Broadcasting (New Zealand on Air and Te Māngai Pāho Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The media in New Zealand is in crisis. In fact, the media around the globe, around the world, is in crisis, and there are two ways it is in crisis: it is in a crisis of trust, and there’s also a crisis of the economic model. What has happened over the last few years is that we have a disruptor that’s come into the media landscape. We have a global disruptor—Facebook and Google—and they have sucked the advertising revenue from our local broadcasters, and that is crashing the economic model, the business model, of our media broadcasters.

Through the use of Facebook and the like, people are seeing their news, gathering their news, from sources that are not our traditional broadcasters, and a lot of what they are seeing is clickbait stories, fake news, and that has created a lack of trust in the media. When there’s a lack of trust in the media, that absolutely erodes our democracy. It is really important that we ensure that our media are trustworthy, and we ensure our media are robust and are—the fourth estate—one of the pillars of our democracy. That’s why I’m really passionate about broadcasting. My career of 30 years led me to this House just a couple of years ago. The media currently has a really important role to play with COVID-19; a role in ensuring the public have the right information so that there is not hysteria and pandemonium because of clickbait headlines. That’s the sort of background of where we’re at with our media at the moment. So I turn now to the bill, the Broadcasting (New Zealand on Air and Te Māngai Pāho Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill.

New Zealand On Air is our funding agency, along with Te Māngai Pāho, who funds our Māori broadcasters—that’s Māori Television and iwi radio or Māori radio. There are 21 Māori radio stations in our network. The problem that I have with this bill is that it has no objective. It simply requires New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho to collect vast amounts of information and somehow report every three months on that vast amount of data that they gather. It really is bureaucracy gone mad, and it will put a handbrake on New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho getting on with the job.

One of the important things that Te Māngai Pāho and New Zealand On Air are currently doing is they are working away, providing programmes to be made to ensure that we increase our content of Te Reo Māori on air, so that we are able to reach out to our communities, to have Te Reo Māori accessed by more people. This bill won’t help any of that. This literally is gathering data for the sake of gathering data, and when we have a media ecosystem where we have linear TV which is in decline, we have people listening to the radio, although the audiences still remain strong and stable, and then we have digital platforms where people are accessing content as well—it will be very difficult to gather up that data when, for example, a video goes up on an on-demand channel. Maybe it’s TV1 OnDemand or ThreeNow, and over what period of time will you gather that data to see how many people have watched that particular programme? They’ll tap in on demand when they want to see it, not necessarily by appointment-viewing that we traditionally have—for example, with the 6 o’clock news or Coronation Street.

So the gathering of the data here is all well and good, but there will be no meaningful analysis which would make it worthwhile to do. So I think, generally, of the fact that our media ecosystem is so challenged at the moment, and we’re working on strong and important ways of what we should do about particularly our public broadcasters at the moment to ensure that they survive not just now but into the future. I therefore feel that we have, as a coalition Government, a lot of work to do that matters in the broadcasting space, and we shouldn’t waste any time on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on my colleague Melissa Lee’s fantastic member’s bill. There’s going to be quite a contrast between the previous speaker and myself, but I have to respect her passion and enthusiasm for the subject. However, that’s about where we finish in agreement.

I think the previous speaker, Jenny Marcroft, said there was no objective in the bill. There is an objective: it’s transparency. It’s all about—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: More red tape.

—actually understanding what is being done. Actually, I hear a bit of a yapping over there about red tape. Actually, all this data is actually gathered. The only thing at the moment is NZ On Air only publish the top-10 performing programmes that they actually fund. So the data is all there. It’s easily gathered.

We’re in a new world today, and, unfortunately, those supporting the old formats of media are actually being left behind. They’re being overrun. What’s important about having objective measures is understanding your audience. That’s not at all to say we should only fund the most popular programmes, but we have to ensure we’re reaching the audience that we want to. If we set out to target a programme at a certain audience, how do we know if we’re reaching them? If we don’t measure it in some way, we won’t know. Of course, there’s a bit of a fear of sunlight here and in the industry, I feel—particularly on the other side of the House—and I think that’s a shame.

Great programmes like Country Calendar have been funded by NZ On Air. It’s a phenomenally successful programme. Ironically, it’s a country subject but the audience is mostly based in Auckland, and female. How do we know that? Because they gather that data. The producers of that show do a lot of work to ensure that they balance off telling really good country stories but also ensuring they appeal to that audience that watches it every week.

