Television New Zealand Amendment Bill

I move, That the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Government’s pre-election manifesto included a commitment to provide certainty to our public broadcasters. To do this, we had to address the outmoded provisions in the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) legislation, and put in place a new mandate for TVNZ’s operations in the 21st century. This bill amends the Television New Zealand Act 2003 in line with this Government’s wish to replace the current TVNZ charter with a less prescriptive list of functions, and to leave TVNZ to concentrate on being a successful television broadcaster, without the shackle of an unrealistic dual mandate.

The other core purpose of the bill is to amend the Act to allow the rescreening of TVNZ’s archived pre-1989 television programmes and to provide a process for compensatory payments to individuals with an interest in the works when the archived programmes are rescreened. This bill recognises that TVNZ is now operating as a multimedia company delivering content to mainstream and niche audiences. The bill also future-proofs TVNZ’s ability to use new media platforms to display content.

The Government’s expectations of TVNZ are set out in Part 1 of the bill, replacing a lengthy list of charter obligations as outlined in section 12 of the Act. Tinkering with the charter during the 2007-08 review tightened up the wording but did not address the central problem that TVNZ cannot meet the requirements in section 12 to give effect to its charter and to maintain its commercial performance. The dual mandate had to go.

This bill provides a realistic framework within which TVNZ will operate. The reality is that for many, many years TVNZ has been predominantly commercially funded—well over 90 percent of its income is from commercial revenue. That was the case under the last Government, as well. Members will be well aware that TVNZ’s charter was not workable for a commercial broadcaster. As a result, there was not a real point of difference for TVNZ’s programming, and charter funding was sometimes used in ways not intended when the charter was first enacted in 2003. Removing the charter is being honest, and not trying to pretend that TVNZ is something it plainly is not. The real test is to look at what difference there is between TVNZ’s viewing schedule prior to the charter and during it. The answer is that there is none.

Clause 6 of this bill therefore replaces the charter with a clear, achievable set of functions for TVNZ. These 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.”, to “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 Māori perspectives.”, and to “include the provision of channels that are free of charge and available to audiences throughout New Zealand.”

The bill gives TVNZ the flexibility it needs to set its own priorities and compete in a highly competitive and diverse media market without the encumbrance of an unrealistic charter. TVNZ’s challenge is to deliver content that New Zealanders want to see, or, as the bill puts it, content that is “enjoyed and valued by New Zealand audiences”. TVNZ already delivers on that provision. Its programmes dominate the ratings. New Zealanders clearly want to see New Zealand content, and this Government is continuing to fund that content through NZ On Air. Our policy is to support the production of content, rather than channels or platforms for delivery, because one broadcaster does not have a monopoly on good ideas. Rather than ring-fencing funding for TVNZ programmes, we allow TVNZ to compete along with other broadcasters for NZ On Air funding. We thereby make sure that only the best projects make it to our screens.

The Māori Party had concerns that with the removal of the charter TVNZ will not meet its obligation to promote Māori language and culture. The Māori Party referred to the Privy Council findings in the 1993 New Zealand Māori Council case that the Government has a legal obligation to promote Māori language and culture. This Government is very aware of its obligations. We support those initiatives that promote Māori language and culture, including the establishment of Te Māngai Pāho and the Māori Television Service. NZ On Air also has a specific statutory mandate to address Māori interests. The new functions in the bill also explicitly require TVNZ to provide high-quality content that reflects Māori perspectives.

The second part of this bill introduces a new scheme to free up for rescreening publicly funded archive material in TVNZ’s archive. TVNZ’s archive has an extensive collection of New Zealand audiovisual material, and is an important part of New Zealand’s cultural heritage. It is in the public interest to make that material available. Currently a significant number of programmes are effectively locked up in that archive, unable to be screened because of the multiple rights attached to the works, which would require clearance. This bill provides a means to resolve the issue of rights clearance. The scheme balances public-good objectives of making these works available for current and future generations to see with the rights of those who were contracted to work on those programmes.

The bill imposes certain conditions on the use of the archived material. Only material for which TVNZ holds sole copyright will be screened. Co-productions cannot be included. Employees of the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand or its predecessors will not be able to seek payment for rescreening of archived work. The material must be screened free of charge to the viewer on TVNZ channels, on the TVNZ Ondemand internet site, or on any other platform that TVNZ chooses. The material must be screened outside prime-time hours on TVNZ’s main commercial channels, and must not be subject to a licence sold for profit by TVNZ, though the recovery of reasonable costs will be permitted.

The Māori Television Service currently has arrangements with TVNZ regarding the use of material held in the archive. I am aware of how invaluable this material has been for Māori Television. Section 29C, inserted by clause 10, permits TVNZ to make archived works, covered by the scheme, available to the Māori Television Service. It does not in any way supersede the existing arrangements between TVNZ and Māori Television in respect of wider access to material in the TVNZ archive. Similarly, TVNZ will be able to enter into an arrangement with New Zealand On Screen in respect of a work previously screened by TVNZ or Māori Television.

I know, of course, that the Opposition has made a number of statements about broadcasting. Whereas we have laid out very clearly and unambiguously our view that we will fund programmes and not bureaucracies, Labour has made a number of undertakings in the past few days, yet only yesterday Labour was calling for a public service television channel. I am looking forward tonight to Labour speakers confirming that, indeed, should Labour become the Government it will be finding at least $15 million per annum to fund that channel.

