Broadcasting Amendment Bill

We come to the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, and we are now talking about Part 1. We had the second reading in the House last night, and it is pretty clear that all parties will support this bill.

As we discussed, the bill essentially brings the funding arrangements up to date, in line with the technology. When the Broadcasting Act 1989 was passed, only television and radio were on the horizon in New Zealand; we are now in a totally different environment. We have had the digital revolution, and we are now in an environment where broadcasting already involves a lot of different platforms, whether they be the Internet, mobile phones, things like video on demand—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s not broadcasting; that’s narrow-casting.

The Minister will get his chance to take a call. The general point is that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill actually engulfs, or encompasses, a variety of platforms. The current funding arrangements are really outdated for the technology we have now. This bill will allow the broadcasting funding agencies, NZ On Air and Te Māngai Pāho, which is the Māori broadcasting funding agency, to direct funding to a variety of platforms. Previously, as I said, they were allocating them just to television and radio. But in this new environment we have to accept that people will source content across a variety of platforms, and the arrangements have to reflect that.

National has been supportive of this bill right from the start, but what this bill really brings into focus are the areas where we do not agree with the Government. I think there will be some significant points of debate in the field of broadcasting in the future. We heard last year about Television New Zealand (TVNZ) failing abysmally in financial terms under the yoke of this Government’s policy, which has saddled it with this dual remit whereby it has to give the Government a dividend and, on top of that, it also has to perform to the expectations of the charter. As my colleague Richard Worth aptly summed up last night, the charter, as we have it now, is just a set of aspirational statements with nothing concrete that we can measure any outputs against. This leads to a heck of a lot of confusion, and we have had some ridiculous examples of what constitutes a charter programme.

It is quite clear that the Government does not actually agree with the people at TVNZ. There was no clearer example of that than when the chief executive of TVNZ, when asked by the Māori Affairs Committee last year what Māori programming was currently on State television, named programmes such as Location Location Location and Police Ten 7. Quite clearly, those programmes do not represent Māori broadcasting. We have such a loose charter that TVNZ can try to fit any old programme within what is prescribed by the charter. It is a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs. Steve Maharey, when he was the Minister of Broadcasting, was very keen on the idea of the charter; it has really been his baby. One really has to ask oneself what has changed between before the charter and after it. Has it really made a difference to what is on our screens? Well, if one actually looks at it, one sees that the reality is that the charter was supposed to deliver more local content for New Zealanders, but in actual fact we now have less. If one of the functions of the charter is to ensure that New Zealanders can see content that reflects how we live here in this country, one would have to argue that it is not actually performing as one would hope it might.

But this Government has more problems in broadcasting than just TVNZ, because it also has the issue of FreeView and digital broadcasting. The Government has invested a lot of taxpayer money into these new digital channels—$104 million in total. TVNZ was given $79 million to set up the channels, then an extra $25 million. The reality is that the numbers of viewers have not grown as quickly as they might have. Have they plateaued? That is the real question. Unless the Government actually sets a date for switching off the analog TV signal, or puts something on those channels that is really compelling to watch, I do not think we will see the numbers grow.

I do not see much need to prolong the agony of this tiny little bill, which brings us 10 years up to date. Essentially, as has already been said, the funding agencies are currently allowed to fund content that can be watched only on television. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill broadens the role so that the agencies, Te Māngai Pāho and the Broadcasting Commission, can fund content to be used in other forms, such as the Internet and cellphones, as well as television.

Although I think it is very interesting to hear a wider debate and discussion about whether the charter has met its objectives, funding issues, etc., the reality is that this bill is a tiny little thing. It simply takes us into this century, and I—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Probably hardly that.

The member is probably right. All I recommend is that we progress this matter as soon as possible.

In that respect the member who has just resumed his seat is absolutely correct—the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is probably long overdue. I guess those who inhabit the world of Generation Y—or is it Generation X—would say: “Goodness me, where do these people come from? They are taking so long to enable the funding of new formats.” Obviously it is a phenomenon that will be understood a lot better by them than by some of us here.

National supports this bill, obviously. It enables the two funding agencies, NZ On Air and Te Māngai Pāho, to fund the production, transmission, and archiving of new forms of digital content. That is particularly important in the digital broadcasting environment. Also important is the fact it amends Te Māngai Pāho’s primary function by adding the archiving of Māori language and culture programmes to those matters that it already funds. That is very important given that Māori culture and language are key to New Zealand’s unique identity. Again, one would think that measure was overdue as well. It is a proper amendment to be made, and, as I said at the beginning, it is probably long overdue in respect of both these funding agencies.

