Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. The bill amends the 1989 Broadcasting Act by inserting a number of small but significant subparts in sections 36 and 37. The most significant is new section 37(e), under the heading “(Promotion of New Zealand content in programming)”, which states: “ensure that the games of national significance listed in Schedule 1A are broadcast live and free-to-air.” This bill is about putting the best interests of New Zealanders first. It is about doing what is morally right, and it is about putting the needs of Kiwis above the wants of multinational companies’ profits and their controls.

This bill is in answer to a number of very simple questions. Should New Zealanders be able to watch sporting games of national significance live and free to air, like we once used to? Yes, absolutely we should. Should New Zealanders have the same opportunity to watch and enjoy live, free-to-air sport like they do in Australia, the UK, India, and Canada? Yes, why should we not? Should sports be available to watch only for people who can afford to pay for the Sky Sport subscription? Absolutely not, is the answer. Lastly, should Kiwis be expected to pay a billion dollars a year in taxes towards sports and recreation, and then pay again to watch sports games of national significance? Absolutely not. It does not make any sense. It is an outrage.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the member say “a billion”?

$1 billion. The answers to these four questions will resonate with everyone in this House and back at home watching on Parliament TV, in one way or another. For New Zealand First, the answers to those questions are clear and concise.

Interestingly, Kiwis were polled through a number of mediums leading up to this debate, and 84 percent of people agree with this bill—for the member over there—and want to see it passed through this House. This is an important bill, and it is being read at an important time.

This bill is a demonstration of political parties that support all New Zealanders, fairly and equally. It is important because this is the year when the people of New Zealand will make a decision to oppose the establishment that is imposing globalist views, and to support a regime that is paternal and patriotic and that puts New Zealanders first. Democracy ensures that we answer to the people of New Zealand, and the people of New Zealand want to watch their Kiwi sporting heroes and heroines live and free to air.

Whether it be the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games, the Rugby World Cup or international netball, people have a birthright to see these games live and free to air. In New Zealand we have laws that recognise the importance of the history and culture of New Zealand—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, don’t let the facts get in the road.

—and those laws are there to protect and advance certain parts of those things. I look forward to your contribution, Mr Mallard. Sport is a vital part of New Zealand culture. It gives us pride and it inspires our young people to be the best they can be, Mr Mallard. Sport is the one part of our Kiwi culture that unites all of us as a country and as a people. Sport is colour-blind to race and ethnicity, and it does not differentiate between genders. Sport also plays a major role in our international cultural identity.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What nonsense. The member should talk to some sportspeople.

Believe it or not, there are parts of the world that do not even know where New Zealand is on the map—like Trevor Mallard, obviously, does not—but they know the All Blacks, they know Lisa Carrington or Hamish Bond or Eric Murray, they know Valerie Adams, and they know the Black Sticks or Team New Zealand or John Walker or the Silver Ferns, or any one of the plethora of New Zealand’s sporting superstars. We are absolutely, positively a sporting nation.

We may be divided on our political views—I raise my eyes to you again, Mr Mallard—or generationally interested in different things. But we all come together on the sporting fields, waters, or courts, at club level and all the way to the highest levels of international competition.

Sport and healthy, honest competition brings Kiwis together. Look at the All Blacks, as one example. We have players of Māori, English, Tongan, Scottish, Samoan, Irish, Fijian, and French descent—nations that have long histories of fighting each other but come together as New Zealanders in the black jersey. Nothing brings people together, in shared celebration, like a sporting fixture. If you are Canadian, Australian, Indian, or British you can bring your neighbours together to celebrate, without having to pay an extra $1,000 - plus a year, Mr Mallard—just so you were listening—for Sky Sport subscriptions.

Their Governments have ensured that laws do not permit sports of national significance to be placed behind paywalls, like this Government does, out of view from people who cannot afford to subscribe to them. But if you are a New Zealander, you are out of luck. Why should Kiwis have to shell out an extra $1,000 - plus a year to watch Sky, when they have already spent $960 million investing into sports and recreation each year through their local taxes and central government taxes that we collect on their behalf? Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

We used to be able to watch top-level sports live and free to air because our taxes went in at the grassroots level, and laws ensured that no one was marginalised, forgotten, or disenfranchised.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What’s in the member’s pipe—some of that “northern green”?

Keep smoking. We can all remember getting up early in the morning or being allowed to stay up extra late to watch the Olympics or the All Blacks playing overseas. I remember the excitement of watching John Walker winning gold at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. We had a little black and white TV, and I remember mum and dad being really excited. I did not quite know why—I was only 4 years old—but it was clearly enough of a big deal that it burnt into my brain.

How many families nowadays can say they have the same opportunity as we once did to enjoy great memorable sporting moments in time? I suggest it is just those fortunate enough to be able to afford Sky. For Kiwis, these days, finding out on the nightly news what has already happened is just not the same. Watching it live, in the moment, when you do not know the outcome, increases the chances of future sporting triumphs being burnt into the minds of future Kiwis. We take pride in our sporting successes. We know that when we line up against some of the biggest countries in the world, with the fairness of the same rules applying to everyone, and our bloody-minded determination and tenacity bringing home a victory, we all celebrate together. Why should anybody be denied this opportunity? How can any party member in their right mind put their hand on their heart and say that this bill is not good for New Zealanders?

