Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18673] 
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill which brings to a head our election promise in relation to the repeal of the Television New Zealand charter. 
Of course under the last Government Television New Zealand had been labouring for quite some time under what was effectively an unworkable dual mandate. We said when we came into office that we would give Television New Zealand a clear and honest path ahead. When we look at what has happened with the charter in terms of the content on Television New Zealand we see that people would really struggle to tell any difference between the content before the charter during the charter and after the charter. So really it was a fig leaf covering up a lot of sins laid out by the last Labour Government. It had 9 years to get its house in order in terms of public broadcasting. 
Hon Member 
: Sins! 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: “Sins” was probably not the right word to use. The fig leaf was modestly covering what was masquerading as public broadcasting under the last Government. The reality is that Television New Zealand has been 93 percent commercially funded for many many years now under this Government and the last Government. The last Government tried to pretend it had a public broadcaster. In fact it had a publicly owned broadcaster that at times showed public broadcasting content and it will continue to do so once the charter is repealed. 
This is a very honest and straight up bill. It removes the charter and replaces it with a set of statutory functions. The statutory 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.” I think it would be very hard to argue credibly against that. Furthermore 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) encompasses both New Zealand and international content and reflects Maori perspectives. (3) TVNZ’s services must include the provision of channels that are free of charge and available to audiences throughout New Zealand.” 
A further part of this bill makes available works previously locked up in the Television New Zealand archives—works that were made before the Broadcasting Act 1989. Up until this point a very complex process had to be gone through for those works to be seen involving basically contacting every single person on the rolling credits shown at the end of each episode which proved unworkable and meant that that material was never ever seen. 
This legislation will replace the current arrangements with a scheme whereby a reasonable attempt can be made to notify people involved with the production. They can come forward and apply for compensation for the programme being shown and if they do not come forward the programme can still be shown. The legislation is bringing out a very workable scheme to unlock the Television New Zealand archive. The public will benefit from this; it will certainly be good for the producers and for the actors and we think it is a very practical way forward. 
When one looks at what we have done one can see a very clear honest approach to public broadcasting. We have maintained the $231 million a year that goes into public broadcasting. We have said there are a number of ways in which we can provide public broadcasting and New Zealand On Air is an excellent model. We think it is best if we put the money through the New Zealand On Air model so that the best productions get a chance to be seen on the screen and the public benefits. 
Let us face it: the public today do not mind where they watch the content; they just want access to the content. I would be very surprised if anyone in this Chamber were to disagree with us on the point that the New Zealand On Air model does a great job for New Zealand and has provided great content on the screen for New Zealanders for many many years. This is just the next step in repealing the Television New Zealand charter. 
Clare Curran 
: What’s next? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What is next is the third reading. It will be very interesting to see whether Labour in its broadcasting manifesto will say it will reinstate the Television New Zealand charter—I will not hold my breath. I think Labour members will talk big on this but I do not think we will actually see any action. They had 9 years to do something. If they really wanted to turn Television New Zealand back into a fully State-funded public broadcaster they had the chance to do that. If they want to do that at the election they should say so but they should also say where they will get several hundred million dollars a year to run it. 
I commend this bill to the Committee. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill to which Labour is fundamentally opposed. I want to talk about the public interest which is an extremely important principle that underpins our opposition to this bill. The Government is doing away with the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter getting rid of TVNZ 7 stopping New Zealand from having a public broadcasting television station and leaving us in a situation where New Zealand and Mexico appear to be the only countries in the OECD that do not have a public broadcasting channel. The Government is also freezing funds for Radio New Zealand National which is essentially a cut while at the same time doing sweetheart deals with MediaWorks. There is a very dodgy relationship between the Government and a commercial television station and there is mounting evidence that although there was a plan to keep TVNZ 7 going and to likely merge it with Radio New Zealand National something happened to stop that. 
Now we are left with nothing except the weakness of the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman who does not have any real plan for public broadcasting in this country other than to get rid of it. If he did have a plan then he has been rolled. There is also the weakness of the Prime Minister and Ministers as I said last week in kowtowing to— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: This is the same speech from the last reading. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: It is good that the Minister may be able to respond. Labour is emphatically opposed to this bill. 