My colleague Dr Coleman was right to put an emphasis on the woes of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and the Government’s performance in that arena in the last 9 years. It is interesting that Marian Hobbs is the presiding officer in the Chair, because the charter might more rightly be called her baby. But let us attribute the baby to both Marian Hobbs and Steve Maharey, who are so in love with it. It has proved, in a way, to be their Achilles heel, in National’s view. The dual remit has seen TVNZ, as I say, have a very woeful time of it for the whole 9 years this Government has been in power, and, frankly, there is nothing to say that in 2008 it has got its head around it yet. That is not a fair return to the taxpayer—it just is not. Millions of dollars have gone into a black hole. There has been no accountability whatsoever. Every time others try to get some accountability, especially at the select committee, when I was more involved in broadcasting in previous years, they would say: “This is commercially sensitive.” So there was never any way that one could actually pin TVNZ down.

One matter I want to mention is that National would be very, very concerned if, for instance, TVNZ applied funding for content that could be accessed only through pay-per-view cellphones. This is taxpayer funding we are talking about, and it seems to me that sometimes TVNZ tends to forget that. That is an area we would be very concerned about. I have just seen, in the Independent, I think, an article about TVNZ setting up a pay-per-view channel. Well, goodness me; TVNZ gets taxpayers’ money to deliver FreeView into, hopefully, every home. The cost, of course, is prohibitive, and there will be a lot of New Zealanders who are not able to afford the cost of taking on FreeView. Many of them also have Sky anyway, and have had it for some years. They have been willing to pay. TVNZ needs to think about that, but still it goes to the Government, as it just did in the last weeks of last year.

There are some reports of TVNZ going to Te Māngai Pāho wondering why Te Māngai Pāho was starting to be a bit tough on its plans for Māori programming. I will never forget the day—and my colleague referred to this—when representatives of TVNZ came into the Māori Affairs Committee and had a list of programmes that they thought fitted the Māori remit. One TVNZ person referred to programmes about Māori being in jail, and about a Māori family buying a house on Location Location Location. It was absolutely ridiculous. No doubt Dancing with the Stars qualifies because there are some Māori dancing on there.

I would say that we should be able to feel immensely proud of our public broadcasting system, but we have not actually got to that stage yet. We have not got there, I think, because we have created a situation that is almost impossible for public broadcasters and in particular for Television New Zealand. We require that it acts in a commercial manner, but we also require that it fulfil the provisions of a charter—and I will briefly touch on that.

I would also say that it is unfortunate that we are not presented with a greater opportunity in this bill to make the sorts of changes that I believe should be made. There was the opportunity in this bill, for example, to provide security of funding flows to Television New Zealand, to New Zealand On Air, to Māori radio, and to Māori television. We have not done that. There was also an opportunity to put in some hard, measurable goals so that those organisations responsible for funding could have confidence that the money would be wisely spent. We have not done that. National is supporting this bill, but we say it is a pity because it could have gone so much further and been so much better. It could have been a seamless web, but in fact it is now, rather, a tangled web, I would say. It could have been clear of ambiguity in those areas of broadcasting where there is ambiguity, but that has not been done. I would say that the objectives for public broadcasting should be spelt out with a clarity that incentivises those who are involved in public broadcasting, and for those who are in that body of listeners or viewers who can gain pleasure and enjoyment in knowing that professional product is being delivered to their ears and to their eyes.

I have made comment about the Television New Zealand charter, because of course these organisations that we have identified—in particular, NZ On Air—have that funding responsibility. The charter, as I said last night, is in the process of review. Indeed, it is a plan for the Commerce Committee to look at its content in the next short period, by way of inquiry. But the charter itself is so broad-based, it is so aspirational, it is so meaningless, and it is so lacking in measurable goals that it is in need of substantial rewriting. One needs only to look at the way it is structured to see that that is quite clearly so. I gave as an instance the section in the charter that is headed “An Informed Society”, and if one follows through the particular parts in just that section one sees how inadequate and broad-brushed those provisions are.

So in supporting the legislation, I express the hope that the next time broadcasting legislation is presented to us in bill form, it will achieve some of the objectives that are so clearly lacking here.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to continue our support for this legislation, which the Minister is responsible for bringing to this Committee. I will comment in relation to the extended functions provided to Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi under Part 1 of this bill. The Government ought to be lauded for providing this extension, given the advancements made in technology and the uptake that the people of New Zealand are making in terms of this new technology. But I tell this Committee—and I am glad that the officials are present—that with these new, extended responsibilities, I hope that when the budgetary round comes around and bids are made, the funding for Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi, also known as Te Māngai Pāho, will be increased to match the increased responsibilities that have been extended to that organisation.