If they didn’t have that data, they wouldn’t know how to keep that programme up in the minds of people. The whole world has changed in this space. We used to have a lot of long-form documentaries in New Zealand and around the world, in fact. That has gone by the wayside, except for on YouTube now. That has become the new, hot sector on YouTube, which is long-form videos, interviews with people like Joe Rogan, or the Weinstein Brothers. You know, I watched an hour long interview the other night with Bjorn Lomborg.

Those things are very popular and, yes, they don’t appeal to a mass audience, but they are getting millions of hits. The only reason we know that is because that’s easily measured on YouTube, and it’s publicly available. You can see it. The viewer can see how many people have watched it. So it’s really important that we know that. It may be that we need to have our taxpayer dollars looking at doing those long-form sorts of interviews and putting them up on YouTube rather than broadcasting them on TV. But that’s what we should be aiming at.

We’ve got a broadcasting system that is here to tell our stories, but how do we know that people are listening? It seems that there’s a selective deafness on the other side. Well, you know, it’s all about socialism on that side, obviously. But I think it’s quite interesting reading the Better Public Media Trust chair Peter Thompson’s quote—and this is the mentality of it—he thought the bill “would pervert the whole point of having public content funding agencies because it would expose them to [the cool winds of] performance”.

Well, you know, really, he has to come back to the real world. It is a world where we want to ensure that our public expenditure goes to the direction we aim it at, not into some sort of ether and have it all disappear down the toilet.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Save Country Calendar.

Country Calendar’s a great show. Actually, I’d like to wind up with the one union that I really support—apart from the rugby union—which is the Taxpayers’ Union, and that is Jordan Williams, whose great quote, I think, was that he called this bill—it should be renamed the “Spinoff TV Memorial Bill”. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. I rise to oppose this legislation. I think the last member actually gave a good explanation of the different world views and visions, and also a clear argument why we need public broadcasting. That member listed off a litany of overseas-based YouTubers with the inference, I think, that, look, we don’t maybe even need public broadcasting in New Zealand, because there are all these YouTubers out there like Joe Rogan. Now, Joe Rogan’s a good YouTuber, but I think that—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Who?

Joe Rogan.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Who’s he?

He’s a YouTuber and a podcaster. Well, the thing is that that member didn’t list a single New Zealand YouTuber or podcaster. Now, if we’re going to see New Zealand stories actually told in our media—and I get the member’s point that there’s a whole bunch of different content platforms where we consume media—we’ve actually got to support it. That’s why the Green Party can’t support this legislation, because we want to strengthen, enhance, and greater fund public broadcasting.

I do want to acknowledge the member. It’s a big moment in a member’s career when a bill is finally pulled. I know it took me four years for my first bill to be pulled. It is a big moment.

I want to acknowledge the member for putting a bill in about public broadcasting. It isn’t the issue that always gets the headlines, but it is a foundational issue for our society, for our democracy, and it’s so important. It is what we turn to as a country as we count down to the anniversary of March 15. It is what we turn to with the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s the source of information, and we want to see better public broadcasting. It’s just a pity it’s not a bill that the Green Party can support at this point in time.

If only it was a bill to increase funding for public broadcasting. If only it was a bill to enhance concert radio and other cultural entities we provide. If only it was a bill to support independent journalism. But it’s not; it’s simply a blunt instrument to require quarterly ratings information.

Now, this isn’t going to address the challenges. There are a number of challenges facing the broadcasting sector, from funding, convergence, and disruptive business models. However, I think there are five key reasons why the Green Party, sadly, can’t support Melissa Lee’s member’s bill at this point. I mean, we point out, as other members have, the blindingly obvious, that it already happens. NZ On Air already collects this information. It is an element in their funding decision—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Red tape.

—but our point is that it shouldn’t be the pinnacle or the paramount reason that funding decisions are made. Otherwise, you get, you know, Celebrity Treasure Island, and not the quality public broadcasting which we so desperately need in this country.

I’d point out other contributions that it might actually not be legally possible. I’d point out that focussing on this simply increases the costs, and other members have yelled out about red tape and regulations. I would note the irony after the bonfire of regulations only a couple days ago. I don’t know why we’re increasing the administrative burden.

I’d also point out that it increases cost, and the point raised by Morgan Godfery: “[Te Māngai Pāho] does not always purchase [this rating] information [already] so [this] Bill would create an additional cost”, and “the quarterly reports could be used … [that Te Māngai Pāho’s] low rating shows do not provide value for money.”, because what we know is that you’re contrasting oranges and lemons. It’s a total different thing, and we do acknowledge that fear portrayed by Morgan Godfery.