I have a little story to tell today about this Minister and public broadcasting. The Government spends much more time with the commercial broadcasters than with the taxpayer-funded broadcaster. Last week I told members that the Minister of Broadcasting has met with the board of MediaWorks nine times since the election and that six times of those times were last year—that is once every 2 months. I am still waiting for answers on what he actually talked about. Last week I also asked the chair of the board of Radio New Zealand National Mr Richard Griffin how many times the Minister had met with Radio New Zealand National since the election. Twice I was told. That is since the end of 2008. Yet Radio New Zealand National is our public broadcaster and it has had its funding frozen which it admits represents a cut. It is trying its hardest to stay afloat and one would think that the Minister would spend more time with it and pay it more attention. We do not know how many times the Minister has met with the board of TVNZ—he has not told us that yet—or how many times he has met with the board of Sky. Those questions are with the Minister and we are waiting for answers. 
In fact other issues we are waiting for answers on are about the withholding of information on the business plans for TVNZ relating to TVNZ 7 and about the proposal that was prepared and put to the Minister to try to keep TVNZ 7 afloat. In a select committee a couple of weeks ago TVNZ told me it had provided the Minister with proposals about keeping TVNZ 7. Will the Minister release that information? No he will not release it but we will keep trying. The proposal is called “TVNZ 7 investment scenarios” and it has been withheld for commercial reasons. Why would that be given the widespread public concern about the decision to discontinue funding for TVNZ 7: about the public interest issue and about the potential harm that this decision might cause to the whole public broadcasting environment in New Zealand? One can admit and accept that it might be legitimate to withhold financial figures that might be reasonably expected to compromise TVNZ’s commercial interests if they were made public. But it is difficult to make that argument with regard to TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 given that TVNZ 6 has already ceased operation and that the Government has now announced its decision to cut TVNZ 7. So it would be interesting to hear the Minister say why that information cannot be made public. After all it is difficult to argue that either TVNZ or the shareholding Ministers have any commercial interest in withholding information on channels that will not be continued. 
That brings me to another issue which I mentioned before about the Minister having spent a lot of time meeting with the board of the commercial television broadcaster and very little time meeting with the public broadcasting sector. Of course we all know that MediaWorks was given a $43 million loan from this Government to defer the company’s spectrum licensing payments. That happened at a time when the Government was deciding to axe the Television New Zealand charter which is the central issue in this bill and a very central public interest issue. It also happened around the time that the decisions were made to freeze the funding for Radio New Zealand National which is essentially a cut to that funding and then to make TVNZ 6 go commercial and subsequently to cut the funding for TVNZ 7 altogether leaving New Zealand with no national public television broadcaster. 
I want to share a little story with members about the public interest issue and it relates to this bill because in substance the bill attacks the public interest by doing away with our public television broadcaster and doing away with the charter. That makes TVNZ behave as a commercial broadcaster would which is not in the public interest. It is also not in the public interest to give MediaWorks a $43 million loan and the Minister well knows that. I would like to share with members that in May 2009 the Minister for Communications and Information Technology wrote to the Radio Broadcasters Association and rejected its request for a deferral of spectrum licensing fees because that would be a fiscal risk to the Crown. The Minister said he was not convinced that the Crown ought to be an alternative to services. In August 2009 the Ministry of Economic Development advised the Government that there had been much lobbying by MediaWorks and the Radio Broadcasters Association including an approach to the Prime Minister which we now all know about. They were recommending that a single channel of communication be used to ensure there was no risk of creating ambiguity or mixed expectations. In September 2009 they advised Ministers that the MediaWorks problem was with its capital structure not its long-term viability and the advice was accompanied with a Deloitte’s report. 
In October 2009 a memo went to Cabinet and noted the urgency of making a Cabinet decision on a deferral of MediaWorks’s spectrum licensing payments. That stemmed from MediaWorks’s capital restructure plans so there was no public interest issue there. Late in September 2009 a draft Cabinet paper noted MediaWorks’s lobbying and Treasury’s misgivings because it saw the move as a policy shift. It required a sign-off under the Public Finance Act but Treasury did not spot that at the time. Treasury opposed the deferral of spectrum licensing payments and we know that Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development opposed the deferral and the providing of a loan to MediaWorks. [ 
Interruption 
] That was a very significant public interest issue. In October 2009 a draft Cabinet paper showed that the urgency was all about the arrangements with the banks for a capital restructure. Treasury advised on the risk of the Crown becoming a creditor and acting as a bank. The Cabinet decision went through in October. Cabinet approved the alternative payment arrangements despite that advice from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development. 