As the Minister of Broadcasting, it is great for me to see this legislation pass. It ushers in a new era for TVNZ and allows our State broadcaster to operate effectively in today’s fast-moving media environment. This bill removes the confusing and conflicting goals that have hampered TVNZ in recent years. It sets the company on a new course with a clear direction for its operations and a mandate to provide added value for publicly funded works. It is a very positive development for TVNZ. I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to take a call in the third reading debate of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. If there are lessons to be learnt from the News of the World phone hacking debacle, it is that independent public media, not captured by vested interests, is critical to the health of a nation and to democracy. I think we should talk more about democracy and what it means, because it is damn important. The public needs to know that politicians and media are not in bed with each other, that media adhere to some damn standards, that there are lines that will not be crossed, and that if those lines are crossed the judicial system will investigate, will act, and will not be captured and muzzled by the fear of powerful media.

The bill before us tonight does not reinforce any of those important aims and values. Instead, it is an erosion of them, taking away a charter of public responsibility and accountability to public broadcasting standards and values; allowing a stronger alliance between the State broadcaster and pay TV, owned by Murdoch; and reinforcing the view that commercial, profit-based media is best. All this leads to the conclusion that this Government does not give a stuff about public broadcasting, and does not give a stuff about the rights of New Zealanders to be told the truth and to be delivered quality content about ourselves. It is all a “nice-to-have” and it is all about money and vested interests.

This bill takes New Zealand on a slippery slope towards an environment where vested interests rule our media and possibly rule our politicians. Why did this Government refuse to support TVNZ 7? Why has it made Television New Zealand (TVNZ) a commercial broadcaster? Why freeze Radio New Zealand funding and force it to look for other revenue streams? Why refuse to support, encourage, or even acknowledge the fact that our broadcasting sector has virtually no regulation, that the mammoth Sky Television rules the air, that free-to-air broadcasting is under threat, and that the prospect of locked-up content delivery through broadband technology may reinforce the digital divide between those who can and those who cannot afford access to material that should be available to all?

Labour is strongly opposed to this bill. We believe in a well-funded, innovative, and community-orientated public broadcaster—in other words, the very opposite of the goals of this bill and the current Minister of Broadcasting. I must point out that I believe that the Minister actually wanted to retain a public TV broadcaster, but he just could not get it up. He was not strong enough.

This bill axes the TVNZ charter. As Russel Norman would say, it thrusts a dagger through its heart, eliminating the need for our public broadcaster to act in any way in the public interest. Instead, it will be replaced by a statement of functions, which has the main goal of ensuring that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial performance. We can see what National intends for TVNZ: for it to become a commercial enterprise motivated only by the bottom line. This Government has already moved to centralise TVNZ in Auckland with the sale of Avalon Studios, and has signalled the demise of TVNZ 7. Any more cuts will have a huge impact on local production and the people who work in it. It is a criminal waste. Avalon Studios are the best studios in the South Pacific. TVNZ is becoming “TV Auckland”. It is all about supplying pay TV content rather than quality public broadcasting.

In 2008 TVNZ presented the memorial service for Sir Edmund Hillary, held at Windsor Castle. This was an important occasion for New Zealand and an example of the crucial role of a genuine public broadcaster. Under National’s statement of functions I highly doubt that an event of this nature would be regarded as worthwhile, considering the pressure that TVNZ will be under to deliver profits. Instead of seeing a national hero honoured, we may be forced to endure the latest so-called comedy sitcom from the US. This Government has got its priorities wrong.

The Minister tells us there will still be plenty of local programming that will receive funding from New Zealand On Air through a contestable pool, but that is rubbish. Does the Minister seriously believe that a commercial broadcaster, which TVNZ has become, will replace a high-rating overseas show in prime time with unknown and unproven content? What would the shareholders think of that? I ask the Minister whether TVNZ is being prepared for sale.

Local producers and artists need more than basic funding. They need the support of a public broadcaster that can give them access to high-quality production crews that have a wealth of broadcasting knowledge. It was with the support of TVNZ that Marcus Lush’s programme North was produced. It was a critically acclaimed and hugely popular programme with high production values.

The Minister needs to wake up and realise what commercialising TVNZ will do to locally made television. We have seen the impact of National’s commercialisation policy. Funding of TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 was cut completely, forcing valuable Kiwi shows off air. These channels offer real choice in programming as well as being ad-free. The programmes on those channels would not be touched by a commercial channel of prime-time broadcasting, yet they are crucial to making New Zealand a country where diversity and talent are valued.

The Minister says that viewers were not there to keep it going, but in the case of TVNZ 7 his comment ignores the fact that it was a digital channel and not available on free-to-air TV unless households had a digital receiver. Yet it still managed 200,000 viewers a week. As North and South journalist Mike White aptly put it, it is like saying that all seldom-read books in the library, which would include a swag of classics, should be removed and the library downsized to cut costs. With more funding for effective advertising it could have been a highly successful channel that educated viewers as well as entertained them.

But why would that Minister care? He is not doing it for the New Zealand public; he is doing it for his mates in the private sector, who have been making a killing from the crony politics of this Government. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain to the New Zealand public why he felt it was in their interests to loan a commercial business $43 million of their money while at the same time cutting funding to TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7.

We know what National has planned for TVNZ. Freshly commercialised, broadcasting the latest TV sitcoms from the US, it will be flogged off to the highest bidder as National begins large-scale privatisation of State assets after the election. We are firmly opposed to the sale of any State assets, and we should not let the Minister begin this process with this bill.

A competitive and thriving media and content creation sector is needed to create diversity. The New Zealand broadcasting sector currently lacks a diversity of ideas, because we are unique in the world, apart from Mexico, in that we have lost the public television broadcasting function. Radio New Zealand’s frozen budget puts it under such pressure that it must consider fund-raising via a trust or a commercial sponsorship to pay for some of its programmes.