Let us not forget that this Government does see the benefit in supporting New Zealand culture on television, by way of the Māori channel. This does come at a cost of around $55 million a year, but most Kiwis would agree that this channel is a great asset, supporting our language, Te Reo, and other culturally important programmes. The question is: why have we done that? Because it is important to New Zealanders.

Living an active lifestyle is important for our country. Participation in sport keeps us healthy and makes us less likely to require additional access to health services in the future. Participation in sport has the potential to save taxpayers’ money.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: How does sitting on your couch help that?

Unfortunately, we currently have declining rates of participation—something you know lots about, mate—around the country. I repeat what I said before. We have the highest obesity rates in children, and in some adults sitting over there, that we have ever seen. We have kids who, in the past, would have been outside, playing sport and aspiring to be like their favourite sports heroes or heroines. Running, jumping, swimming, kicking, passing, or shooting hoops is what we need our kids of this generation to be doing again.

A point: success breeds success. There is a phrase: if I can see it, I can be it. By not giving all of our young people the chance to see it, we are robbing them of the opportunity to foster and develop their own sense of self-belief. We are robbing them of the belief that they can be successful at the highest levels of whatever they are passionate about. So why would we stop them from seeing live, free-to-air sports?

I have heard Sky TV’s claim that it has spent $1 billion on securing broadcasting rights over the last decade, but there is no breakdown of that figure. There is no breakdown of which sports received those dollars, nor how much was spent on wining and dining and travelling around the world. But the New Zealand taxpayers spend nearly $1 billion every single year on sports and recreation, and then they are expected to cough up another $1,000 a year just for the privilege of having live sports, which they have got to pay for.

This bill is about Kiwis’ sporting games and events of New Zealand national significance. It is about Kiwi pride and it is about Kiwi passion. Some people, including the former Prime Minister, have made comments about this bill driving players overseas in search of more lucrative contracts. No, it does not. That is complete rubbish. In fact, international evidence suggests that absolutely the opposite occurs. This is nothing more than unsubstantiated nonsense and fearmongering. Look what Ben Smith and Israel Dagg turned down—lucrative international contracts—to be here and a part of our country, and to play for our team.

We commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Today, of all days, I stand in opposition to this Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill. Today, of all days, I want to start with a small saying of a truly great man—a great man whom we farewelled today, a man who had enormous aspirations for New Zealand and spent every day of his life in this Parliament striving to achieve them. He reminded us, day in and day out, that New Zealand is a small country at the bottom of the world and no one owes us a living.

What I heard before, from the speaker from New Zealand First, was about putting New Zealanders ahead of others, doing what is right, beating up the multinationals, our moral responsibilities—what he was talking about was a world that owes New Zealand a living. He was not talking about the context of these major sporting events of interest, other than in the context that the world owes us a living.

I want to make my contribution on a few areas. I want to start with the implications. Although we are going to oppose the bill, I do not necessarily want to spend 10 minutes berating the member or his arguments. Let us look at the elements of it. Firstly, what are the implications if we were to accept it—if we were to say: “Let’s pass this thing into law.”? First we have to look at what it takes to broadcast these games or these events. Well, it means that someone, some organisation or some nation, has to assemble a whole lot of capital equipment—whether it is cameras, broadcasting equipment, or personnel—and they have to ship it out to wherever the event is taking place. The All Blacks are playing Australia at the Westpac Stadium and someone has to send outside broadcasting equipment. This is stuff that costs seriously big money. They have got to send this stuff out there, and they have got to expend their capital to actually capture the game.

That is all well and good, if that is all you are doing. But if you are, say, a pay-per-view channel that has invested private capital in this stuff and you are sending it down there to give it away free to anyone, what does that do to your return on the business case—not only buying the equipment and covering the game but paying for the rights to cover that game in the very first place?

💬 Hon Member: Tell us all what happened 30 years ago, then.

I will tell the member what happened a few years ago: we did not get live coverage of most games. I was young enough to watch this stuff, when Grahame Thorne had his perm, on national television. If we were lucky—if we were lucky—we got the games a couple of hours late, and the coverage was absolute rubbish, from maybe one or two camera angles. We have far better coverage of all sorts of sports in a world where we have competitive tensions and where companies are prepared to invest in the equipment to broadcast this stuff, and then compete for the rights to do so.

So what does it take? It takes a whole lot of equipment and personnel, an investment in that, to go and capture the event. So who is going to do it? Who is going to do it when you are not going to get paid for it—or you are going to get paid for it, but a lot less than what you would otherwise get, because who is going to pay for a pay subscription when Mr Mitchell over there has decided that you have got to give it away free to everyone in the house?

Firstly, who is going to go and watch the game at Wellington, when they can sit at home and watch it on telly? And secondly, which private entity is going to invest in that capital and those operations to actually capture it, when they are not going to get the revenue from it that they might otherwise expect if it was a truly competitive market?

This brings us to the point of who is actually paying for it. Who is paying for it? The reality is that someone has got to buy the rights to cover that match. Someone has got to have the equipment and the personnel to do it, and someone has got to actually broadcast it.

Mr Mitchell’s stuff, free to air, sounds really good, because it is “free”. Well, here is a lesson: nothing is free. Someone has got to pay for it. In this case, what he is really saying is that we are going to fork—he spent 10 minutes telling us how much we already spend. Well, now we have got to go into our pockets. Ma and pa taxpayer—we are going to go and dig into their pockets. As a Government, we are going to reach in and we are going to take a little bit more out to pay for this, because someone has got to pay for it. That could be justified if it was simply an objective basis for doing this.