But then Treasury worked out that there was a problem because under section 65 of the Public Finance Act the deferred spectrum licensing payments required the approval of the Minister of Finance— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: —which it had not got— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: —and in order to get that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is for me to control the Committee not the member. A point of order has been called and I indicated that without standing up. The member may not have heard me but to continue to talk louder is not appropriate. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The member is talking about radio contracts which have nothing to do with this bill. I urge you Mr Chairperson to ask her to reconsider her speech in terms of Part 1. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will listen to the member. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I think that is a bit rich coming from a member who approached— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Members must not attack another member when they make a point of order. They must stand up and state the point. I was looking for assistance not to see people get roused. I will give the member another chance to make a point. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Thank you for your help Mr Chairperson. I just recall that the Minister when he made his opening remarks in the Committee stage spent the first several minutes on attacking the 9 years of the Labour Government in a somewhat provocative and angular way saying it was masquerading as delivering public television covering the cracks and all sorts of other things that were really outside what an ordinary Committee stage would sound like. So I would have thought that measured against that my colleague’s contribution was mild indeed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. I really am very much in favour of members’ speaking specifically to the bill but when we deal with Part 1 there is a purpose of the Act and I guess that opens it up a little notch. As has been pointed out I think most sides have done that. I do not think it assists in the final determination to get too political as we go on but I have been listening to what the member says. As long as members tie in those illustrations to the purpose of the legislation I think they are marginally inside the boundary but a bit further out than I would prefer them to be. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. This issue goes directly to the public interest in terms of cutting or axing the Television New Zealand charter. 
The point I am making is that under the Public Finance Act the Minister of Finance had to sign off that loan. There was no public interest and what had to be found was a reason for public interest. The facts and the paperwork show quite clearly that there was a scrambling around looking for a reason relating to public interest. The Minister for Communications and Information Technology made it clear to the Minister of Finance that there was a problem and that if the Minister of Finance did not sign off the loan then the policy would be unlawful. The Ministry of Economic Development suggested that the public interest test could be met but only on a technicality of a retraction of the deferral avoiding the minimal risk—I stress the word “minimal”—of business closures and destabilisation of the broadcasting sector. That was a market rationale not a public interest rationale. The bigger issue was the significant risks to Government credibility for licence renewals and to damaging good faith with the industry. This was really all about the Government’s bumbling on this issue and the fact that it had to scramble around and find a public interest test. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Television New Zealand Amendment Bill is shameful legislation. It strips all the public service purposes from Television New Zealand (TVNZ) which will now exist for one purpose and one purpose only which is to return a dividend to the Government. So we are left with the dubious honour of being the only country in the OECD aside from Mexico that does not have a national public service mainstream broadcaster. Every other self-respecting democracy understands the importance of public service broadcasting to a healthy democracy and an informed society. There is public service television in the Middle East in Africa and all through Europe but in New Zealand it seems we do not need it. 
People are asking why this Government is so hostile to public service broadcasting. Why does this Government have an agenda? Why is it setting out to demolish public service broadcasting across New Zealand by firstly in this bill stripping TVNZ of all its public service responsibilities; secondly refusing to fund the last two remaining channels—TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7—so there will be no public service channels left; and thirdly deliberately starving Radio New Zealand of funding so that it will stay in a weakened state on the back foot and will ultimately be forced to commercialise? 
People are puzzled. What is the Government’s agenda in trying to demolish—actually not trying but demolishing—public service broadcasting? I want to speculate on the reasons. First of all the Government does not seem to understand the importance of having a truly independent impartial broadcaster that is free from commercial pressures and can speak out without fear or favour. In fact I do not think the Government wants a public broadcaster that can speak out without fear or favour. Government members do not seem to understand that if an entity is beholden to sponsors to advertisers then it is beholden to them and it will not bite the hand that feeds it. “Mazda Morning Report” for example will not turn round and criticise Mazda for any potential failures. Government members do not seem to see that. 