To incentivise competition and get the best of it, we need to be aware of the extent to which the ownership and control of our media exists outside of New Zealand and whether our access to content is being delivered by those who protect their commercial interests by anti-competitive behaviour. We consider that the current commercial market framework does not deliver diversity, because it lacks a publicly funded component. It does have a significant locally funded component: the subsidising of local content by New Zealand On Air. We support New Zealand On Air, but it is not enough and it is not, as Jonathan Coleman seems to think, the replacement for public broadcasting in this country. We challenge the National view that local content and public broadcasting are synonymous.

It is for those reasons that Labour is committed to developing a new model of public broadcasting. We welcome this week’s announcement of a lobby group, the Public Media Foundation, mooted by David Beatson, which is a much-needed watchdog for the industry, but members will have to wait to hear what it is. This bill erodes the last bastions of public broadcasting in this country, condemning us to further dumbing down and sensationalising of our news, and ultimately resulting in the privatisation of TVNZ. We do not believe in that, and we will stand up for the New Zealand public today by opposing this bill.

Talofa lava and thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a mai oe?

I am well. It is my pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. I will start by congratulating the articulate and intelligent Minister Jonathan Coleman, who has brought this bill to the House. Finally we are seeing come to fruition one of National’s campaign platforms on bringing change to Television New Zealand (TVNZ). I also thank the officials who assisted our progress through the Commerce Committee, and the submitters. We learnt quite a bit not just about archive works but also about the purpose of this bill and what New Zealanders out there thought about what we are doing here tonight.

This bill is about repealing the charter and freeing up TVNZ from its dual mandate. We know that that dual mandate, over time, has been unsustainable, unworkable, and undesirable to most New Zealanders. National is committed to public broadcasting through the New Zealand On Air model. Tonight we heard the previous speaker opposite, Clare Curran, brush over that model, but let me say that it receives $81 million of funding. As well, we have the Platinum Television Fund, which contributes $15 million to the rich tapestry of New Zealand’s creative talent.

We want TVNZ to be a successful commercial broadcaster operating across various platforms. We know that, going forward, TVNZ has to compete in a competitive market. We know that technological change is going on not just here in New Zealand but around the world.

This bill replaces the TVNZ charter with more generic statutory requirements. What does the bill do? In essence, it replaces section 12 of the current Act. The functions of TVNZ are to be a successful national television and digital media company providing a range of content and services on a choice of delivery platforms, including the internet, including television, and including a number of platforms.

It is about choice and the modern context under which TVNZ must operate. It is about carrying out its functions in programmes that are relevant and enjoyed by New Zealand audiences—that is right, New Zealand audiences. Content is king. Content is important. It is about satisfying the needs of consumers, of all New Zealanders, not just the liberal elite that Miss Curran represents. This is about the public interests of opening up a pre-1989—

💬 Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to what the member opposite said about me representing an elite, given that I come from one of the poorest electorates in the country, and represent that electorate.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, we were just changing presiding officers so I did not hear the comment that was made. I caution members about what they say about other members.

I apologise to Miss Curran if she took offence, but she does represent the champagne-sipping urban elite that she professes to—

💬 Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take great exception to being told that I represent an elite.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: These are debating points and this is a robust debate. The comments are acceptable and in order under the Standing Orders.

The urban elite do not wear Highlanders’ jerseys—

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had this speech interrupted twice on matters that have not been a point of order. I remind you Mr Deputy Speaker that before you came into the House the member who is making the complaint accused the Minister of cronyism. I suggest that you do not allow these points of order to continue.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled and we will move on.

I reiterate that we are honouring our election promise to replace the current TVNZ charter. It is about all New Zealanders and not just the urban elite that she represents.

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.

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.

I worked as a reporter for Television New Zealand (TVNZ) in news and current affairs and as a director and producer when TVNZ was, I might say, in its heyday as a genuine public service broadcaster, with documentaries and extended current affairs programmes screening regularly in prime time. As someone who was part of that era, it is quite hard to figure out how we in New Zealand have ended up like this. We are one of the only countries in the world without a public service television channel, with one of the most deregulated broadcasting media environments in the world, with no restrictions on foreign ownership of media, with no restrictions on cross-media ownership, with no restrictions on pay TV, and with no rules about just about anything. We are one of the only countries in the world with no regulated local-content quota on television. As a result, we screen one of the least amounts of local programming in the world.

It is also hard to believe that in probably half an hour’s time our only publicly owned broadcasting channels other than Māori Television will exist for the sole purpose of returning a profit and a dividend to the Government. One could be forgiven for asking what the point of that is. What is the point of having a publicly owned television channel that has no mandate other than to make money for its shareholder? There is no publicly owned television channel in the rest of the world with such a pathetic mandate.

In the absence of any regulation or any restrictions in our broadcasting environment, it raises the question of what would happen if National, should it win the next election, were to sell off TVNZ, which is now nicely fully commercialised and ready for sale, if it can find a buyer. That clearly is its agenda. What would happen if TV3 went bankrupt? Hopefully, it will not, but that is not beyond the realms of possibility. We could be left with one foreign-owned, commercially driven network—such as that owned by Sky TV, of which Rupert Murdoch owns 40 percent—controlling all the television channels in New Zealand. There is nothing in our media environment to prevent that. We could end up with pay TV and a couple of other channels owned by Murdoch that have a particular bias, such as Fox Television. That could be all that is available in New Zealand, so we could all be watching the equivalent of the Murdoch-owned Fox Television. There is nothing to stop that happening in New Zealand.

Even if that rather alarming scenario does not play out, there is no doubt that in the short term—now that TVNZ has no mandate to provide public service content—we will end up with less and less New Zealand content on television, because we all know that it is much cheaper to buy imported programmes from offshore than it is to make New Zealand programmes. At a recent broadcasting seminar TV3 said that a commercial channel can afford to screen only about 20 percent New Zealand programmes; it cannot afford any more. That is what TV2 screens now; actually, I think it is nearer 18 or 19 percent. So we will have channels in New Zealand—Television One, TV2, TV3, and, of course, Prime Television—screening more than 80 percent foreign content. The only criterion for TVNZ about whether it will screen a programme will be made by the sales department of TVNZ, and it will be based on whether it thinks the programme will produce enough ratings and attract enough advertising. Who will care whether the programmes are New Zealand - made?