The second point is, what do we display? What is genuinely of national significance? He has got a schedule in this bill, but you could look back. If you look back 50 years, what was significant in New Zealand sport then is not the same as what is significant today, and in 50 years’ time it will be different again. So who chooses? Who chooses? Well, his bill smells, reeks, of the very stuff that Friedrich Hayek warned us about decades ago: it is the central government. It is the central government that decides what is of importance to New Zealanders, what they should be allowed to see, when they can see it, which sports, and which matches! It decides what is important! Well, the reality is, that does not match up to New Zealanders’ expectations.

I do not expect the Government to fund what I am interested in. Although we treasure the All Blacks and we want to be No. 1 in rugby, if I had the choice, I would be saying: “Forget the rugby, show me Formula One Grand Prix live. I will stay up. I will watch the stuff.” I see technology, I see skill, and I see all the things I want to see in that event. But others would say it is not of national significance. So the best way to treat those discussions, those debates, is to let the market address it. As soon as you allow the Government to do it, you have got a bunch of people in seats like this saying what ma, pa, and the kids can watch. That is the New Zealand of the 1970s. That is a New Zealand where you used to have to apply to Treasury to get an overseas magazine subscription, because the Government did not think it was something you should be allowed to read without its permission. That is exactly what they are talking about.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That was the 80s. That was a National Government.

Norm Kirk as well, Trev. Do not forget Norm Kirk.

Then we have the impacts. We have the impacts. We should consider these things, because it is one thing to retreat to the 1970s and not be allowed to do anything—not only could you not get a magazine subscription but the only time you could visit a bank was when you were at work, which was a slight problem. You could not get money out because there was no such thing as an ATM. It was not a great New Zealand. They think it was great. It was not a great New Zealand.

But let us look at the impacts, because these are important. At the moment we have companies that invest in being able to cover these events, whether it is rugby, netball, cricket—the real big ones. Or whether it is tiddlywinks, Formula One Grand Prix, NASCAR—which has got to be, in my view, one of the least interesting and valuable sports on the planet, but, I tell you what, there are a lot of Americans who love that sport—American football, lacrosse, or Irish football. All of these sports people can test, and they are prepared to invest an amount of their money to get the rights to broadcast that.

Then look at how it impacts the sporting bodies. How does it impact them? Well, if you look at New Zealand Cricket and the New Zealand Rugby Union, the advice they have given me—and they have done this directly—over 40 percent of their revenues—

💬 Simon O’Connor: How much?

—over 40 percent—are derived from broadcasting rights. So broadcasting companies are currently prepared to pay them significant amounts of money so that they can have the right to broadcast their content, if you will—their games, whether it is an All Blacks versus Australia game, whether it is a National Provincial Championship game, a provincial-level game, or any form at the grassroots. They are prepared to pay certain amounts of money to actually broadcast these events. What will happen to those revenues if, as per the schedule, which could change over time, so many of them have to be broadcast free to non-paying viewers? The thing is obvious. Those companies are not going to be prepared to pay anything like that amount of money for those rights. They are simply not going to do it.

So what are we left with? We are left with sporting bodies completely underfunded, not because anyone wants to cut their funding but because the market is not going to support it, because they are forced by the New Zealand First people to give it away for nothing.

Arguably—and I think it is an enormous stretch—you could say the market could sustain some of that, except you have to look at the true scope of new schedule 1A. It is not just the All Blacks versus the Wallabies, the Kiwis versus the Kangaroos, or the Silver Ferns. No. It is not just Commonwealth Games or Olympic Games. No. The most important part, and I will finish with this, is: “Any other sporting event funded by the Major Events Development Fund or any high performance New Zealand sportsperson who has received government funding for development and is participating …”. Basically, it is any event that anyone has ever had any public money for that would have to show everything free. No one would be prepared to pay for the broadcasting rights. It is a ridiculous bill. I oppose it.

I think it was St Bernard who said: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I think that could well be the case with this particular bill. I will give the member credit. It is well intentioned, but it is very, very poorly thought through.

In Wainuiōmata there is no demand to return to the system where the rugby finishes on TV 20 minutes after it does live, because it has got ads all the way through. There is no demand in Wainuiōmata to go back to the system where the netball finishes quarter of an hour after the game finishes live, because of the ads that were through it. That is the past that members want to go back to.

Generally, the Labour Party and I support the principle of supporting first readings of members’ bills. We generally do it. But there is a higher value. The higher value is one of honesty, and that one of honesty is that a bill like this will never pass. It cannot pass. No Government is going to take $125 million a year, roughly, off sport in New Zealand. No Government—no Government—is going to take roughly $125 million, the sporting rights’ income, away from sports in New Zealand. No Government is going to be prepared to make that money up, because if you have got $125 million to spend on sport you are going to spend it on kids’ sport. If you have got $125 million to spend on broadcasting you will spend it on public broadcasting and improving broadcasting, not going back to something in the past.

It is a requirement on MPs to do some research, and the member who brought this bill in did not do the research. He should have talked to a few sports organisations. He should have talked to the netball school development people, who would lose their jobs if this bill went through because the funding would be cut. Professional sport would be damaged, and community sport would be damaged even worse.