So when it comes to the key issues facing broadcasting and the sector in New Zealand, this bill is, sadly, a little bit too little, too late. You know, for nine years we saw RNZ suffer under a funding freeze. I remember questioning Paul Thompson, the CEO, and he told me in select committee a few years back that they had even stopped putting in funding requests under the previous Government because he said, “It was like hitting your head against a brick wall.”

I would point out that this Government has increased the funding—$15 million to NZ On Air and RNZ. In the member’s defence, you know, it’s hard to fix all the issues of convergence and disruption in a member’s bill, but we can’t be supporting a piece of legislation which is actually going to make the status quo worse, in our opinion. So we note the work undertaken by Minister Faafoi to review the sector, the increased funding. The Green Party will always vote for bills which increase funding for public broadcasting, that enhance the sector, that grow it, and that strengthen it. Sadly, this isn’t one of those bills.

I just couldn’t help myself; I’m irrationally excited about this bill. I have to tell you, I think NZ On Air do an amazing job. We should remember about the history of NZ On Air—of course, it came from the broadcasting fee. NZ On Air was the way we used to distribute the proceeds from the broadcasting fee, before the broadcasting fee was done away with.

Once upon a time, if you owned a television set, you had to pay a broadcasting fee, and that broadcasting fee was collected up, and it was used to produce New Zealand content. Then, I think it was the National Government that actually did away with the broadcasting fee and shifted that into general taxation so that New Zealand content on our TV and radio was to be funded through general taxation rather than through a dedicated broadcasting fee.

Since that time, successive Governments have taken measures and done everything they can to ensure that as much of that money as possible is spent on producing quality New Zealand content. We want to make sure that the money that goes into broadcasting actually makes New Zealand content, rather than getting sucked up in bureaucracy. That is one of the reasons why this bill fails at the first hurdle. It wraps up more resource in a red tape bureaucratic process. It means less money will get spent on producing content in the first place.

The last National member who spoke, I can’t remember who it was, made the point that it won’t be too difficult because all of this data’s already available. In which case, if the data’s already available, what’s the need for the red tape, for this new regulatory requirement? Because that’s effectively what this is: a new regulatory requirement to report something new. What’s the point of it, if the data’s already publicly available and can already be used to inform decision making, other than simply to add unnecessary regulation?

But then I thought, “Aha! It’s OK, though, because I heard Simon Bridges say that for every new regulation the National Party introduces, they’re going to abolish two.” So when I heard this bill was up, I rushed down to the House and I grabbed a copy of the bill because I thought there’s going to be two more regulations that are going to be abolished in this bill.

So I looked at the bill and I read it and I read it again, and there is no bonfire, because not only does this bill introduce a new regulation but it doesn’t take any regulations away. So that promise lasted less than 48 hours—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Worst bonfire ever.

That’s right. That is the worst. I mean they’re not even in Government yet and they’ve already broken their big promise to set a bonfire of regulations, because they’re already trying to introduce new regulations from Opposition. That’s quite an amazing feat that on the same week that they promised that they were going to be reducing regulations, they are now trying to progress a bill through the House that would increase regulatory requirements and bureaucracy.

So let’s turn to the provisions of what those regulations would involve New Zealand On Air doing. So, basically, they’re going to have to collect data on television ratings, online view clicks or counts, radio ratings, other viewership tracking data, and a breakdown of the associated costs for the programming funded. All of this information would be available anyway. You may have to pay for it, OK, but it’s already there. That data is available to those who wish to purchase it. So why would New Zealand On Air need to pull that information together if not for a pointless bureaucratic accountability compliance-focused exercise that would add nothing to the quality of broadcasting in New Zealand. It will do nothing to increase the hours of programme content that it produced—in fact, it could do the absolute opposite of that—and it will result in them spending more money on producing more reports and more paperwork and less money doing their core job of producing quality New Zealand content.

So I have no hesitation in saying that the Government and the Labour Party, party in the Government, will not support this ridiculous bill. It’s a waste of the House’s time. It’s a waste of the Parliament’s time. National should be focused on honouring their promise to reduce regulation and they could do so by withdrawing the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call this evening, which I think will only be a brief call, because it is quite a brief bill, and, actually, a very simple bill and a common-sense bill. It is the Broadcasting (New Zealand on Air and Te Māngai Pāho Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill. What I can’t quite understand, even after listening to the better part of five minutes from Minister Chris Hipkins, is quite why it is that the Government are opposing this bill, and I’ll come back to that in a moment if I can. But I just want to run through really quickly what this bill does, because it is very straight forward. All it will require is for New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho to publish quarterly reports that show viewership figures of every project they fund, including television ratings, radio ratings, online views, and any other viewership reporting tools, along with a breakdown of the costs associated.

I sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—a very good committee—where we regularly discuss broadcasting issues, and one of the things I find most useful in those discussions is looking at some of the broadcasting data, and particularly viewership figures. They allow us to track interest in programming, and particularly trends up and down, and, more than anything actually, to make assessments about value for money. But one of the challenges we have in doing those assessments is often we get data that doesn’t quite line up, or comes from different sources, and so it makes those assessments about cost-effectiveness far more difficult.

So this bill would make those discussions a lot easier because it would allow us to match up across a number of different platforms who’s viewing or watching or reading what. So it would be a very valuable addition, because, after all, this isn’t just about MPs, though, it’s not just about the assessment that we make; it is about the public—the wider public and allowing taxpayers also to make those assessments, to say, “We’re not watching something. Why shouldn’t we know if we’re not watching something, and then we can decide if, or not, it is valuable to us?” Because that programming is, of course, paid for by taxpayers, and that’s not actually something that’s been raised at all by Government members tonight. When New Zealand On Air funds something, that money comes from taxpayers. So why wouldn’t we let them know—quarterly, as this bill would—what exactly it is New Zealanders are watching and what they’re getting for their money.

Now, I did listen to Minister Chris Hipkins take five minutes to outline some of the reasons why the Government’s voting against this bill, and one of the reasons he highlighted was red tape. Now, that made me laugh, because it’s not very often a Labour Minister comes down to this House and complains about red tape, but the reason he said, “We can’t have this bill because of red tape.” Well, actually, Minister, this bill is about transparency. If all we were concerned about was red tape and putting compliance on to Government agencies and departments, we wouldn’t have the Official Information Act, because that is red tape, but it’s an important tool for transparency in a democracy. So I can’t quite fathom why it is that the Government would be voting against this bill, which is all about transparency.

Now, I don’t think there is some grand conspiracy as to why they’re voting against this bill—why they don’t want the public to know who is watching or viewing what—I just think they’ve got it wrong. So I do ask the Minister, who’s come down to the House, which is actually quite surprising—he perhaps has been listening to some of his colleagues giving speeches on earlier bills and thought, “Gosh, I need to get down there and get things back on track.”—but I would ask him to reconsider his position on this bill and reconsider the Government’s position on this bill. At least support it to select committee so that it can go there, we can hear from those taxpayers, we can hear from New Zealanders about why it is they deserve that information and why this bill should be passed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very, very pleased to be able to speak on the Broadcasting (New Zealand on Air and Te Māngai Pāho Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill. I think it’s a tremendous use of taxpayers’ money to have members of Parliament speaking on bills that, really, are unclear on what the problem is that they’re trying to solve! The thing is that we have a proposal in front of us that would impose costs and regulation on two agencies that, actually, for the nine years prior to this Government, were severely underfunded, and now we’re wanting to put more burden on them to release information that’s already available. I’m quite staggered really that when we are standing here today—the very week that the leader of the National Party indicated that his solution, heading into the 2020 election, was to light a regulations bonfire. He said that “Regulations are going too far, creating a lot of cost and burden without merit.” They want to ignite the regulations, and what do they do now?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the bill self-combust?

The bill may as well self-combust because it’ll be the only thing that this bill achieves.

The thing is that this bill is utterly pointless, and this message was sent very clearly, before we came out to even consider the bill, by two notable media commentators. And I have here in front of me: “Broadcaster Russell Brown noted that New Zealand On Air is committed by law to funding programmes for various niche audiences, which can’t sensibly be measured simply by commercial ratings”. The chair of the public campaign group Better Public Media, Dr Peter Thompson, who said, it was “ironic” that “Melissa Lee received millions of taxpayer dollars to make … Asia Downunder” but now wants to change the law in what he described as “an attack on low-rating public media content.” Because, of course, we mustn’t forget that the function of New Zealand On Air is to “reflect and develop New Zealand identity and culture” and to ensure that a range of broadcasts are available to provide for the interests of minority and special groups by making funds available for broadcasting, producing, and archiving programmes.