Under this new mandate TVNZ will become a nakedly commercial broadcaster indistinguishable from any other channel. We will end up with less and less news and current affairs, as well, because it is very expensive to make news and current affairs. The only thing that TVNZ bosses will be focused on is making money, returning that dividend to the Government. TVNZ will have to fulfil this mandate, no matter what personal misgivings it may have. Already the small amount of current affairs that we have on mainstream television—Campbell Live, Close Up—is constantly interrupted with the hand-wringing mantra: “Oh, sorry, we have run out of time.” That is what we will hear over and over again, because no one will have time for in-depth exploration of current affairs, or for just about any other issue, on this commercially focused TVNZ.

One of the reasons that I believe we have ended up in this sorry state of affairs is that this Government, like other conservative Governments, is deeply suspicious—indeed, it seems to dislike public broadcasting. I think it believes that public broadcasting has a left-wing bias and a bias against free-market ideology. George Bush spent years targeting American public service broadcasting, John Howard spent years attacking Australian public radio, and since the 1990s we have had sustained attacks on public service broadcasting in this country.

In fact, I came across an article from 1998 written by Denis Welch when he was exploring the attacks made on Radio New Zealand. It was most interesting, because a whole series of letters attacking Radio New Zealand was uncovered. The letters had been written by the Business Roundtable and its lobbyist, one Barrie Saunders, who has now been appointed director of TVNZ. Barrie Saunders, a lobbyist for the Business Roundtable, said that Radio New Zealand’s programmes were inherently anti-market, that they were left wing, and that they were biased against the Business Roundtable. He said: “I … feel [that Radio New Zealand] is … beyond redemption … it should be shut down.” That guy, who made a sustained attack against public service broadcasting, has now been appointed to the board of TVNZ. He is a full-time lobbyist, and he has been appointed to the board of TVNZ. A lobbyist is now being appointed to run TVNZ. It is quite clear what the agenda is; it is the same as it was with Radio New Zealand. His goal will be to shut down TVNZ.

Interestingly, it is a shame that Mr Ryall is not present, because in the same article Mr Ryall said: “I’m not convinced that we want all our stations owned by Mr Murdoch.” Very prophetic, this. He said: “In the seas of signals you’re going to want one or two lifeboats, of New Zealand culture.” That was said by Mr Ryall in 1998, and it was very prophetic, because that is what will happen. We will have all of our stations owned by Mr Murdoch, and we will be looking for one or two lifeboats of New Zealand culture.

Mr Coleman clearly shares Mr Saunders’ suspicion of those who work in public service broadcasting. Mr Coleman has no understanding whatsoever of the importance of public service broadcasting for a healthy democracy. We want broadcasters who are free from commercial pressures, who are not beholden to any commercial or other interests, and who are not solely driven by television ratings and advertising schedules. We want broadcasters who can look at different ideas and perspectives and speak without fear or favour.

Mr Coleman has no understanding of, and no support for, public service broadcasting. Rather, he supports the nakedly commercial broadcasting that others have pointed out has resulted in the atrocious scandal that we are seeing unfold in England, where Rupert Murdoch’s empire has been engaged in shocking, illicit behaviour. That is what happens when one has commercial media driven by the ratings and whose sole purpose is to bring in the ratings. They will descend to any level, no matter how illicit, to get their ratings. In New Zealand, where we have no regulation whatsoever, Rupert Murdoch could continue completely unfettered. If he is booted out of England, then that maybe is what he will seek to do. There is nothing to stop him. There are no cross-media rules in New Zealand. He could take over our entire media without any problem, because there are no rules.

It is a very sad day. In about 20 minutes we will see the end of public service broadcasting, apart from TVNZ7, but that too is to be booted out. The Government cannot find $15 million a year to fund one last public service niche broadcasting channel, but it can find $45 million for a sweet-heart deal with private broadcasters.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora anō tātau e te Whare. He wā poto noa iho tēnei kua tukuna mai ai ki a au, ki te whakatakoto i ngā whakaaro o te Pāti Māori. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei o ngā pire i roto i te Whare kua kaha whakahē mātau i tōna pūtake. Arā anō ngā mea kua whakatakotohia e aku hoa. Ka mutu, ahakoa i puta mai i te waha o te Minita ko tāna whakautu ki tā te Pāti Māori i whakatakoto mai ai, kei reira tonu te āwangawanga.

Ko tāna, arā anō ngā huarahi kei mua i te aroaro kia tiaki pai, ko te taha ki te Ao Māori engari nei au e noho nei i roto i te rangirua me te kore whakapono i te mea, ko te pai o tēnei mea o te charter, te tāhūhū kōrero, ka herea katoatia ngā tikanga, ngā ture hei whāinga mā tēnei o ngā kamupene. Ko te mea pai, ka eke ki te wā kia whakamātauria, āe rānei, he tika rānei tērā tāhūhū kōrero, kāore rānei, ka taea e te tangata te whakamātautau i ngā taumata katoa ki tā te tāhūhū kōrero i kī ai. Mēnā kāre i eke ki te taumata ō roto i tērā tāhūhū kōrero, ka riro mā tētahi a ia e whakamātautau. Mēnā ka eke, ka eke panuku, ka eke tangaroa, ā, me pakipaki ngā ringa ka tika. Nō reira, koinei te pai o tēnei mea o te charter, o te tāhūhū kōrero, ka taea e wai rānei te whakamātautau i te pai rānei, i te koretake rānei, o ngā mahi o te kamupene.