I will give you an example from this bill, and that is of the person who, a decade ago, got $100 in development funding from the taxpayer and is now in an international wrestling meet in Kazakhstan. It is not broadcast in Kazakhstan but there is an obligation, under this bill, for New Zealand to send cameras there and to broadcast it back to New Zealand. The bill is really badly drafted, it is not thought through, and it is not planned.

I also want to say that this is a temporary issue. No one believes that the shape of broadcasting in New Zealand in a decade is going to be anything like it is now. Already, it is my understanding, about 40 percent of Kiwis have Netflix or something that is quite similar. People are getting things online, they are getting them in bite-size, and I am certain that the world will change, so that the sort of approach that the member is fighting against will not be there in a decade or so.

I want to ask the member to tell us who owns sport. Not a word. Not a response. Not a whisper. Well, I think that sports own sport, and the intellectual property, the things that they have developed, is something that they should be able to sell. It should not be confiscated by the Government. To the member who says that Kiwis cannot and do not watch sport, I invite him just to talk to a few. Talk to the people who cannot afford it but go to their rellies. They go to their neighbours, they go down to the sports clubs, and they go down to the pubs. They get together. They have a bit of community and they watch things together.

This is a very poorly thought through piece of legislation. I am not going to criticise the member’s intent because I think his heart is in the right place. It is just a pity his brain was not engaged.

I am pleased to take a call on the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill. I have found this debate very unsettling already—not so much that I am in opposition to the member’s bill but that I am in agreeance with Trevor Mallard. It is a very unsettling place to be. I am not sure how I am going to deal with that. I just want to echo in many ways what Mr Mallard said, particularly around who owns sport. I think that was a very salient point; the other is the community dynamics that do come from this. It is not the absolute argument of why we should pay for television, but most of us can think of those occasions when we go down to our local rugby club, pub, or just to our mates who have Sky Sport to go and watch.

Probably the other unsettling part I notice, as a fencer, is that nothing in this bill speaks about the great sport of fencing.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, it does. It’s in the catch-all clause.

Oh, it is in the catch-all clause. That is excellent. That is probably one small bit of opposition. I look forward to seeing more fencing on television.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member is a specialist on sitting on fences.

Oh no, not at all. I leave that to others. I leave that to the Leader of the Opposition, who sits on fences and then changes how he sits on them.

I believe that this is a bill—out of New Zealand First, not unsurprisingly—that has a sort of populist pandering and a romantic view of the past. Although, again, I do not doubt the intention and potential goodwill of the member, referring back to sport as he and others thought of it in the 1970s and the way things were is just romanticising something that does not exist anymore. Society has moved on. The business models of how we engage with sport have changed.

Fundamentally, a lot of sports—those listed in the schedule here—are now professional. Colleagues in the House have already indicated at this early stage the high reliance that our national sports have on the revenue generated by broadcasting. We have received information from the primary codes—the likes of netball, cricket, and rugby of course—that a substantial amount, almost half, of their revenue is gained from broadcasting, and that, in turn, is what enables them to do the development in schools that has been mentioned. It is what enables them to engage players to keep them here in New Zealand.

What this bill is asking us to do, because of some romantic view of the past, is for the Government to get all taxpayers, some of whom will not watch sport, to fund that. There is no understanding or articulation that I have heard yet from the member supporting this bill, Clayton Mitchell, of where that money is going to come from. It has been pointed out that there is nothing free here; someone here is going to have to pay. What this bill is trying to do is to push all of that cost onto the taxpayer. Those who work in broadcasting—the most notable, of course, is the likes of Sky television—will tell you of the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment that it takes to do the broadcasting. It is not simply about turning up with an old camera in front of television, given our requirements now. I think of even college sport. I was over in Glendowie last year as Sacred Heart College was battling it out with Saint Kentigern College. Sky was there. Again, we are talking top-notch cameras, camera crews, and the technology to make sure that level of broadcasting is at its highest and professional level.

Again, we have moved on as a country as to what we expect. This is an expensive business. I think the market is managing it perfectly well at the moment and to simply bring it across to Government just does not make any sense. In so much as we got a whole argument too—if I put my health hat on—that somehow free broadcasting is going to influence obesity by having our young people sitting around watching free television, it just does not make sense.

Just to bring out a final point: the fundamental principle in the bill in front of me, the general policy statement, talks about enjoyment. The whole basis of this is that if people enjoy sport, we should, in turn, make that broadcasting free. Well, I actually enjoy watching sport and I enjoy going along to sport. I am really interested in the member supporting a bill—

I am sorry. The member’s time has expired.

I would like to thank the member who has brought this bill to the House. I think it is worthy of debate and consideration, absolutely—the proposal that there are certain sporting events that should be able to be watched by every New Zealander and they should be available. I think a fundamental principle of the Green Party’s broadcasting policy is that we should have 100 percent accessible broadcasting, we should have support for a wide range of publicly available free-to-air content, and, even though the mode in which that content is delivered is in flux and is changing at the moment, it is fundamentally important that there is public support for content and access. Without a public broadcaster, we have seen that it is not possible to get good quality content that is available to everyone.

I think that some of the Government members’ speeches tonight have demonstrated how the narrow view of user-pays or number of eyeballs watching a particular show determines whether or not it gets public funding is not a model that is going to deliver the things that are really important to New Zealanders. There are things that are of immense cultural and social importance to New Zealanders—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Talk to us about sport you’ve watched.