What Government members do understand extremely well is that they are committed to helping their mates in commercial broadcasting. Their mates in commercial broadcasting—two of whom have become Ministers; Steven Joyce and Maurice Williamson started their lives as commercial broadcasters—see public broadcasters as a threat. They resent the idea that Radio New Zealand for example should get taxpayers’ money. Commercial radio broadcasters do not want competition from a public broadcaster like Radio New Zealand. Brent Impey has been very upfront about this. They do not want the competition from them for market share but they do not want them competing for the advertising dollar either. 
What Government members want to do as far as I can see is try to remove as much public service broadcasting as they can—which is almost everything—and if they have to in the short term put up with Radio New Zealand they want to starve it of funding weaken it and keep it on the back foot. What they do not seem to accept is that public service broadcasting if it is not completely driven by television ratings can look at different ideas and different perspectives. It can look at the public interest and not just at ratings. People in TVNZ will tell us that basically the sole criterion of whether a programme will screen particularly in prime time on TVNZ is purely whether the sales department thinks it will produce ratings. That is the sole criterion of programmes on TVNZ. 
Here we have a Government that is intent on destroying public service broadcasting and helping its mates in commercial broadcasting. Clare Curran has spoken at some length about the fact that the Government has rushed to rescue MediaWorks the company Steven Joyce set up and a commercial competitor of TVNZ and is funding it. Actually it is subsidising it; not funding it directly. It is effectively funding it by subsidising it on a $43 million loan deferral scheme. So the agenda is quite blatant. The Government wants to do everything it can to help its mates in commercial broadcasting and it wants to do that by destroying public service broadcasting. 
There is one other matter I want to raise and it is the rather puzzling aspect of TVNZ’s strategy at the moment. Since TVNZ has been stripped of all its public service obligations it now exists only to make money. It told the recent financial review at the Commerce Committee that the main growth area for TVNZ’s business is now expected to be in pay television and it is planning to pitch even more channels to Sky television. Already it has two channels on Sky television and now its main growth focus is on pitching more channels. What is clear is that the Government also has an agenda to switch New Zealand away from free-to-air television to pay TV. Really it wants all of us if we want television to pay for it. The Government’s clear objective is to move away from free-to-air television and move to pay TV and I believe that it will use the whole digital switchover to move along this agenda. So I predict that not only will we not have public service broadcasting but we will not have free-to-air broadcasting; we will have only commercial broadcasting pay TV—that is the agenda. 
What would happen if for example TVNZ were to be sold which is clearly the Government’s agenda if it can find someone to sell it to and TV3 were to go bankrupt? We would be left simply with Sky television. What would happen? We would effectively end up with Fox Television in New Zealand. We would effectively end up with one commercially driven broadcaster owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox Television in America. We would end up with one broadcaster having a channel on which it can ensure a particular bias a particular right-wing bias. Anyone who has watched Fox Television knows that quite unequivocally. We can see the bias of Fox Television. We have to be realistic and say this is where we could end up in New Zealand now that the Government has succeeded in demolishing public service broadcasting is assisting its mates in commercial television and trying now to roll out the red carpet for Sky television. I notice that Sky television is now going to be able to compete— 
Paul Quinn 
: You are rich enough to be your own broadcaster. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Mr Chair could you please do something about that ridiculous backbencher Mr Paul Quinn who cannot do anything in this Chamber it seems except shout and seek to intervene. I request your protection from his shouting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Are you raising a point of order? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I am raising a point of order. I am sorry—thank you Mr Chair. I am asking you to protect me from the constant shouting— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —of that ridiculous member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. The member on her feet has made some comments that might be more political than specifically about Part 1. Firstly we have had a somewhat philosophical speech which is more a first reading speech shall we say. It has not dealt with the detail of Part 1 so there has been something of a response. I cannot control what the member says and the member then asks me to control what the interjections might be. I make that point. Secondly I make this point to those people who are interjecting. There is a decorum about “rare and reasonable” and I think the members did overstep that mark. 
Clare Curran 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have ruled on the point of order. I now ask Sue Kedgley to continue. 
Clare Curran 
: Can I— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is this another point of order? 