Allied to that, of course, is the fact that—as I understand it, and as alluded to by the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth—the charter is currently being reviewed. I hope that as a consequence of this bill, people like those in Television New Zealand will not exercise their licence to include such programmes as those that have been referred to, like Location, Location, Location, to address their commitment to the charter of meeting that particular requirement. I wanted to mention that in this debate, and to reiterate the point that New Zealand First certainly supports the intent of this bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. I also want to speak to this bill. The Māori Party will also be supporting it, but I will take the opportunity to raise a couple of issues.

One is an issue that I raised in my speech yesterday, which was that in 20 years there has been only one operational increase in funding for Māori radio stations. That increase was a one-off, and it came last year. That is a record to be ashamed of, considering that the funding came as a result of a High Court decision that obligated the Crown to take steps to protect Māori language and culture.

I am thankful that we do have Māori radio and Māori television, and I think that they provide our country with an opportunity, particularly, to hear Māori music. Māori music was simply not getting played anywhere until Māori radio came along. In fact, when we started our Māori radio station in Kaitāia, back in 1989, on 17 December at 6 a.m., we had only a half a dozen CDs, apart from music by Howard Morrison and a couple of others.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: They were good.

They were not good; actually, they were fabulous, and we played them time and time again. Howard is the guy they called in for Labour, but he is actually a signed-up member of the Māori Party.

Be that as it may; the important thing is that there have been positive steps, but I would like to see not just a commitment to ongoing funding but a commitment to an ongoing increase in funding, if for no other purpose than to match the rate of inflation. There has not been any operational increase per station since that time. So it is an issue that we would like to see considered.

We would also like to see whether it is possible to consider the make-up of Te Māngai Pāho itself, which is done by ministerial appointment. I use as an example the appointment of the board for Māori television, which is a joint exercise between the Crown and a Māori electoral college known as Te Pūtahi Paoho. That model has been used in fisheries and in a number of other activities as a result of Te Pūtahi Paoho first being used to establish a Crown relationship in the appointment of bodies like the Māori Television Service board.

I was the first chairperson of Te Pūtahi Paoho and I think that the model is a particularly worthwhile one to be considered for the appointment of members to Te Māngai Pāho and possibly even Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. That is a different entity again from broadcasters but Te Taura Whiri has a role in the establishment and monitoring of standards for Māori broadcasters, so it makes sense to consider whether those governance functions should be established in the same manner. Koinā nō taku kōrero.

[That is my address.]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think previous speakers have brought up a number of points that bear revisiting. When we look at what this change will mean to funding arrangements, we see that it really reflects the broadcasting environment that we are moving into. We talked previously about the fragmentation of audiences across platforms. The fact that Te Māngai Pāho and New Zealand On Air will be able, after this bill passes, to fund content for those different platforms really sends a message to the traditional broadcasters, and that is that the days of audiences going to just one broadcaster to get all their content are rapidly disappearing. The generation of people who are under 25—and, let us face it, none of them is in this Chamber—currently source their broadcasting content very much on an iPod model. They use software like LimeWire to download episodes of popular programmes, like Desperate Housewives, from websites in America. They watch what they want, when they want. I can tell members that the broadcasting environment is changing very, very quickly.

That is a major threat for traditional broadcasters like Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and TV3, because viewers will not be glued to just one channel. They will not just sit through whatever stuff is served up, or sit through commercials. It is not a matter of their just channel surfing; they are going to assemble their own content very much along the iPod model for music. They will put all the stuff they want to access in one place, they will watch it when they want to, and they will not have to watch the advertisements. That is going to be a major challenge.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: People are doing it already.

No, that is what I said.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You said that they will, but they are now.

Well, increasingly more people will, but people are doing it already. But I bet the Minister of Broadcasting is not doing it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, actually I’ve got some very good people who help me with it.

The Minister is getting help—OK. He admits he needs help in this domain. But I think the Minister will acknowledge that this is very much something that the younger generation of New Zealanders are doing. For people above the age of, say, 30 it may be a novel concept, but that is the way it is going to go.