We will get to that, Simon—we will get to that. There are things that are incredibly important to our identity as a country. What other countries around the world, particularly small countries, have found is that it is vitally important to have public investment in public broadcasting. As the member who is sponsoring this bill noted in his speech, there are a number of countries around the world that do have similar provisions to what is proposed in this bill. It ensures that people in Canada, the UK, or Australia are all able to watch those sporting events that are of great importance to the nation.

The Green Party supports the investigation of this bill. Government members’ speeches tonight have very much focused on who is going to pay for it and what is the cost. It is important that we understand, because I think the Hon Trevor Mallard’s speech did indicate that the way the bill has been drafted there are potentially quite a lot of fish-hooks. That is something we would be extremely concerned about during the select committee process.

Fundamentally, this comes back to values. What I have found out there, from talking to New Zealanders, is that a lot of New Zealanders really value those national sporting events and they are really upset that people have to get a subscription to Sky television to see many of them. The fact that some of these events are of such great value to New Zealand was reflected in the fact that the Government made the decision to buy the rights to the New Zealand Rugby World Cup in 2011 so that all New Zealanders could watch it free to air, live, while those games were being played here in New Zealand.

Clearly, the Government does understand that at times there are really important events, but that is the exception rather than the rule. I think we have to think about what is of real importance to New Zealanders, and then we say: “That’s important to us, this is something we want to share, and it should be available to everyone.” By the way, all of that should be captioned—that is not in this bill—so that it is accessible to everyone. The reality is that with the changes in the media environment and with electronic equipment and filming equipment, it is actually getting much, much cheaper to film these events and to broadcast them on a variety of mediums.

So it is quite possible that the cost of that will come down. The real cost that we would have to investigate would be the support for sport in schools and for some of these sporting clubs. What I do like about this bill is that it includes women’s sports as well as men’s sports. I think that is really important. Of course, the Green Party would have to consider what the full cost implications would be, but I think it is safe to say that if something is important to New Zealanders, we can get behind it. Everybody should be able to watch these sporting games, and we should find a way to make it happen, because it is possible.

It is an honour to speak on this bill, and can I acknowledge the member Mr Mitchell for bringing the bill, because I know where his heart is on this. I know that he cares about New Zealand sport. He cares about the New Zealand public and how they view sport, the relationship between New Zealanders and sport, and how important it is to the social fabric of our nation. However, I think he gets this bill extremely wrong. He gets it wrong in terms of what it is trying to achieve, and, in fact, the consequences of this bill could be quite damaging to many of the sports that he talks about. Although his intentions are good, the bill is misplaced.

I think one member has already said it correctly: we cannot go back to the days of sport being littered with ads, with delayed coverage, because it was free to air. The commercial reality of it is that sport, although we enjoy it and although it is part of our community and our lifestyle in New Zealand, is a business. New Zealand rugby is a $133 million business—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In a bad year.

—and expanding—and New Zealand rugby is a brand that all New Zealanders are proud of, and we know from correspondence from three of our major sports—New Zealand rugby, New Zealand cricket, and New Zealand netball—that rugby and cricket form 40 percent of that revenue. It is such a critical part of their operations that what Mr Mitchell is saying with this bill is that he will threaten the livelihoods of top sportspeople. This bill will threaten the livelihoods of community sports by taking that revenue away. He shakes his head, but he has not come up with any answers as to how he will cover the costs of providing for sport in this country.

He also does not explain how the costs of producing these broadcasts will be covered. Some say that it costs $180,000, for example, to cover a test match—all the production equipment, all the staff that are required—and yet how does that get funded? He also talked about All Blacks whom we need to retain within this country—top All Blacks like Ben Smith, Aaron Smith, and Kieran Read. Yet this bill will threaten their livelihoods, and, yes, they will go overseas. They are more likely to go overseas with this bill in place than they would be under the current status.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: You need to research it. You need to do some research.

He has asked about research, and yet he refers to markets overseas and the Australian market. We all know the Australian market is very different from the New Zealand market in terms of free-to-air broadcasting and the competitiveness of that market, and how that competitiveness will not lead to revenues going to our unions or to our sports bodies through this bill. I ask him how he would pay for this. He says the debate has been around that the taxpayer also funds a lot of these sports. Well, if you look at the schedule, actually the taxpayer does not fund too many of the sports that are in the schedule. The funding for those particular sports is actually quite low. So I put it to him that the research has not been done here.

I also do not think he recognises the changing nature of the digital platform on which sports are being covered around the world.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: A bit complicated.

It is a little complicated. We are more and more seeing sports being streamed on the internet, where people are able to pay to watch individual sports events, and also pay to see their favourite sports team, whether it be the All Blacks or New Zealand cricket or New Zealand netball, online. Those are the things that are changing within the sports market, within the broadcasting market, that I think this bill ignores.

I just want to say, again, in summary, that although I agree with the intentions of this bill, I think this bill is flawed. I think this is going back to an age where—we are just not going there, in terms of the Government. In terms of the Opposition parties, I have heard members opposite criticise this bill. We are moving forward with sport in this country. It is a big business. It is community driven. This bill is a step to the past; it is not looking to the future.

There has been a lot of passion expressed in the House tonight on this bill, so I am going to be the the voice of reason. We do not support this bill. It gives me no pleasure to say that to New Zealand First, as I have got a lot of respect for those members’ guts and their values, and it is a decision that is not made lightly. But it is the right one, and here is why.

