Burns Brendon: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:20007] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow the member opposite Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who seemed to suggest that members on this side of the Chamber represent some kind of urban elite. I would like to challenge that notion. We actually represent a broad spectrum of New Zealanders many of whom still believe that the State has a role beyond simply ensuring that the market thrives and that the State in respect of broadcasting might have something more to do with ensuring we actually have some content that people might want to watch from time to time. 
Over the weekend I had the privilege of being in Australia on a short break from the rigours of Christchurch. I happened also to be there during the time when Julia Gillard a very fine Labor Prime Minister announced to her nation the carbon tax proposals that will take Australia forward to 80 percent reductions in its climate change emissions by 2050 well ahead of the target of the Government opposite of simply 50 percent by 2050. It is a bold bold move by a Labor Government. 
I also had the pleasure of watching some of Australia’s public service television: ABC1 ABC2 SBS One SBS Two ABC 24-hour news—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Interjections are fine. I would like to hear what the member is actually saying. I ask members to calm down the interjections. Otherwise I will have to rule against them. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Thank you for that intervention Mr Deputy Speaker. I had the privilege of watching those five non-commercial state channels in Australia. I will not for one minute suggest we should emulate Australia; we are not as wealthy a nation as Australia. We have only one-fifth of Australia’s population but what we did have until this bill was a non-commercial channel that served the broader interests of New Zealand and the populace of New Zealand beyond simply what the commercial model delivers. As it is we are the only nation in the OECD other than Mexico that will now have no State television service with anything other than a commercial motive. I think that is a very very backwards step. 
I have to ask members opposite what sort of media environment we want as a nation to live in. Do we want to be a nation that has only commercial channels with commercial drivers? If members want an example of where that can lead to they need to look only at the recent coverage of what has been happening with Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in Britain: the  
News of the World  
paying police scanning private phone calls tapping the phones of dead children and soldiers who died in the service of that country and frightening politicians on both sides of the House to live in subservience to Rupert Murdoch. That is the sort of media environment we get to when the dollar or the pound is king the market drives and there is nothing to constrain them. 
Do not try to pretend to me that these issues have no connection to New Zealand. Who owns 40 percent of Sky in this country? It is Rupert Murdoch and his empire. The Minister of Broadcasting says that we have never had more choice. Who is providing the multiplicity of channels on the Rupert Murdoch - owned Sky network? It is Rupert Murdoch himself through his various connections with American providers and others. Rupert Murdoch provides much of the content we see on New Zealand television at the moment. 
The idea is promulgated by the Minister that we are simply consumers. To that I say on behalf of New Zealanders that we are absolutely not. We are more than consumers; we are citizens of this land. We need something more than the most popular we need something more than what simply sells the most and we need something more than what simply rates the most. If we want an example of where that has led to in recent times on our State-owned channels we need to look no further than Paul Henry. He encouraged by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) management pushed and pushed and pushed the line of what was acceptable to public taste until finally even he crossed that line and paid the ultimate price. 
I do not hold Paul Henry responsible for what happened to him. I hold the management of TVNZ responsible for it. I hold the Government responsible for it because they effectively encouraged TVNZ through this bill which states that all that TVNZ ever has to do now is make a profit and return it to the Government. There is no other consideration in this bill at all. All that the Government requires of TVNZ of our State-owned broadcaster is simply to make more cash and return it to the Government. The Government does not give a darn about the content it does not give a darn about what sort of service is provided; it is downgrading TVNZ it is dumbing it down. The Government is simply saying: “Don’t worry about it just make sure you give us the maximum amount of cash because that is really the only thing that matters to us as a Government. On behalf of our nation we require nothing more of you TVNZ than to simply coin it in the market place. If that means you go into programmes with questionable taste and decency then so be it.” 
We need to look only at TVNZ putting on air the programme  
Hung 
 fairly recently—the title is self-explanatory—which the Broadcasting Standards Authority has ruled on. I understand that it was not screened on any State or free-to-air television anywhere else in the world. It screened on cable television which has some capacity for parents to put a constraint upon who can watch it. That was not so in this country. That is the kind of direction this Government wants TVNZ to go in. It does not give a damn about the content it does not give a damn about the probity of the programmes; it simply says: “Under this bill go off and coin it TVNZ. That is your only requirement.” 
I think it is a very sad day for this country when a Government is prepared to say that to a State-owned enterprise that has a quite sacred duty to represent New Zealanders to give them some sense of their identity and to give them a sense of their culture. That was exactly what TVNZ was required to do under the charter which was at the heart of Labour’s time in office. The charter is absolutely thrown out by this bill and replaced with simply this profit motive. 
I look to TVNZ 7. It has had I think a fantastic track record in innovative and cheap programming. It has not been at the top end of the spectrum in terms of what taxpayers have been getting for their dollar spent. It has had very innovative programmes. Members opposite will know that from appearing on the  
Back Benches  
programme. I have the privilege of appearing again tomorrow night on  
Back Benches. 
 It is not highbrow—it is not highbrow—it is good innovative low-cost programming. It allows New Zealanders to have a little bit of fun with their politicians. It is the sort of thing we should be encouraging not putting forward a bill that states that the only thing that matters is for TVNZ to put profit into the Government’s pockets. 
What a shabby shameless short-sighted way for a Government to view the proud history of TVNZ and its predecessors to put it into a context where it is simply told to dumb down content make it rate make it sell and the Government does not care whatever is done with it. What a legacy for Jonathan Coleman as Minister of Broadcasting to go out of office in the reshuffle which I am sure is coming very shortly. His only contribution to TVNZ and to broadcasting has been this bill and a Radio New Zealand bill which 18 months after it was due to have been passed still languishes on the Order Paper. What a legacy for that Minister to leave behind! Can he truly go from the House proudly saying “I did my best for New Zealand I did my best for State broadcasting. I cut it. I simply put it on a footing that said ‘profit is all that matters’—that is the only thing—I drove it down.” 
I saw Paul Henry’s rise. I saw Paul Henry’s fall. There will be more of that to come under the sorts of prescriptions that this bill delivers. It is a very sad day for New Zealand to see TVNZ reduced from a proud history with public service at its core and a requirement yes to make some money to fund itself along the way. It was a mixed model. Now there is simply no longer a mixed model; there is simply a model with the profit centre at its heart. Nothing else matters. What a sad shameful shabby piece of legislation.