNZ already runs a streaming service without any need for his expensive merger?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I've been briefed by TVNZ. I meet with the CEO quite regularly. So yes absolutely. It's about survival—it's about survival. The global giants are applying pressure like we've never seen before. The way that New Zealanders are consuming their media is quite different. So we have to build a sustainable media entity a strong media entity a New Zealand public media entity that needs to be invested in. We will be doing that and we will be doing that over the next few years.David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker the Minister didn't actually address the question. The question was about whether he was aware that there was already a streaming service. He said he met with the CEO he said it was about survival; he didn't acknowledge whether he was aware of that or not or address it.SPEAKER: I will ask the member to ask that question again and we'll have the answer.Damien Smith: Thank you Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister repeatedly refer to the need to compete with international streaming services as a justification for the $360 million merger and has the Minister been briefed that TVNZ already runs a streaming service without any need for his expensive merger?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes I have been briefed by TVNZ and I am aware of what they're doing in terms of their streaming services. I will repeat again: this is an opportunity in terms of survival. Our media is under pressure. Our major media TVNZ has been losing money for a number of years now. We need to support them. We need to get a New Zealand voice out. New Zealanders need to see themselves; they need to hear themselves Mr Luxon and we're proud to set up this new merger.Damien Smith: I look forward to seeing the Minister on Survivor.SPEAKER: Order! No don't start off a question like that. You've just lost one.Damien Smith: Does the Minister intend his merged entity to compete with Netflix and if so is competing with a $100 billion multinational corporation to which New Zealanders already have access seriously a good use of hundreds of millions of Kiwis' hard-earned dollars?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again answering the member's question we do not want to roll over for global giants. We want to set up and strengthen the public media entity here. This is what this is about. I'm disappointed that that member wants to give away the New Zealand story to global giants. It's not about that. It's about looking after New Zealand media—TVNZ and RNZ coming together—investing once and setting the foundation and setting up the future for New Zealand media. This is a great investment. It's sad the National Party has not invested properly. Shame on the National Party.David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. The poor National Party have had nothing to do with the questioning. It's completely unfair to bring them into the debate and is contrary to Speakers' rulings.SPEAKER: And normally I would agree with that but the out of order interjections coming across are bound to get a reaction and they did.Damien Smith: Why has his merger bill not been subject to cost-benefit analysis and is it because using $360 million of taxpayers' money to compete with several-hundred-billion-dollar companies would have been laughed out of Treasury as a horror show?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Can you repeat the question please?Damien Smith: I'm happy to repeat it. Why was his merger bill not subject to a cost-benefit analysis and is it because using $360 million of taxpayer money to compete with multinational companies would have been laughed out of Treasury as a horror show?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No that's not correct. It was deemed that it was not necessary to go down that track. That's what our business analysis told us and the reality [Interruption]—this is good money being spent. The reality is that the National Party would invest only $90 million. We want to put a bit more money in as we do in health education employment—right across the board. This is about preserving the New Zealand identity not getting rid of it as the ACT Party would do and the National Party.SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary?Damien Smith: I think so. Would it be more cost-effective Minister that his expensive merger should have been replaced with just buying New Zealanders all a subscription to Netflix?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No not at all. The member is just not getting this. Unfortunately he's too close to the National Party. But the reality is that we have a media that is under threat at the moment losing money everywhere—losing money losing funding under pressure—so we have to start a new strategy. That's what the merger is about. It's about bringing Radio New Zealand and TVNZ together so that we can put a great foundation in place and sadly that member is not getting it. But I am happy to speak with him after this session if he likes.David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. That repeated reference to a party not involved in the questioning in that instance means that the Minister is not only breaking the Speakers' rulings; he's doing it knowingly after you've just told him not to do it. SPEAKER: Yeah let me think about this. There are multiple things going on in this particular question and the answer. The member is right but I'd go back to my former comment that there are also interjections coming across that are probably inviting some of the out-of-order comments that the Minister has made. Repeated requests to the Minister don't seem to have worked and I maybe have to think of a new strategy and implement that. David Seymour: Another question Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: Yeah. David Seymour: On that reading the ACT Party is actually a victim of the National Party's heckling and perhaps should be considered for the awarding of additional supplementaries.SPEAKER: I'll come back to you on that one. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. Well perhaps also the National Party should get a supplementary to be able to defend itself. The fact is too that if you were to look at the Hansard—and I know that you make an effort to do so afterwards—I think you'll find that the reference to the National Party came well ahead of any heckling that was delivered from this side. I've been listening very carefully because I thought that yesterday you made some interesting comments—not necessarily rulings—but I don't think that they were particularly helpful for the House. I've listened very carefully to the content and then part of the content going into our questions today to make sure that we didn't get into the same position as your comments suggested yesterday but in this case Mr Jackson went out of his way in his first answer to bring in the National Party. Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. I think there are a number of observations one could make about this particular question exchange one of which is that a very strict interpretation of the Standing Orders would result in a number of the supplementary questions that have been asked being ruled out of order on the basis that they don't comply with the rules of Parliament because of the various assertions that they have contained within them. Secondly the National Party have been interjecting constantly throughout the answers to those questions and when one interjects in the way that the Opposition have been they do have to expect some degree of response from the Minister answering a question. They are the ones who have chosen to involve themselves in the question. But perhaps the third and most important point Mr Speaker is that you are the sole judge of these matters not the Opposition. SPEAKER: I will take the time to review both Hansard and the recording of this question and others actually. It's very difficult to keep up with everything that goes on in the House when you want the level of robust exchange that the House wants. I would encourage the Minister though that he doesn't have to make these questions last longer than they really should and if I did make a comment he seems to revel in it. Probably I shouldn't say that but I'm just stating the obvious. Are there further supplementaries? Damien Smith: No.