If, under this bill, New Zealand On Air was forced to release rating information, we put it to the member and to this House that this bill would undermine the core functions of New Zealand On Air—the very reason why New Zealand On Air exists. What this would do is it would say, “See you later, Country Calendar, and hello, ‘Celebrity Treasure Island: MasterChef Special’ ”. That is what we would see. We would see a race for ratings, and those key programmes that many minority and core interests in our society rely on would be kicked down the road. Absolutely, they would be shot down in pieces for the sake of ratings. And we all know the examples of the programmes overseas, coming out of the places like America and the UK; programmes like the The Ricki Lake Show and The Jeremy Kyle Show—stuff that really wants to broadcast the best of New Zealand society, wants to really raise the minority interests, and tell the New Zealand stories, because, of course, that is what New Zealand On Air is for.

This bill would impose regulations and red tape and cost and bring New Zealand On Air away from its absolute core functions. We say that that is wrong.

It would be an expensive implement, it would bring no gain whatsoever, and it makes me wonder. In the proud history of National Party members’ bills, I think this goes up there at the top of the list with Nuk Korako’s infamous baggage-handling bill, because it identifies a problem that isn’t actually a problem and tries to bring a solution to something that doesn’t need one.

I think Melissa Lee and the National Party are opening themselves up to criticism of the old-fashioned ballot stuff. I think that they wanted to fill a gap and they struggled with ideas. Of course, they want to get into Government after the next election, and if this is the best they’ve come up with, I don’t think we’ve got anything to worry about. I think we’re going to be all right, because the fact is that New Zealand On Air, when adequately funded—and particularly after the significant funding boost that this Government gave them—is able to go back to its core functions of producing content that tells New Zealand’s stories and that broadcasts our stories to the nation and to the world. It is unburdened, it is solely focused on its core purpose, and this bill would severely undermine that.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start my contribution in the closing of this bill by acknowledging the contribution of my colleagues on the examination of what I consider a vital piece of legislation for the future of broadcasting funding transparency. I want to say how deeply saddened I am to see, yet again, this Government, who chose to actually announce themselves as the most open and transparent in history, has closed ranks to deny that openness and that transparency that they promised—that access to information on the performance of publicly funded media by deciding not to support the bill.

Earlier, Jenny Marcroft talked about the convergence, and I acknowledge her knowledge of the mediascape and how there is actually huge convergence and disruptors out there. I would have thought that that member, at least, would have understood that having decent data and decent transparency and openness would perhaps help in the actual funding, and that more programmes could actually be funded.

I am particularly troubled by the decision by the Green Party, who—despite their broadcasting spokesperson having given me repeated personal assurances that they would support the bill—sent me a very late-night email just before the first reading began last December, and said that after having said they would support it, they couldn’t support it any more. That was because they had had a conversation with the Minister, and that’s the reason why they couldn’t actually support the bill. For a party that once prided itself on making our Government and public services more open, this, in fact, is the new low.

I respect my friend Gareth Hughes across the House. He has been a wonderful friend in select committees and I respect his views. But, you know, to tell it how it is, it was, in fact, at the direction of the Minister, and that is the only reason why the Green Party will not support this bill to select committee.

You know, for the past two years, our country has had to deal with every form of shady deal—clandestine meetings and constitutional outrages at a volume that would make most Third World nations blush—so it is truly disappointing when the Minister of broadcasting is actually having secret meetings with the head of news and content at Radio New Zealand. I mean, come on—this is a real low. When members of a Government who are in coalition or in confidence and supply are not able to support it because the Minister has actually put his foot down, I think it’s a real shame.

I truly believe that transparency in this area is required, and for those people who do not understand the process for members’ bills, often members’ bills are put into the ballot many years before they have their first readings. This bill was put in the ballot well before Mr McAnulty’s presence in this Parliament, and, luckily, it was actually drawn and we had the beginning of its first reading last year.

In terms of transparency, one of the members—I think it was Mr McAnulty—talked about my former role as a producer of a television programme called Asia Downunder. Yes, it did actually get funding from New Zealand On Air, and one of the problems that we had was that because we were a small production company, we could not get Nielsen ratings when we requested TVNZ and New Zealand On Air to provide the ratings so that we knew exactly how many people were tuning in, because this data can be very helpful for producers. It was very difficult to get our hands on it. I’ve also had emails from independent producers—much smaller ones—who do, in fact, struggle to know the data. Knowing the data of viewership helps producers.

This is not just about transparency of numbers to see what New Zealand On Air is actually funding, where the funding is going, and how many people are viewing but it also helps the producers to make decisions about their content. I think they’re missing out on an opportunity, and I believe that sharing stories and ideas of our history—today marks the continuation of the struggle of those creators and producers because this Government cannot decide to be transparent. It is a real shame that members of the Government in this House, across on that side, cannot support this bill to select committee. It is a real shame.