Firstly, we get that many people in New Zealand are pissed off that they have to pay $100 or more a month to watch live sport. We get that there are many New Zealanders who cannot afford to pay that money and feel locked out. I am not going to be an apologist here tonight for the dominance that Sky has on our small market, and for what I consider to be a model that is becoming outdated. I know it is grappling with that right now. Its subscriptions have been dropping—that is in the public arena. The advent of Netflix, YouTube—if you are under 40, you watch YouTube; you do not watch television. Well, is anyone here under 40? Ha, ha—Peeni Henare raises his hand. He is an outlier.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Generation X.

Secondly—ha, ha—we get that, in other comparable jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, and the UK, there are requirements for live, free-to-air sport. In each of those jurisdictions sport and broadcasting systems have significantly more financial support than they do currently in New Zealand.

Thirdly, we get that there are sports of national significance that are part of our psyche. We acknowledge that there is an issue of fairness. But here is why we cannot support it, Clayton Mitchell. It is that it is completely naive and unworkable. To actually bring this bill into law would be a massive cost—a massive cost—to New Zealand, costing over $100 million. That is money that could be used for more elective surgeries, for more teachers for our schools, for more affordable homes, and for many other things.

Just on that, Labour wants to lead Government; therefore, we have to be responsible about what we can support. I think Trevor Mallard said that there is a higher test around honesty, but there is also a test around workability, and we have to be conscious of that. Our priority is public broadcasting—public interest media—which is an argument for the notion that every citizen should be able to access their culture, to be able to have free public broadcasting that is a multimedia service that operates across all platforms, not driven by commercial interests, and we consider that to be essential to our democracy.

It is fascinating when you listen to people giving their valedictory speeches in this Parliament, because almost to a one of them they mention the importance of media and its fundamental importance to democracy, which John Key said in this House tonight. A lot of members leaving this House say that having public interest media is critical to our democracy. Well, that Government does not invest in public interest media. That is the Government that has starved Radio New Zealand of funding for 8 years, that has starved NZ On Air of funding for 8 years, that is starving our culture of funding for 8 years.

Sport is a fundamental part of our culture, yes. But it is one part of our culture. What we need is an investment in a public interest media framework that truly does mean that we value New Zealanders, that we value the fact that there should be an investment in journalism, in current affairs, in culture, in programming that reflects everyone around New Zealand, no matter where they live, no matter whether they live in a city or in regional New Zealand, and that actually puts a value on that. Sport is an important part of that, but it is not the only part.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I could not help but wonder when Julie Anne Genter was speaking: what would she do if it came down to a choice between pay-per-view sport or sport that was funded by the advertising of sugary drinks? What would she do with that particular dilemma? I have no idea, but it was clear that she did not really support the bill anyway.

I would like to compliment the Labour Party for taking a principled view on this bill, but from New Zealand First we could not expect any better. There are people who come into politics for purely populist reasons and people who come into politics to make better public policy, and this is a classic example of purely populist—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: They don’t know why they came into politics.

That is a very good point from Simon Bridges. They may not know at all. But I can tell them why they are there. It is for purely populist politics and nothing to do with making better public policy. What this bill would do is take the owners of private property, of brands, of events, and of institutions, and take away their right to sell their property to another private interest that still more New Zealanders have paid to consume a product from. If we start going down that track, well, there are just so many examples of different things in New Zealand that are produced by private enterprise, that constitute private property, that other New Zealanders choose to consume, and that in theory we could apply this concept to.

Take, for example, the agricultural sector and the food sector in New Zealand. Well, why should we stop at sport when we could have “free to eat”? There are lots of people who want lots of food that is produced by all sorts of businesses, and if you do not care about the property rights of all of those people who work and produce and invest—just like New Zealand First does not care about the New Zealand Rugby Union, does not care about Netball New Zealand, does not care about New Zealand Cricket or any of their rights. Why should we not just take away the rights in the property of the entire food sector? We could call it “free to eat”.

But what about the clothing sector? There are a lot of people who want to wear Karen Walker. I know that Simon Bridges is one of them. Yet why should we not have a “free to wear” policy? Karen Walker does not deserve the property rights for the business that she has built up over a long period of time! With a forthcoming member’s bill from New Zealand First, “Free to Wear”, everybody can have Karen Walker jewellery and clothing, and bugger the property rights of New Zealand businesses!

What about entertainment? What about Adele’s concert? Why should she be able to come to New Zealand and charge people?

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What about Bieber?

“What about Justin Bieber?”, I hear from Paul Foster-Bell. Paul Foster-Bell wants to know why he cannot have free tickets to Justin Bieber. Why should Justin Bieber be allowed to come to New Zealand and sell his tickets only to people who actually pay to go to his concert? It is an outrage! We should have “free to Belieb”. People should be able to get free Justin Bieber tickets for the good of our nation.

What about cars? We should have “free to drive”. Why should private businesses be able to import cars into New Zealand and sell them only to people who pay to buy them? This is an outrage! We should have a “free to drive” policy so that everybody can freely drive cars funded by the taxpayer or by advertising.

