Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Listening to the contributions in the House this afternoon I couldn't tell the general public what this bill actually does bar the contribution earlier from the Minister outlining precisely what this board and the disestablishment of Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) and TVNZ is and the creation of this board. In fact we've heard contributions talking about the preferred morning shows and talkback radio hosts from Opposition MPs and we've heard some really confused contributions where we've heard that on the one side they want more Government influence over the types of content that New Zealanders receive and on the other side that they want less influence over the types of content that the public are receiving. We've also heard a lot of talk about younger people and what younger people want. Whilst I am not necessarily all too young any more—I'm now 28 years old—Damien Smith: You're over the hill Chlöe!CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —I came into this place when I was 23—Matariki birthday Damien Smith. So to that effect I am still the youngest in this House and I don't think that I can do the job of representing all people across this country but I can offer some hope of a perspective to that effect.So to bring it down to what this bill actually does—which would be a novel contribution in this debate this afternoon!—the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill effectively disestablishes RNZ and TVNZ as they currently exist and sets up this new entity. All of us seem to agree that something has to be done but there doesn't unfortunately seem to be all too much agreement or consensus on what it is that has to be done. I implore members of the Opposition to stand up and talk about the kinds of vision that they would like to see because they agree seemingly from the contribution of their spokesperson that they want to see something happen in this space and that things are changing and I'm not quite sure if they want more or less public funding but none the less something has to happen. Therefore I'd like to hear a positive vision for what that would be or what that might look like.That is why the Greens will be supporting this through to select committee because while there are quite a few questions actually that still need to be answered and we think that there is a good place to do that in select committee I think that with the likes of for example some pretty vague phrasing in the legislation around the likes of predominantly" free-of-charge content out there—what does "predominantly" actually mean? Are we leaning more towards a TVNZ model or are we leaning more towards an RNZ model? We do need to work through those specifics with members of the public. I dare say that members of the public might have some more coherent contributions than members of Parliament in this House today.I'd also just point to the consistent point raised by members of the National Party who speak about the $55 million COVID-19 fund. The speaker who spoke just before—the Hon Judith Collins—was raging about the fact that bloggers got it. Again I think therein is yet another example of where the National Party seem relatively confused about where they want perhaps more editorial control from the Government but then on the other hand they keep saying that they want less. So again I'd really implore them to add some clarity to their debate because I think that that would ultimately benefit the process of this bill through Parliament and shaping up what this media institution looks like.There's also been a lot of discussion about trust and trust in institutions. Trust in democracy is one thing; trust in our media institutions is another thing but of course they are interrelated. I might say to those that are pointing out that trust in our public media is declining trust in this Parliament has not been very high for a very long time now. To that effect when we're talking about media and talking about the kind of content that media produces we're talking about a mediation of reality we're talking about the fact that we have broadcasters and journalists who are representative of those of us across this country who then go out and choose what stories to report on and in doing so choose the people to speak to to help to tell that story and in choosing those people to speak to they then choose what quotes they take from those interviews. Whilst all of us would like to say that in a perfect world that entire process is free of bias of course that's not the case in reality. All of us come with bias. All of us come with ideologies. All of us come with a belief system that is informed by our life experiences.So if we want to talk about building up trust in our media then we need to talk about building up representation in our media. By representation I'm not just talking about people's characteristics of ethnicity or religion or geographical background or what have you; I'm also talking about representation of different viewpoints which I think is something hopefully that members of the National Party would agree with. I think that that's the kind of feedback loop that we're trying to get to here: that with greater representation you in turn get greater engagement from the general public and then you get that feedback loop of engagement representation and then potentially action on the things that people want to see. That of course feeds into and is a component part of the health and the strength of our democracy.So I think again as other speakers have also raised this is again fundamentally about the sustainability of our news media particularly on the point of funding. Again I'm yet to see a clear viewpoint from the National Party about whether they want to see more or less funding for public interest journalism; I'm not quite sure where the Government sits on this one either. So I'd like to see it more clearly articulated. Again these are the things that the Greens want to see fully worked through through that select committee process.I also think that it's really important that we do start to unpack the reality of sustainability of public interest journalism because whilst the National Party were talking about things that they want to see more of in the news the likes of these upbeat views the reality is that there is always a tension between what some of us are going to see as important for the sake of people to understand what's happening inside of our democracy—for example the Election Access Fund Bill which I think was one of the best pieces of legislation passed through this place in recent years did not receive anywhere near as much coverage as for example the likes of the cannabis referendum debate. That again goes to perhaps some of those tensions between the things that are controversial and the things that are important—of course they're not mutually exclusive but once again it raises the reality that members of Parliament should not be interfering in the types of content that a public media is producing. Again I think that that really goes to the heart of contributions from the National Party who do not quite seem clear on whether they want more or less intervention or dictation.Which takes us to the point of the charter. The National Party have consistently raised that they think that there are issues within the charter that they think that there's problems with the fact that the current charters of our media institutions are aspirational. So they seem to want more dictation and more control from the Government but then they simultaneously seem to want less. So again I implore them to offer a clear vision; on the same hand I ask the Government to be clearer about how all of those interfacing parts around the likes of particularly how funding may operate in the future and whether we err more towards that RNZ model or more towards that TVNZ model.Just finally as other contributors to this debate have also raised the social media question is still outstanding. There has been a lot of discussion about the fact that we now get more and more of our news from social media; this of course is largely determined by algorithms and therefore means that sometimes we might not see things that are fundamentally important to for example engaging in our democracy but we are more likely to be fed things that the algorithms think that we want. So what that takes us down to is: how does this Aotearoa New Zealand public media entity engage with and participate with social media? So you have this kind of tension between that public and that private space but then also with social media. I'd say that this very much aligns with the work that's being done by a number of Ministers at present on the potential for greater regulation of social media which of course is not just a domestic issue but one internationally.The Greens support this bill going through to select committee. It's really important that we flesh out what our vision is for the future of public media in this country. But again I think that those core questions remain outstanding. Thank you."