I te mea kua whakakorengia tērā wāhanga, kei reira tonu te āwangawanga ka kore ngā take Māori, te mātauranga Māori, ngā rawa Māori e noho mai nei, i waenganui i a pouaka whakaata o Aotearoa, Te Reo Tātaki me kī, e kitea mai ai e te marea. Ka kore e tiakina paitia ngā mātauranga kei a ia i tēnei wā tonu nei, ka mutu, ka kore pea Te Reo Tātaki e whai nei i te hiahia o te Ao Māori, o te motu, ka tahi, ka rua, kia kitea mai ai e te kanohi Māori, ngā kōrero Māori e pāohotia atu ana hei kanohi mō te motu, kaua ki Aotearoa nei i tōna kotahi engari ki te ao. Nō reira, kei reira tonu tērā āwangawanga, hāunga ngā kōrero o te Rōpū Kākāriki me Reipa, kei reira tonu tērā āwangawanga ō mātau mō tēnei o ngā take, kia whai wāhi te mātauranga Māori, ngā kōrero Māori, ngā hītori Māori, te reo Māori tonu i runga i te pouaka whakaata. I ngā tau kua hipa i whakamātautauria te pouaka whakaata, Te Reo Tātaki, me kī mō ēnei take, arā, mō Te Karere, mō Marae i tēnei wā, ko Marae Investigates, he wāhi pakupaku noa iho o ngā hāora e pāohotia atu ana e te pouaka whakaata. Ko tā mātau, ko te kī atu he aha te uauatanga o te whakanui ake i tērā āhuatanga ki te motu. I te mea, pēnei i te Wiki o Te Reo Māori kua hipa ake nei, arā anō ngā painga o te kite atu i te kanohi Māori, te reo Māori, te hītori Māori ki runga me kī, i te pouaka whakaata matua o te motu.

Nō reira me pērā rawa tētahi kupu kōrero ka whakairia ki te pakitara o te Whare nei i tēnei pō, me te kī atu, e kore mātau te Pāti Māori e whakaae ki tēnei o ngā pire. Ahakoa te paku aro mai o te Minita ki ngā auē, i tōna mutunga mai, kāre mātau i te whakapono ka eke tēnei pire ki te taumata e wawatatia ana. Ka mutu he nui tonu ngā mahi kai mua i te aroaro hei whakapakari ake i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero Māori, mātauranga Māori i tōna whānuitanga. Kāre e tino kitea i roto i te pūtake o tēnei pire. Nō reira koinei tā te Pāti Māori he whakahē i tēnei o ngā pire.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings once again to those of us in the House. I have been given only a short amount of time to present the thoughts of the Māori Party on this matter. Let me put it this way: since the inception of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill in the House, we have strongly opposed it. My colleagues have advanced several issues, and although the Minister responded to the Māori Party’s concerns, those concerns remain.

According to the Minister, there are many ways to ensure that aspects pertaining to Māoridom are protected. However, I remain confused and unconvinced, because the good thing about this instrument called a charter is that it binds together all of the protocols and legal requirements for the company to follow. A positive advantage is that once it is time to review whether the charter is appropriate, then one can test the standards against those in the charter. Should those standards not be met, then someone will have the task of reviewing the entity. If the standards are met successfully, then the entity must be applauded. That is what makes a charter so useful; it allows anyone to see whether the company is performing well or poorly.

But because that part has been abolished, the concern is still there that issues of interest relating to Māoridom, Māori knowledge, and Māori resources within Television New Zealand (TVNZ) will not be seen by the public. The intellectual property it currently has will not be protected, hence TVNZ will not meet the needs of Māori and indeed of the country, whereby Māori faces and stories are broadcast not just in New Zealand but throughout the world. Regardless of what the Green Party and Labour had to say, that concern of ours remains. We are concerned that Māori knowledge, Māori history, and the Māori language should maintain a place on television. A few years ago TVNZ underwent a review of Māori programmes such as Te Karere and Marae, which is now called Marae Investigates. It found that Māori programmes had only a small amount of time on air. We wonder why broadcast time cannot be increased for Māori programming. As is the case with Māori Language Week, there are many benefits to broadcasting Māori faces, the Māori language, and Māori history on the nation’s main broadcaster.

Therefore I leave that thought to hang upon the walls of this Chamber tonight, and state that the Māori Party will not support this bill. Despite the Minister’s paying minor attention to the objections, in the end we do not believe that this bill will satisfy our expectations. There is much work to be done to strengthen Māori programming, which is not covered within the details of this bill, so the Māori Party opposes this bill.]

It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in the third reading of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. Without taking too much time in this debate I would like to start off with a little comment in relation to Sue Kedgley’s speech. I think there will be tens of thousands of New Zealanders who would take offence at her speech, because she decided to have a go at overseas content. I know that there is some fantastic overseas content, namely things like Coronation Street. I know that that television programme has been loved for many, many years, and the viewers of that television programme would not have liked that speech.

For someone who has actually worked in the television industry as a television content maker—I know there are other people in the House who have worked in television—when the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter was first introduced, there was some confusion as to what the charter was in fact going to bring. I remember thinking that Asia Downunder, a programme about New Zealanders of Asian descent, with programmes made by Asian reporters, had to include and start speaking in te reo, for example. Initially there was a lot of confusion as to what the charter would bring. Having said that, once the charter had been introduced into law and was being administered by TVNZ to bring more diversity in programming, in reality the charter did not really do much for the content of TVNZ’s programming. Programming was always about popularity—programmes that attracted more people to sit down and watch television programmes. Popularity really dictated what kinds of programmes were going to be commissioned.