If you take it to its logical conclusion, this New Zealand First bill has no respect for property rights, no respect for business, no respect for individual choice and free enterprise. It takes us back to a world where we are all watching the same, where we are all wearing the same, we are all going to the same concerts, we are all getting the same entertainment, we are all driving the same cars—all of the things that are allowed by the Government. This bill is actually communist. It actually takes away the property rights of private enterprise and gives it to people by Government fiat.

I know New Zealand First would love to take us back to the 1970s. I know that they would like to go back to those grey old days of New Zealand, but the reality is that today we live in a prosperous, diverse, property-owning, business-building liberal democracy. I am very proud of that and proud to oppose this—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell, whose name this bill is under, but I think he missed a couple of words from the title. He assumes that the games should be “for free” and also “live”. The sport and recreation industry has an economic value on it, and I found a Lincoln University report that was published in 2015 that basically said it was worth $5 billion. This is the sport and recreation industry: there are all the national sporting organisations; the physical and human infrastructure, which is all the stadiums—they are worth another $800 million; and the market value of volunteers is about $1 billion. So, in total, the sport and recreation sector is worth $5 billion.

The value of broadcasting to that industry, to produce, deliver, and screen sport live on Sky, is worth $175 million. That is incredibly relevant when we look at the intention of this piece of legislation. Rugby, in 2015—I looked at the annual report—its income was $133.7 million. Of that, 0.5 percent was received from the Government. It is really interesting to know why the Government invested that $670,000 in rugby, and it was actually to support tier 2 sports, which are the Rugby Sevens teams, both the men’s and the women’s. The contribution of the Government to rugby, which is a 123-year-old institution in our country, was $670,000. So the shortfall, if we were to take away the revenue from Sky, would actually be $52.8 million. So maybe the person who has proposed the legislation, Clayton Mitchell, can answer the question of who is going to provide that $52.8 million to the Rugby Union.

I have found it quite interesting, this whole debate, because, as I said before, the premise is that there is not free-to-air screening of sport in New Zealand, and it is not true. Of the sports that are listed, there was 96 percent coverage for Prime Television across New Zealand. Rugby World Cup matches—for the last Rugby World Cup, the opening match, the quarter-final, the semi-final, and the final were live, and it was free. All Cricket World Cup matches—well, the semi-final and the final—were live and they were free. All domestic one-day cricket internationals—same; they were live and they were free. And all Football World Cup matches involving New Zealand, last time we played, were live and free. The All Blacks tests against the Lions, who are coming soon—they are not going to be live, but, actually, there will be delayed coverage on Sky. So everyone who wants to watch those three All Blacks tests in June will be able to—coverage will start an hour after kick-off.

So the whole premise of this bill is that sport is not free and that New Zealanders do not have access to sport in this country. That is not true; it is a fallacy, and I want to articulate why those sports are provided to New Zealanders. It is because Sky and the codes themselves want all New Zealanders to be able to access sport in New Zealand. I mean, I know, as we all do, the value of sport. I have played sport. I have got a history of international sport. I woke up this morning, and it was incredibly interesting—I am not sure whether people saw, but Cricket Australia is going to increase its women players’ annual retainer by 227 percent. Currently, those women get $79,000 a year; they are going to get $179,000, and in 2021 they will get $210,000—this is the women. Why? They got $590 million worth of broadcasting rights from Channel 9 and Channel Ten.

So what do I expect will happen to some of our codes that are getting money from Sky, to ensure that their sport continues to development and thrive? Actually, what I am hoping for in New Zealand is that there will be more opportunities for women’s sport and for women to be professional athletes. This bill undermines the integrity of that intent, not only by cricket but, I know, by rugby and other codes in New Zealand. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to make a brief contribution in this debate on Clayton Mitchell’s Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill. I am not going to engage in quite the same level of invective that the ACT Party leader, David Seymour, did, although I do concur with his basic supposition that—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That it’s communist.

—this bill is communism. I have to say that this is ironic, given that earlier in the day Mr Mitchell made allegations that our colleague Mr Scott Simpson’s bill on giving high earners some choice around the negotiations in their employment contracts—in the ability to negotiate out of protection that may be provided in the case of personal grievance—was fascism. I think we have to be very careful when we hurl these sorts of terms across the House, because when one accuses another member of fascism—these terms should be reserved for when things are actually fascistic, otherwise we run the risk of being the boy who cried wolf.

But, in this case, I do agree with the basic supposition of Mr Seymour’s that this is a communistic measure, and that it seeks to socialise, I think, what entertainment is. Since when did the ability to turn on the television and enjoy one’s favourite form of entertainment become a human right? I quite enjoy House of Cards, for instance, or that wonderful new TV series, The Crown, which shows our glorious monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth from her early years—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What about that Prince Philip though, eh?

Oh, Prince Philip—he was quite a good looker in his youth, was he not, Simon? But, the monarch and her family—this is the most expensive TV series produced in history. It cost over $100 million to produce it. And it would not have been able to be produced in such glorious high-definition splendour, with wonderful sets, amazing costuming, and the best actors available—John Lithgow’s portrayal of Sir Winston Churchill, for instance, is masterful—if it were not for Netflix subscribers contributing their $15 or so a month to enable them to access that subscription service.

In the same way, if we want to see high-quality sports in this country, and if we want to have a national rugby team that is able to continue to be the best in the world, and if we want to have netball teams and cricket teams that are performing at their absolute maximum capacity, then they have to be appropriately funded. Like other members, I am sure, I have received combined correspondence from the Rugby Union, but also from New Zealand Cricket and Netball New Zealand, outlining the significant shortfalls in funding for those codes that would occur should this bill pass. I have some grave concerns about that.