Clare Curran 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand there is a Standing Order that relates to a member who moves seats in the Chamber and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. I can help the member. Yes there is. There is quite a suite of Speakers’ rulings. It is not actually a Standing Order; it is a Speakers’ ruling. The one of pertinence is about members moving specifically to give themselves an advantage. I think it could well be argued in this case that if Mr Quinn was in his usual seat he would have a greater advantage— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is also the custom of the House that members coalesce into two groups on either side so I do not think we could say that the movement of the member is to enable a more effective interjection programme. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I believe that because the purpose of this bill is to strip TVNZ of its public service functions. I was speaking to that point. I was saying that having stripped TVNZ of its charter of its public service functions no doubt with a view to readying it for sale we could end up with effectively a foreign-controlled broadcaster running all of the television channels in New Zealand. 
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. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I will address a few points that the member Brendon Burns made. He talked about some vast conspiracy theory whereby the Government has a sweetheart deal with MediaWorks. Well clearly this man does not watch TV3 news each night because if we have a sweetheart deal for some sort of editorial control over MediaWorks then frankly we are not getting our side of the deal! I must say I think MediaWorks does an excellent job of impartially reporting the news. The Opposition’s conspiracy theory is to try to make out there is some sort of sweetheart deal between the Government and MediaWorks. The fact is these Opposition guys are way off the ball way off the play. When we put forward the deferred payment scheme for radio frequencies which was open to all radio broadcasters Steven Joyce issued a press release—I think it was last October—but these guys missed it completely. It was out there publicly; it has never been any secret. MediaWorks is paying 11.5 percent under the deferred payment scheme which was open to anyone. These guys are so slow and so backward that they had to wait until John Drinnan wrote about it 8 or 9 months later before these guys who are so bereft of ideas even picked up on it. 
Mr Burns talked about broadcasting regulation and said it was very bad that we cancelled the broadcasting review. Frankly it was redundant. He neglected to say the last Government sat on that review for months and months. It did nothing about it because it did not want to do anything about it. Labour Government members knew there would be a binary outcome—they would either win or lose the 2008 election—and they did not want the political baggage of progressing that report before the election. They knew how unpopular it would be with broadcasters and the public so they thought they would do nothing. They knew they would probably lose the 2008 election which they duly did. Then when the National Government cancelled what the Labour Government had never had the guts to push through those members got upset and said that National had pandered to the broadcasters. Well if they had really believed in it they would have pushed it through. 
Another point I will make concerns Mr Burns wanting a public broadcaster. Television New Zealand costs about $300 million give or take a few tens of millions of dollars to run each year. It has been 93 percent commercially funded for many many years. This removal of the charter recognises that reality. It sounds as if Labour will find $300 million of public money to fund a fully public non-commercial State broadcaster because that is the alternative to what we have proposed. But once again all that Labour will do is attack. It will not put up anything that would be constructive. 
Frankly the attack on Maori Television in Mr Burns’ speech was just ridiculous. When special events are proposed NZ On Air money is available and the broadcasters all compete for access to that money. Maori Television has done an excellent job. It has done a great job on things like Anzac Day programmes. It has put its best foot forward and it has won the contract for that. We really do need to have a bit of clarity about what has actually gone on there. We have a very honest policy on this issue. TVNZ has always been commercial. Why should we not be honest about it and remove the charter? That is what we are doing. 
The other thing I will address is the misinformation about meetings with boards over the last year or so. I have not been to nine MediaWorks board meetings. I have been to more than two Radio New Zealand board meetings in my time as Minister. I have met with the TVNZ board so many times that I cannot even remember how many times I have met with its members. We meet people right across the spectrum. I am in regular contact with board chairs and chief executives of all the major public broadcasters covered by my portfolio and to suggest that any sort of sweetheart deal has gone on for MediaWorks is absolutely the sort of wild conspiracy theory that Labour members pursue and pursue in the hope that it will get traction with the public. I can tell the Committee that the voters out there in New Zealand—the voters in Northcote and Glenfield the area I represent—are interested in law and order hospitals and the economy not the mumbo-jumbo these guys are spouting or anything they have laid out here today. It will not get any traction with anyone because at the end of the day in terms of television people want just to be able to see what they want when they want to see it. They do not care what channel it is on. This policy here makes sure that the content is available for the people of New Zealand. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 1 of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. The institution we are talking about here is very dear to my heart because I spent the majority of my journalism career at Television New Zealand. But I am very concerned about what this bill and the functions and purpose of this bill will do to that public broadcaster. A lot of mostly loyal mostly very experienced and very talented staff are working at Television New Zealand which outputs some of the best public broadcasting in the world. That broadcaster is one of the best. If we travel around the word and look at some of the examples of public broadcasting we will notice that some of New Zealand’s television born and bred right here in New Zealand is some of the best. Television New Zealand takes great pride in the quality and the production values of what it puts on air. Its programming is world class. 