Often, the kinds of programmes that other speakers have talked about—public service - type programmes—are not commercially funded and have had a lot of New Zealand On Air funding in order to facilitate their being broadcast. For example, there is Tagata Pasifika, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary next year. That particular programme was commissioned way before the TVNZ charter was ever put in place. When one actually considers the debates in the House, one would be led to believe that the charter increased the number of locally made programmes, but that is not so. A number of programmes like Tagata Pasifika were made well before the charter, and what happened with the charter money was that it was spent on programmes that did not necessarily need the money. It was going to things like commercial operations. It did nothing for the actual local content that people were talking about. Asia Downunder, Pacific Beat Street—all of these programmes that people consider to be public service and non-commercial never actually got charter money.

Removing the charter obligations from TVNZ means that it is freeing TVNZ to get on with what it does best: making television and broadcasting television. The way that people view television nowadays has actually changed. When I first arrived in New Zealand 23 years ago, people sat down to watch traditional terrestrial television. Nowadays, my son does not actually sit down in front of the television to watch a programme. He is on the internet—for the time he is allowed to be on the internet—watching television programmes on the internet. Young people do not watch television news at 6 o’clock like we used to. They watch it on demand, when they want to, and however fast they want to, and often people who advertise on television have the dilemma of deciding whether they should continue advertising on television because people are not watching commercials. For me, I do not get the time to watch a lot of television, so I tend to record it on my MY SKY, and I view it in my own time when I want to. The television sphere has changed dramatically.

💬 Simon Bridges: What’s your favourite?

My favourite programme would probably have to be watching the member on Parliament TV. Thank you, Simon, for that. One of the things—[Interruption] He is a great debater, and is a great-looking member of Parliament to watch. It is a pleasure, and I am sure the people of Tauranga will be very pleased to see him on television.

Another aspect of the bill that I am very pleased about is the freeing-up of programmes that were made pre-1989. I moved to New Zealand in 1988, and I have pretty much seen television progress over the years, but there are some programmes that I have heard about that happened before I arrived in New Zealand. I would love to see some of those programmes. Unlocking that archived material so that people can see it again is a fantastic move. I congratulate the Minister of Broadcasting on this wonderful bill, and I commend it to the House.

I take a slightly different approach to many of the members who have spoken on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill this evening, because I do not necessarily see the Television New Zealand charter as the panacea for quality public broadcasting in New Zealand. I do not think it ever was. I do not think Television New Zealand (TVNZ) has been a public service television broadcaster for quite some time, and I do not think that we have seen the quality public broadcasting television content that New Zealanders should be able to expect for a very, very long time. I think that is a real tragedy.

What I am concerned about, however, is the direction that we are going in with public television broadcasting in New Zealand. To some extent we seem to have just given up on the idea altogether. I will give the House a really good example of that, and that is TVNZ Heartland. It has 100 percent New Zealand content and relies on content that has been built up over a number of years, quite often with taxpayer subsidies through New Zealand On Air. Some great television programming is available on TVNZ Heartland, but only for those who can afford the Sky television subscription. Increasingly what we are seeing—and we are seeing it with Kidzone24 as well—is that TVNZ is producing some good local television, but only for those who can afford a Sky television subscription. It is not a public broadcaster, it is not a free-to-air broadcaster; it is increasingly becoming a content provider for Sky television.

I think the real question we have to ask ourselves is whether the role of New Zealand’s public service television broadcaster is to simply provide content for a pay TV service. Sky television arguably is the most profitable television broadcaster in the country, yet TVNZ—the State-owned public television network—seems to be increasingly focusing its attention on providing content for the most profitable television operator in the country. I do not think that is right. I do not think that the charter was perfect, I do not think that we got all of that right. I think there were definitely some improvements that needed to be made, but this bill goes the other way. What it does is it abandons any notion of public television broadcasting in New Zealand and says “Let’s just focus on making a buck.” Well, actually, the best way to make a buck would be to put all of TVNZ’s content on Sky television, because Sky television is profitable. TVNZ is profitable at the moment, but with the way technology is going, and with the increasing market dominance of Sky television that may not necessarily be the case for much longer.

With the segmentation of the market, the platform will become a lot less important than the content. What we are seeing with the content, the New Zealand - made content—often paid for by NZ On Air or through TVNZ’s previous charter funding—is that that content that has been built up over those years is now available only if people can afford a Sky television subscription. I do not think that is right. I think New Zealanders have paid for this content and they should be able to watch it. This bill frees up the content prior to 1989—frees it up for whom, is the question I would ask. Does it free it up so we can get even more of those New Zealand stories and that New Zealand content on Sky television, where people have to pay to watch it? That would be a concern for me. If it frees it up so that we can actually get it on free-to-air TV, on the FreeView platform, so that all New Zealanders can see it, that would be absolutely fantastic.

The real question we have to ask ourselves is what TVNZ will be in the future. If it will simply be another commercial TV network providing nothing that is any different from what one gets on TV3, Prime TV, or Sky television, then we have to ask what the fundamental purpose of having TVNZ at all really is. If we are going to have a distinctive New Zealand television service, then it needs to reflect New Zealand, it needs to tell New Zealand stories, and TVNZ does not do that. In fact, what we are seeing from TVNZ at the moment is an abandonment of anything south of the Bombay Hills.

In my electorate we have the Avalon Studios, which are widely recognised as the best television studios in the country. The technology at Avalon Studios is the best, most up-to-date technology that is available. Anyone, including TVNZ’s current management in Auckland, will admit that the studios in Avalon are world leading. The people who work there are fantastic. I pay tribute to the staff who work at TVNZ’s Avalon Studios, who, in a few months’ time, will find themselves out of work as TVNZ abandons the rest of the country and focuses all of its content on Auckland, and produces all of its content in Auckland. It will simply abandon the rest of New Zealand. Pretty soon the only way a person will be able to be on television, if he or she lives outside of Auckland, will be if that person is on the news, because the rest of New Zealand’s television content is being produced in Auckland, and I think that is a real shame.