This bill does have, I suppose, a good intention: to promote the availability of live, free-to-air broadcasts. Increasingly, of course, people are accessing content on demand because the live broadcast is at an inconvenient time. We have seen this with the Rugby World Cup—when it has been played in the United Kingdom it has been at a very inconvenient time, often in the very early hours of the morning, that most of the games were played. This House considered these issues at some length when we were looking at alcohol licensing and the very sensible measure to liberalise alcohol licensing, which, in the end, certainly led to no harm. There was not a great deal of drinking actually going on, because many of the games were at 4, 5, 6, or 7 in the morning—breakfast time. People were going into the pubs to watch the games over a latte and bacon and eggs, rather than to watch them over a beer in the middle of the night.

Increasingly in this world that we live in, people want to consume their media in a method and a style and in a mode of their choosing, but also at a time of their choosing. So I think the importance of the live match is something that is, Mr Mitchell, unfortunately, slowly dying. Those who really want the excitement of the live game will go down and buy their ticket for the stadium. But those of us who prefer to keep a civil timetable and go to bed at our usual time will record the match and save it for later viewing or will watch it on the delayed free-to-air coverage.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh dear. Oh dear.

I concede—I happily concede—that I am perhaps not as much of a follower of the rugby as Mr Mallard or others. There are members on this side of the House who are noted for their rugby fandom; I will watch those important games for New Zealand, but I will do so on the delayed coverage.

I seek leave, Mr Assistant Speaker, to table a letter from the New Zealand Rugby Football Union, Cricket New Zealand, and Netball New Zealand outlining their concerns on this measure—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: It’s public.

—a letter to me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this in the public domain?

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Yes, it is.

Has it been published? It was a letter sent to me.

No. I am not accepting it.

Where do I start? I do not blame the National Party for not supporting this bill. In fact, when we put this legislation into the ballot, we knew that it would not. Why would a party that is in so deep with its mates at Skycity Casino ever conceive of doing something—

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member should know by now—he has been here for almost 3 years—that imputing a motive like that is against the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. And, of course, the absolutely lunatic contribution that was made by the ranting “Captain FIGJAM” over there earlier on made no sense at all, and I will not even give it the time of day. I am going to give a metaphorical thick ear, if you like, or a metaphorical fat lip, to the Labour Party, however.

I just want to bring your attention to, dare I say it, a media release that was released on 29 March 2013 by the wonderful Clare Curran, which said: “Kiwi sports fans being ‘ripped off’—Labour. Labour’s broadcasting spokeswoman Clare Curran says Government regulation is needed to rectify New Zealanders’ lack of free-to-air television access to major sports. Her party opposes Sky TV’s buy-up of major national sports over the past decade. ‘Sky have held at bay the prospect of regulation probably for decades, and very successfully. I have said for a couple of years now that that has to stop,’ says Ms Curran. With the ink just dry on an exclusive five-year deal to show the V8 Supercar series, Sky has completed a master coup. The subscription-based channel has now bought up all of New Zealand’s major sporting series. ‘It’s a monopoly in a regulation-free environment. It’s doing all it can to boost its own revenues and the outcome ultimately is that people who can afford a Sky subscription get to see a sport and people that can’t or choose not to can’t get it and can’t get our national sports,’ says Ms Curran.”

This is yet another flip-flop from the party that thinks it is preparing itself to run this country. It is an absolute joke. We had a flip-flop earlier on today with a workplace relations amendment bill that that party’s leader said its members would maybe consider supporting—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—and then turned around and opposed it. Just for your information, this House, which we are in today, is a place where we make legislative changes. We are here to vote and to make people’s lives better. That is our purpose. All I heard tonight, all around the House, is the fact that you are trying to put regulation in place before we have got the legislation. This bill is about the legislation. This is about what we are doing and why we are doing it. How we are going to put it together comes afterwards.

The whole idea—your hollow, shallow, insipid words from Trevor Mallard, who said: “We support the intent of this bill. We support the intent and we would like to see it go through, but, unfortunately, it makes no sense to us.” What absolute lunacy. Why would you make a comment like that? The best thing for you to do, if you were genuine and sincere about making a difference to people’s lives, would be to get it into a select committee so that it can actually be debated, pulled apart, and actually put back together again.

We understand—we absolutely understand—that things can be tightened up and that we can do some better things. We would not even mind if we had some oversight by the Minister, as long as it was not the Hon Simon Bridges. The reality is that some ministerial oversight—which can ultimately change the outcome of which sports we deem to be significant or not—can come later on.

The fact that you are all talking about what the cost of this bill is going to involve is absolutely ridiculous. We are at a stage of deciding whether it is fit for purpose. The reality is in Australia—

💬 Louisa Wall: They’re already free, and most of them are live.

Louise, you just mentioned earlier on about—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—Louisa, sorry—Channel 7 and Channel 9 allowing people to get a higher payment with netball. They are both free-to-air channels. They broadcast both live and free to air.

This is around the fact that we, as New Zealanders, spend nearly $1 billion every single year on sports and recreation. Because it is so significant to all of our country folk—to our people around this country—we need to make sure that we have got the ability to have access to it live and free to air. It does not mean it is going to be free.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.