I myself worked in a news organisation for nearly 10 years. If members have travelled around the world they will know that if they go to any major newsroom around the world there will be someone from Television New Zealand in a very senior position. Why is that? It is because of the public broadcasting remit Television New Zealand has had for years and years. Any major international broadcaster will have a Television New Zealand person working in its newsroom and calling the shots because they are experienced they care about quality journalism they care about the quality of their output—not just the journalism but also the production values—and they have standards and skills that are among some of the best in the world. They are some of the best in the world. Those standards and skills have come about from a long tradition of quality public broadcasting. But this Television New Zealand Amendment Bill puts all of that at risk. It puts all of that long history at risk. 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: How? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Yes it does. I can speak from experience; it puts all of that at risk because the standards of journalism that the New Zealand public have come to expect over decades will be gone in an instant. What will we have? National members ask how. What will happen when people tune into Television New Zealand’s  
One News 
 at 6 o’clock? They will be tuning in and the most important thing about that hour for Television New Zealand will not be the news coverage it will be the ads in between because there will be a commercial imperative in relation to the news. We will get a dumbing down of news quality and news content because the only thing Television New Zealand will care about is making money. The only thing Television New Zealand will be worried about will be making money. It is in black and white right there in the purpose of the Act. Clause 4 of the bill states that the purpose of the Act is 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;”. “Commercial performance”—that is all this is about. My very good friend Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga said if I were still working there I would get paid more. Well it is not all about the money I tell Sam. It is not all about the money. 
While we are at it it is not all about commercialism; it is also about the part Television New Zealand plays in the Pacific. Sam Lotu-Iiga knows very well that Television New Zealand’s  
One News 
 the 6 o’clock news is a big rater in Samoa. Television New Zealand’s  
One News 
 plays a very important function in making sure journalists are trained in and around the Pacific Rim. All of that will be gone because that does not make us any money does it? That does not make us any money so let us stop doing it. The quality of journalism around the Pacific will fall and I think that as a Pacific Island member of this Parliament Sam Lotu-Iiga should be very worried about that. 
This bill changes Television New Zealand from a public broadcaster to a commercial broadcaster pure and simple. So all of a sudden it is about the money and the substance of the stories starts to suffer. I can speak from experience because investigative journalism takes time it takes experience and it takes research. Investigative journalism in New Zealand is very important as the Hon Rodney Hide will know. It is very important to make sure one can dig to the bottom of issues especially around this sphere. Digging to the bottom of issues exposes issues of national significance. But that will be gone too because that does not make money. That costs money; it does not make money. So the commercial imperative will come over the top and all of a sudden investigative journalism at Television New Zealand will be gone. Under this regime news coverage will be more about as I said the ads in between the stories which will decrease in quality. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: That’s what we get anyway Kris. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: So Georgina te Heuheu does not like the quality of TVNZ news now? Georgina te Heuheu would rather watch the ads. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Repeals and related amendments 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We move now to Part 2 clauses 12 to 14. I say to members that we have had the philosophical debate. I ask members to debate clauses 12 to 14. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 There has been quite a lot of philosophical discussion. There has been a lot of heated discussion and I think we have seen in this debate some fundamentally different philosophical positions on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill reflected in the Committee. Some fundamentally important positions go to the heart of what public broadcasting is in New Zealand: the content of public broadcasting the content of broadcasting and how people receive it. 
In Part 2 of this bill we see the discussion about the rescreening of television programmes produced prior to 1989. We are seeing a claim that it is in the public interest that the programmes be seen again. I refer again to the concept of public interest because it is a critical concept and it shows the differences between the major parties and the philosophical fundamental divide we have on these issues. 
Although Television New Zealand has now launched its Heartland channel which screens programmes from our past it is exclusively for Sky to screen heritage programming. We are seeing and we have heard today from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Broadcasting the future for broadcasting in this country. The important programmes that reflect our culture and past and what goes to the heart of what and who we are will end up in locked-up content that people have to pay to see. That is a critical fundamental issue and I think we need to have a debate about it. 