What is even more disastrous is that those absolutely fantastic studio facilities at Avalon now will simply be abandoned, because TVNZ does not seem to have any credible plan to sell them as a going concern. What TVNZ will do is to wait until the Racing Board’s current lease on the studio facilities expires, wait until the lotteries stop doing the lottery draws there, and then it will try to sell the studios. In other words, it will try to sell empty TV studios with no customers. Well, nobody will want to buy that. TVNZ is dragging its heels, and it is dragging out this process, and part of the reason is that it does not want its competitors to get hold of the facilities.

TVNZ does not have a plan to sell them as a going concern—it does not have any plan—so the most likely thing is that they will just become another empty lot in the Hutt Valley for a property developer to buy. Frankly, we have enough of those in the Hutt Valley as a result of this Government closing just about every other Government department or agency in the Hutt Valley. We have enough of those already; we do not need another one at Avalon, when we have perfectly good TV studio facilities that have in the past produced some of the best New Zealand television content available.

Finally, I pick up on the points made by Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party. I think he raised some really legitimate concerns about who we see on our TV screens. Is Māori culture an identity reflected on our TV screens? I would argue, actually, that Māori do quite well because they have the Māori Television Service, and I believe that the television service is far closer to being a public television broadcasting service for New Zealand than TVNZ is or has ever been—certainly as far back as I can remember. I think the Māori Television channel does an absolutely fantastic job of providing quality public content. It does so at a relatively low price. It is not highbrow television, as the members opposite would think. It just reflects New Zealand; it is genuine New Zealand content. I think that is what New Zealanders want to see: a public broadcaster. They want to see TVNZ delivering that service. It should not be on only Māori Television. It should actually reflect all of New Zealand’s many cultures, identities, and communities, and increasingly it does not.

I think that is an absolute disgrace. I think all New Zealanders should be able to see themselves reflected on screen, because if we do not, and if we simply say to TVNZ “Just be like any other broadcaster; import as much content from overseas as you want to.”, then what we are saying is that will be the end of TVNZ, effectively. There will be nothing to differentiate it from anyone else, and it probably cannot do it as cheaply as other commercial public broadcasters can do it. In fact, a lot of the content produced by TVNZ at the moment is very similar to the content on TV3, but TV3 produces it at a cheaper price. If one looks at the overhead cost of TVNZ news, for example, one sees that it is actually much, much more significant than the cost of producing TV3 news, yet the volume is probably about the same for both.

The question we have to ask is: if we will not have TVNZ as a public content broadcaster, what is TVNZ going to be? If it will be just another commercial broadcaster, what is the point of having it? But, you see, the thing is I suspect that is where this Government is going. I suspect that it will come back to this House, maybe in the next term of Parliament, if it gets the chance, if it gets re-elected—which is looking slimmer by the day—and say: “Hang on, TVNZ is no different from TV3, and no different from Sky television, so let’s just hock it off and add it to the list along with all the energy companies, and everything else. Let’s just hock it off.” I think that is exactly what the Government is intending to do. It wants to make TVNZ look and feel as much like a private, regular commercial broadcaster as possible so that it can be hocked off.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Are you part of the coup team?

There is no such thing—there is no such thing. None of the Government members seem to be willing to engage in the real issue of the moment, which is why we do not have a public television broadcaster in this country. It does not have a vision for public broadcasting. It does not want to see New Zealanders represented on New Zealand screens. It does not have a plan. This is another example of where it does not have a plan for pretty much anything, and as a result New Zealanders are suffering.

I conclude my remarks simply by saying that we have an opportunity here. We have an opportunity to draw a line under everything that has happened in the past, and institute something that is about genuine public broadcasting in this country. The Government has missed the opportunity to do that. Instead, what it is doing is simply turning TVNZ into just another set of broadcasters that people will have to pay money to watch, and I think that is a disgrace.

Somebody once said that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that everything costs something. Television New Zealand (TVNZ) costs a tremendous amount of money to run. Mr Hipkins has certainly said tonight that the charter does not work. Mr Burns made comments regarding some of the programming that he felt was substandard. If we looked at the sorts of programmes that Mr Burns was alluding to that would be good to watch—for example, documentaries—we would probably ask what channels they would be on. They might be on the Discovery Channel, or they could be on the History Channel.

What I am saying is that the landscape of TV viewing is changing. In the town of Stratford there is a museum, and in it is one of the original TVNZ cameras—one would hardly fit it into the back of a Land Rover—whereas today one could see somebody recording a documentary for television, and the camera would fit in the palm of their hand, and then one could watch it on an iPad. The technology of TV viewing—how it is delivered and how it is paid for—is changing throughout the world. What this bill is doing is seeking to be flexible in order to allow those changes to come into New Zealand. It takes away the charter and replaces it with a briefer and less prescriptive statement of functions, which enables TVNZ to determine its own priorities against a general set of functions.

I really disagree with the statement that Mr Hipkins made about nothing south of the Bombay Hills being viewed on TV. I would say that some of my favourite programmes would be programmes like Coasters, which is a travel documentary about all of the coastal regions around New Zealand, and it has been highly popular. What about Hunger for the Wild, that fantastic show about wild game that is available around the different parts of New Zealand? The TV show went in there with Al Brown—Brownie—from that great restaurant Logan Brown here in Wellington. People were interviewed, and beautiful meals were cooked in cabins, in baches, on beaches, and all sorts of things—certainly not north of the Bombay Hills. All of that was funded by NZ On Air.

