Burns Brendon: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18680] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 First I will pick up on some comments from the Minister of Broadcasting around the supposed inaction of the Labour Government on broadcasting and how NZ On Air provides the sort of broadcasting variety that we would all like to see more of. I put the point to the Minister that as of a week ago New Zealanders believed that KiwiSaver was intact after a cut as this Government came into office which it had signalled prior to coming into office. New Zealanders are now discovering that the scheme that they were promised would be left intact will in fact now have an axe taken to it. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I cannot see in what way debate on KiwiSaver is related to the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It is going to be a long afternoon. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Speaking to the point of order I am drawing an analogy between the Minister’s comments suggesting that NZ On Air provides funding and is secure for the provision of alternative content for television other than the content that might be provided under the commercial model which is the heart of the change— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have got your point. It is certainly the practice of the House at times to make comparative illustrations. Rather than jump up and immediately say that a member has mentioned this word or this phrase I prefer to give a bit of context around that. This debate is not an opportunity to relitigate debate or expand on issues that do not have pertinence to the bill but it is within the bounds of debate in the Committee stage to make comparative illustrations and that is where the member should confine himself. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: We come back to the function of this bill. Part 1 clause 4(b) specifies that the purpose of the Act will be to “ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial performance;”. That is the heart of Part 1 the heart of clause 4 the heart of the bill and the heart of the Government’s broadcasting policy. 
If we look at this Minister’s record in respect of that we see that it is not flash in terms of a situation that began with him refusing to have a review of the competition issues within television particularly when that was despite Treasury’s Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit saying that not having such a review would risk eroding the shareholding that the Crown owns in Television New Zealand (TVNZ) as Sky became increasingly dominant. That was the starting point of this Minister’s tenure as Minister of Broadcasting. 
Next he moved in quickly to freeze Radio New Zealand to the point where its new chair suggests that it may have to raise funding through cake stalls and selling its grand pianos. I also note that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for more than a year and a half since the charter ended and was due to have been renewed at the beginning of January last year. 
I will come back to the functions of TVNZ as prescribed under Part 1 and TVNZ maintaining its commercial performance. In fact TVNZ has been following this Minister’s dictates for most of the last 2½ years. One example of that alone was in May of last year. The content that New Zealanders had paid for through their broadcasting licence fee back in the 1970s and 1980s through their ownership of TVNZ is not available to them but it is available to them if they want to take a subscription to Sky television and watch the Heartland channel. They cannot watch their own back content on a specific channel but they can watch it if they want to pay the coin to Rupert Murdoch. That is another example of how TVNZ even before this bill is passed by the House and given effect to is already tipping its cap to the signals the Minister has provided. That is just disgraceful. 
TVNZ 6 has already gone—it has become a music channel—and TVNZ 7 is going next year. Where is the legacy of this Minister in respect of the broadcasting portfolio and in respect of TVNZ? Things have been frozen things have been lost things have been cut and things have been handed across to the private sector and that is a woeful track record. 
I will pick up on the points that my colleague Clare Curran raised in respect of the Minister’s contact with the board of MediaWorks. I note that he has met the board nine times as Minister and six times last year as a sweetheart deal was being brought together for that media organisation. He has met the board of Radio New Zealand two times in the entire tenure of his holding the broadcasting portfolio. I do not know how many times he has met TVNZ’s board—the board for which he has responsibility—but I would like to know. I would be interested to know whether it is as many times as he has met the board of MediaWorks for which a sweetheart $43 million loan deal was organised. Of course the Minister and the media organisation will deny that that deal carries any editorial influence for the Government. I say to the Committee as someone who has sat in a senior editorial position that nobody had to tell me that we had to bend to a particular master in respect of a media organisation but subtle signals were sent. I have to raise very serious questions about the editorial integrity of media organisations under MediaWorks and ask their journalists to assert very loudly publicly and clearly that they are not getting implicit signals from their owners in respect of whether they should be giving the Government an easy ride because the Government has come to the rescue of that organisation with a sweetheart $43 million deal— 
Hon Member 
: Deferred licence. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is right; it is deferred. I will tell members that other people would very much like $43 million in deferred licences. Many organisations would like that. It has taint around it; it has disgraceful taint around it. It is a sweetheart deal for a media organisation. It is not appropriate in a democratic country like New Zealand that a Government provides a sweetheart deal to a very influential media organisation that not only has a strong television network but also has a suite of radio stations. It is wholly inappropriate and in any other democracy around the world it would absolutely be looked down on and commented on. It is just not appropriate. It is another hallmark of the tenure of this Minister in Government that he met that organisation six times last year as that deal was being brought together. He has met that board nine times in the course of his tenure as Minister and twice met with the board of the organisation that he has imposed a swingeing freeze on at a time when there was an established KPMG report that said Radio New Zealand was desperately short of funds. We now have the new chair of Radio New Zealand suggesting cake stalls and piano sales in order to try to fund the future of that allied broadcasting organisation. 
I come back to Part 1 which effectively repeals the charter and says to TVNZ that all it has to do is maintain its commercial performance. Let me give an example of the sorts of ramifications that has. Next weekend in my city of Christchurch there will be a telethon. There will be a global telethon to raise money for the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal. I applaud that initiative. Who is doing the broadcasting for it? Do we look to our State broadcaster to provide all the technical expertise staff resources camera operators networks stars and personalities to try to give some mana to that effort to raise money for my desperately needy city of Christchurch? No our State broadcaster is not doing that. Why is our State broadcaster not doing that? 
I acknowledge looking at Georgina te Heuheu opposite that Maori Television has stood up and has taken on that role. Maori Television is becoming the State broadcaster for this nation in the absolute absence of anything resembling a State broadcaster that should be stepping up to the plate and should be helping beleaguered communities like mine in Christchurch Central that are desperately in need of funding support and assistance. 
In the past we have looked to our State broadcaster to step up to the plate and provide that kind of leadership because it has the mantle to do that the signal from the Government to do that the connections to do it the will to do it and it is allowed to do it. But under Part 1 of this bill TVNZ is told that the only thing it has to do is perform financially and commercially. That is an appalling indictment. That is unacceptable. It is a measure of the kind of approach that TVNZ will not just take as a result of this bill but is already taking. It is already taking that approach. 
We had a concert in the park in Christchurch last November to raise funds for the city after the first quake. Who did the broadcasting for that? It was TV3. I commend TV3 for doing that. But where was the State broadcaster? We have now had two major events two major fundraising events that have been televised to the nation—in fact televised even more broadly than to the nation because Maori Television will be doing a global telethon—and who did the broadcasting for those events? The first time around it was TV3 and the second time around it is to be Maori Television. Where is TVNZ? Where is our State broadcaster? Why should TVNZ not be doing it because that has been its role and function before this bill? This legislation strips TVNZ of any requirement any compunction any sense of responsibility and any connection to the communities it is supposed to be serving. 
TVNZ is supposed to be a public service. What more important public service could we expect to see than a broadcaster stepping up to the plate and helping the beleaguered community of Christchurch which has had a $30 billion impact from two earthquakes? Why should we not ask the State broadcaster to roll out its stars bring them on board and give some hope and a signal to the community of Christchurch that our State broadcaster is behind us? Who are we referring to? We are referring to Maori Television. Thank goodness for Maori Television.