An estimated 2 million households in New Zealand do not get Sky. That is quite a lot of households when one thinks about it; it is about half. The ones who do pay for it— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are three clauses in Part 2: “Spent sections of principal Act repealed” “Amendment to Copyright Act 1994” and a clause regarding access to archives. That is what we are debating. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am talking about the archived works and the ability to see them on television. I think it is quite clear that that is what I am talking about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear the member. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I refer again to public interest. When those heritage programmes were made we were all paying licence fees for public television. The public had already paid for the production of those programmes through their fees and taxes. Those programmes are owned by the public of New Zealand and they should be seen by the public of New Zealand not just some of the public of New Zealand through a pay television channel. That is one of the key issues we are addressing in the bill with regard to the viewing of archived works and how they are seen by the public. 
I note the comments of the member from the Greens Sue Kedgley. She talked about the future that we are looking at as a country in terms of how we will view content. She talked about the ultimate plan that this Government has for us to see content and about whether it is archive content which is covered under Part 2 of the bill or whether it will cover more than the archived works and will end up being most of our content. 
The other point I will make because it is important is that most of the content that New Zealanders will end up watching will come from overseas. Less content will be produced here because the television channels are driven by commercial imperatives—particularly Television New Zealand which is being required to return a particular dividend to the Government—and have to find programmes they can get a commercial return on. Therefore the quality programmes that reflect the distinctive Kiwi sense of humour—the Fred Daggs the Lynnes of Tawa the David McPhails— 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I will particularly focus on the new section 57A “Making archived works available for public viewing” which is to be inserted in the Copyright Act by clause 14. I will pick up from where Clare Curran left off. It is fantastic that some of the wonderful programmes made by Television New Zealand will be made available for public viewing. 
I worked at Television New Zealand myself and made a number of programmes over a number of years and I worked there in the days when it genuinely was public service television. Then we had commercials on some days then they were allowed every day except for Sunday and then slowly we went into full commercialisation. But I had the privilege of working there when it was genuinely a public service broadcaster. Fantastic programmes were made then that New Zealanders would dearly love to see. 
But will New Zealanders see these wonderful archived materials on Television One or TV2? No they will not because from now on the sole criterion for whether Television New Zealand will screen a programme on Television One and TV2 will be the ratings. It will be how many ratings and what advertisements programmes will attract. Television One and TV2 will not screen these wonderful programmes because they will not rate like some of those blockbusters from America. The reason only 17 percent of the content on TV2 is New Zealand content is that quite frankly it is a lot cheaper to import blockbusters from America those action programmes than it is to make New Zealand programmes. That is why we will see fewer and fewer New Zealand programmes on Television One and TV2. These channels will basically become not only commercial television but also foreign television. We will have two New Zealand - owned channels—that is until such time as the Government sells them—screening commercial foreign content. 
What we will not see on Television One and TV2 is the wonderful archival material that was made at a time when Television New Zealand was able to focus on the public interest and when Television New Zealand was able to make major current affairs programmes such as Brian Edwards’ programmes. For many years the whole nation sat watching these current affairs programmes and they were influencing the debate in New Zealand. Where are the in-depth current affairs programmes on Television New Zealand? Well sure we have  
Close Up 
 but the constant mantra of  
Close Up  
is: “I am sorry we have run out of time.” The current affairs issues of the day are all dealt with in 2-minute—or 5-minute if they are later—segments and people are constantly having to wring their hands and say that they are sorry as they have run out of time. 
Unfortunately the wonderful archival material that would show us what public service television can be like and what it is like—the wonderful documentaries—will not be shown. When I worked at Television New Zealand there was a whole documentary department that did nothing but make fantastic documentaries like  
Pioneer Women 
. Wonderful archival material is sitting there in the Television New Zealand archives and it will never be screened on Television New Zealand because Television New Zealand has no public service obligation. It now exists solely to make money for the shareholder. It will screen programmes only if they can maximise advertising revenue so the whole point of having these wonderful archive materials and of allowing their copyright to be waived so that they can be screened on television is missed unfortunately. It is ironic but in the same bill is the reason why those programmes will not be shown on Television One or TV2 the publicly owned television channels. Those channels will now be solely commercial and they will be worried that those programmes will not rate. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I started my career as a young broadcast journalist with what was still the NZBC and I also remember— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.