Kedgley Sue: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3755] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I have three amendments that I would like to introduce so I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to do so. 
Just before I introduce them I would like to reiterate my question to the Minister of Broadcasting which he has yet to answer: why would he split off the profitable transmission arm of Television New Zealand? This is the part of the company that the previous Minister of Broadcasting said was the wonderful golden goose that was providing the funding to enable Television New Zealand to make New Zealand programmes and to have a successful television service. Why would he split that off? What is he going to do what is his game plan when advertising revenues slump and a future National Government—if we assume there will ever be such a thing—comes in and says it will not subsidise Television New Zealand to the tune of $10 million or $12 million a year? What is the game plan for Television New Zealand then? Where is the money going to come from? By trying to cripple the independent industry? I am astonished that the Labour Party is undertaking a split of Television New Zealand such that will make it vulnerable weaken it take off its revenue-producing arm and make it vulnerable to Government handouts—which may not come of course—and dependent on advertising revenue. I would appreciate an answer because I cannot see the logic behind it. 
I turn to a number of amendments that the Green Party has. The first one is on the question of violence. It is extraordinary that we had a charter that discusses all sorts of issues but is silent on the issue of violence. According to research undertaken by the Broadcasting Standards Tribunal not only adults but New Zealand children themselves said that their No. 1 concern about television was the violence on it. They not only rated television violence as their No. 1 concern—that is 55 percent of them—but said they saw it as disturbing distasteful and potentially harmful. Why would we not address this issue in a charter that is supposed to be all about improving the quality of New Zealand television? We hear a great deal of talk in this Chamber about violence in New Zealand and about the violent culture in New Zealand. Why would we not address the issue? 
More than 3000 pieces of research have concluded that children who watch a lot of violence on television become desensitised to violence are more likely to be violent are less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others and so on and so forth. Even the Broadcasting Standards Tribunal has concluded that parents cannot be solely responsible for regulating and monitoring the content of television viewed by children. A recent study said it is essential that regulators take a leading role in ensuring children are not exposed to potentially harmful television content. This is particularly true when it comes to Television New Zealand—publicly owned television. What on earth would be the point of public service television which is owned by the people of New Zealand exposing the children of New Zealand to potentially harmful television content in the form of gratuitous and excessive violence? 
Our amendment asks TVNZ to play a leading role in complying with free-to-air codes of broadcasting practice and in particular any code with provisions on violence. There are some very excellent codes with provisions on violence; it is just that they are completely ignored by broadcasters in New Zealand. This amendment puts a specific obligation on TVNZ to comply with the code on violence and with other ones to take a leading role and to account for that. 
I have already talked about the second amendment which is to add the word “independent” to the film and television industry. The final amendment is with regard to the rather waffly charter provision that states: “maintain and observe a code of ethics that addresses the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed;”. As it reads it is completely meaningless. What we would like to do is just take the intent of that provision as we read it and clarify it.