What does it mean for TVNZ and TV3? It means it will be very hard for them to continue making the money that they have made out of advertising. Their audiences are dropping off. They are decreasing year by year. With that audience drop-off there is far less advertising revenue, and, of course, the bottom line for those stations will not be good. It will be adversely affected. Last year, we saw from TVNZ’s financial results that it had its first-ever loss. It was a loss of $4.5 million on revenue of $375 million. One has to ask what TVNZ is going to do to respond to that. That is the real challenge that faces the executives of TV channels today. They are trying a variety of different strategies, but they do not know whether any of them will work. Last year TVNZ launched TVNZ ondemand, which is a web-based model whereby people pay to download content, but TVNZ does not know whether it will work. It does not really know whether it will produce enough revenue to turn things round. All broadcasters are facing these challenges, and it will be interesting to see what the revenue models for broadcasting in the future are actually about.

My colleague Georgina te Heuheu also mentioned that this bill will allow for the funding of Māori content, and I think that is highly appropriate. Māori content was not being produced 20 years ago, when the Broadcasting Act was originally passed. This bill brings the legislation into line with the cultural needs of New Zealanders, and I think everyone would support that happening.

I mentioned earlier the review of digital broadcasting. I think it will be pretty interesting. There is a lot of pretty wordy documents there. I do not think many members of the public will read through them. They will mainly be of interest to broadcasting academics, politicians of course, and a few journalists. They lay out a series of options for regulation. It is my belief that the Government does not want this regulation issue to rear its head before the election. It knows that the public response could be pretty mixed.

But the Government has a problem: it has put $104 million into FreeView, and, basically, it has to make it financially viable. There are two options. At some point the Government will have to turn off the analog TV signal, and everyone will have to be able to access digital television. But the Government will be faced politically with a difficult situation. There will always be a group of people who are late adapters, or who do not have the financial wherewithal to take up digital television. I think that that is one of the challenges for the Minister. I hope he will take a call to tell us what the plan is.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s hardly part of this.

The Minister has said that in 2012—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a very good discussion at the second reading.

The Minister can take a call. He has plenty to say now. We would love the Minister to take a call.

💬 Hon Member: It’s not in this bill.

Well, broadcasting encompasses this issue, which is what people want to hear about. The relevance to this bill is that we are moving into the digital environment and this bill is all about—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Yes.

Mark Burton says that is true, so there we go. It must be true if Mark Burton, the previous Minister of Justice, says it is true.This bill is all about broadening out the financing arrangements to reflect technological changes. The digital review of broadcasting is all about the Government’s drift-net for ideas, because it is out of ideas. Frankly, it is completely exhausted after a shocking 9 years. It needs new ideas for broadcasting. It has thrown this bill out for public consultation, and it is hoping the public will throw up a few ideas so that it can justify the sort of regulation it needs to bring in if FreeView is to be a success. When this Government goes, in the election later this year, I think it will be a great relief to a lot of these people, because they will not have to deliver on a lot of this Government’s lofty ideals and plans for broadcasting. FreeView will become an albatross to sling around someone else’s neck, because this Government will really struggle to deliver on it and make it viable.

With FreeView, the Government has set up digital television channels that are part of TVNZ. The people who watch those channels, which $104 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on, have to come from somewhere. Where will they come from? They will come across from Television One and TV2. There is no advertising on those digital channels, so the problem is that if those channels are a success, they will take audiences away from the channels on which TVNZ can show advertising, and its revenues will go down. If that does not happen, then the digital channels, by definition, will fail. So the Minister is really stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is faced in this bill—which we all support—with some real challenges, because this bill will speed up the fragmentation of audiences. It will take them away from Government-favoured projects like FreeView, and that will produce a real headache for the Minister. He will have to come up with some answers as to how FreeView can be viable and how TVNZ can continue to be viable.

The last point I would make is that National members are very keen that any funding given to new platforms goes to programmes that are available free to air to New Zealanders. We think that if a programme has Government funding, people should be able to access it on a free-to-air platform. Within that we would include FreeView, because analog television will disappear. But we do not want Government funding to disappear to a Vodafone pay-per-view download on to a mobile phone, or any pay-per-view sort of platform. It is really important that there is accountability around Government funding, and that the public have access to it. We saw in the Independent yesterday that TVNZ is thinking about getting into pay TV. Well, we would say that pay TV—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it’s rubbish.

Here we go; it is the Minister again. He ought to take a call. He will get a chance in a minute, but I bet that he will not take it. I bet the Minister that he will not take a call. He will just interject on other speakers.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: How much?

Well, I ask the Minister how much we should make it.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Miscellaneous