So this is how we are doing it: we are bringing New Zealand content through NZ On Air, not necessarily through the strict parameters that have existed in the past but with a more flexible format that will see programmes such as those available to all New Zealanders. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Good legislation prescribes who gets what, why, and under what conditions. Under Labour, Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) was required to give effect to the TVNZ charter. The charter requires it to feature programmes that reflect who we are as Kiwis, telling our own stories, and lifting our sense of self-identity and confidence. It requires Television New Zealand to offer a richer and more diverse view of our world, and to grow business at the same time.

I can still recall what the chief executive Ian Fraser said in 2002, when the Labour Government introduced the charter to require Television New Zealand to broadcast a wide range of programmes for all groups in New Zealand. He said “The Charter reinforces the fact that TVNZ is ‘The New Zealander’. We are the only television company owned by New Zealanders and so we are uniquely placed to provide the programmes, the information and entertainment that promote a deeper, shared sense of what it means to be a New Zealander.” Mr Fraser acknowledged that TVNZ was, in some respects, a singular sort of public broadcaster. On one hand, its mandate was to give effect to the charter. On the other, it was also charged to maintain a commercial performance, meaning that it needed to continue to demonstrate a strong ratings performance over its own schedule. What would change was the balance. The balance was that “Under the Charter [Television New Zealand] will be driven by content considerations, where creative and culture objectives are as highly valued as commercial ones.” As a result, Television New Zealand has been constructing the home place for more New Zealanders, investing in talent and imagination, and providing a more diverse menu, particularly in prime time when most people are watching television. So under Labour, every and all Kiwis were getting a fair go, where we were protecting the assets—including Television New Zealand, of course—built up by past generations so that Kiwis owned their own future.

Under National, the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill will effectively give Television New Zealand the go-ahead to act as a fully commercial broadcaster. It will end TVNZ’s public broadcasting role, and turn it into, as some media commentators have put it, a cash cow. This bill will repeal the charter. There will no longer be a requirement for Television New Zealand to broadcast a wide range of programmes for all groups in New Zealand. Will the story end here? I rather doubt it. National’s broadcasting policy seems to remove Television New Zealand’s charter obligations but retains Television New Zealand in public ownership for the moment—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: For now.

RAYMOND HUO:—for now. Following its logic, that makes no sense. If a public asset is not to be used for public purposes, and if Television New Zealand is to become just a commercial broadcaster, then there is no point in the asset remaining in public ownership, is there? So the whole agenda smells. This is nothing more than a strategy by this National-ACT Government to make TVNZ a mirror of its commercial rivals and then say that it is no different and put it up for sale as soon as politically possible. Abolishing the Television New Zealand charter is the latest step.

Reading into this bill, I see that the only hint of deviation from a purely commercial broadcaster is the reference to “Māori perspectives”. Otherwise, the company is being asked to do just what any commercial broadcaster would do. There is no longer any requirement for programmes for educational purposes, local drama, documentaries, or minority-interest programmes in the schedule. There is also no mention of the minimum amount of local programming required, because local programmes are usually costly to produce compared with buying in international programmes. Local programmes will be in jeopardy.

I recently had a 2-hour interview with a reporter from a newspaper located as far away as Paris. Monsieur François d’Alançon, a senior reporter from the French daily newspaper La Croix—translated into English: The Cross—and I had a 2-hour talk in Auckland. We covered extensive subjects from the Rugby World Cup, for which he is assigned to do a series of stories; beautiful New Zealand where there are more sheep than people; and, more relevant to my portfolio, the New Zealand - Chinese community and its integration into New Zealand society. The interview, to a large extent, brought with it a sense of reminiscing, the kind of feeling one often has when overseas, the feeling of missing New Zealand no matter how long one has been out of the country. It is not uncommon to hear people say they do not realise how strongly they feel about New Zealand until they go overseas—the fresh air, the landscapes, and everything that makes New Zealand unique. It is the kind of feeling that often motivates us to think about what we should do to make New Zealand a better place for our future generations. Like it or not, New Zealand is a small and isolated country, so I say a big thankyou to the Labour Government, which secured the Rugby World Cup hosting rights for New Zealand. Without this major event in New Zealand this year, it is hard to imagine that newspapers like that French daily, one of the only three daily national French newspapers to turn a profit, would have any interest in us.

Promotion of New Zealand is the first step to ensuring that we are relevant in both trade and the development of people-to-people contact. I told Monsieur d’Alançon during the interview that I had a dream—the dream that NZ would become the Switzerland of the southern hemisphere. Relevant to my member’s bill on export education, I say that New Zealand will become a world leader and attract only top-quality international students, because some of them will stay—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are on television. We are talking about television.

I will come back to this bill. Comparing New Zealand with France, which sits comfortably as one of the best examples of productivity in the world, New Zealand lags behind and is slipping further down, and is now sitting near the bottom of the OECD. To turn this round we have to rely on innovation and nurturing our creative and entrepreneurial individuals.

In the context of this bill, it is more about our Kiwi national identity and our Kiwi dreams, and about owning our own future. Defining our national identity is not simple. New Zealand is a diverse nation made up of many cultural groups with many different customs and traditions, but a strong sense of New Zealandness is important. So national identity is an important contributor to people’s well-being. Establishing a national identity provides access to social networks, which provide support and shared values and aspirations. Social networks can help to break down barriers and build a sense of trust between people—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just bring the member back to the bill, in his 1½ minutes remaining. This debate is about television, and I would like the member to concentrate his last 1½ minutes on what is in the bill. This is a third reading, and a third reading speech is about what has been reported back from the Committee. There are a number of Speakers’ rulings on page 117.

Thank you for your reminder, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that this is one of the reasons why we fought so strongly to oppose this bill. Under National we will remain the only developed country without a public service television channel. The only true public service broadcaster we have left in this country is Radio New Zealand, and I believe it is only a matter of time before Radio New Zealand’s public service role is eroded if a National and ACT Government has its way. It is a disgrace.