Broadcasting Amendment Bill

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) Link to this

I move, That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee.

The object of this bill is to bring New Zealand’s broadcasting funding agencies in line with the digital age. Internationally, broadcasting is moving to digital transmission to the point where analogue transmission will be obsolete within a number of years. New Zealand, too, is moving with increasing speed to an era of digital-only broadcasts. At the same time, broadcasting-like content is appearing on a variety of media and devices. Broadcasters and content creators are making use of these media, or platforms, to retain and expand their audiences, and to serve them better. It is vital that our broadcasting infrastructure and ways of supporting local content remain relevant and effective in the new era. Our broadcasting funding agencies need to be able to respond to the opportunities and challenges of the digital world. They need to provide support and services to meet the changing needs and expectations of producers, broadcasters, and the New Zealand public. The bill will enable them to do so.

The Broadcasting Amendment Bill will allow the broadcasting funding agencies, New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho, to fund the types of content, archiving, and transmission that are likely to be integral to digital radio and television platforms—platforms such as the Internet, mobile phones, and other mobile services—the common feature of which is that transmission occurs at the demand of the individual viewer or listener, in contrast to traditional broadcasting. It is currently outside the scope of the Broadcasting Act 1989 for these agencies to fund content made or adapted specifically for such platforms. Nor are the agencies able to support the new platforms for the digital transmissions themselves, or the archiving of content created specifically for digital platforms other than conventional television or radio.

The Broadcasting Act’s definition of “broadcasting” simply does not extend to the increasing array of interactive and on-demand forms of distribution made possible by digital technology. Broadcasting is evolving steadily towards an era in which the audience will, as a matter of course, expect to access content through a choice of platforms, and at times of their choosing. A range of broadcasters, from national institutions like Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand to local access radio stations, are increasingly using these platforms to reach their audiences in new ways. The exact pace and final outcome of this change in broadcasting are difficult to predict, but experience to date indicates that the pace will be fast and the changes comprehensive. Our broadcasting agencies need to be equipped to respond to these developments. This bill, therefore, amends Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act relating to the functions of New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho—or the Broadcasting Commission and Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi, to give their formal, statutory names. It also adds certain terms in section 2(1) of the Act. A further important change made by the bill is to allow Te Māngai Pāho to fund the archiving of Māori language and culture programmes in general. It has been anomalous that, to date, New Zealand On Air has had such a function in relation to general broadcast content, while Te Māngai Pāho has not.

The Government’s public broadcasting policies collectively expressed in the broadcasting programme of action aim to maintain and strengthen the availability of public broadcasting content in the digital era. Public broadcasting content is, broadly speaking, content that a commercial market would not produce of its own accord and that serves the broadcasting needs of every section of the audience rather than only those of the most interest to advertisers. A rich variety of local content is, of course, a fundamental objective of any public broadcasting policy and it is crucial to its success. The key means of funding local content in New Zealand is the maintenance of distribution agencies allocating funding to producers and broadcasters on a largely contestable basis.

The Government’s programme of action has provided for the re-examination of the functions of New Zealand On Air in order to identify where changes may be necessary to clarify its role and to permit it to support a more diverse range of content, taking into account the new kinds of content made possible by the recent developments in broadcasting and communications technology. In collaboration with my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs, this review has also embraced Te Māngai Pāho, the Māori broadcasting agency. The shift to a multi-platform world is a challenge for public broadcasting policy, but it is also an excellent opportunity to provide the public with greater choice and richer content. Our re-examination of the two agencies’ functions goes hand in hand with our other policies to promote free-to-air digital broadcasting through the establishment of the FreeView platform and funding of the new non-commercial digital channels on TVNZ. The Government’s measures to improve New Zealand’s broadband capacity, which will be vital to the development of Internet protocol television, are another complementary area of policy.

The Broadcasting Amendment Bill makes the changes necessary for our funding agency to be able to keep pace with these developments in broadcasting. It introduces a new definition of “content” and of “transmit on demand”, in order to encompass types of content or producers of content intended for digital platforms that fall outside the Act’s current definitions of “broadcasting” and “programmes”. These existing definitions, which also apply elsewhere in the Act, will be retained, but for the purposes of the two funding agencies they will be supplemented by the new terms. The bulk of the bill is concerned with permitting the two agencies to fund the desired forms of digital content, transmission, and archiving. It also extends to these new areas the Act’s existing provisions relating to the promotion of New Zealand content, and the requirement for the agencies to consult various interests when making funding decisions. In addition, it carries over the Act’s existing protection against ministerial interference in such decisions.

The Broadcasting Amendment Bill is not intended to prompt radical change in the funding agencies’ operations or to expose them to a sudden increase in demand. The new functions are presented as supplementing and enhancing the delivery of their existing objectives, which the bill deems to be primary. The aim is to allow the agencies themselves, at their discretion, to assess the way that broadcasting and other media are developing over the next few years and to adjust their own funding policies in a gradual and considered way. The bill has been developed in consultation with them. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is to amend the Broadcasting Act to allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programmes in a variety of formats, for instance the Internet, mobile phones, video on demand, etc. We still do not know what is coming down the line in any event, so I suggest it is proper to be prepared.

Currently, the Broadcasting Act allows the two funding agencies, New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho, to fund programmes for television viewing only. This bill enables the change to allow them to fund new formats. The bill also changes Te Māngai Pāho’s role to allow it to fund the archiving of Māori culture and language programmes. Currently, New Zealand On Air is the only agency with the ability to do that. I acknowledge that that is a very important provision. Māori language and culture are key to New Zealand’s identity, and it is very important that the proper archiving of Māori language and culture is accommodated.

The bill was created to deal with rapid technological change in the broadcasting industry, especially in terms of digital media. National supports the bill. We accept that in a digital environment there is a need to bring funding arrangements into line with modern and evolving broadcasting technology. It is sensible and proper to update arrangements. We also accept that publicly funded content needs to be available to the public, whether through analog television, the Internet, or FreeView. However, National would be concerned if this funding were used for programming that could be viewed only through a pay per view cellphone platform, and we will be holding the Government to account on this issue.

Of course, funding for different formats is sensible, but in the modern broadcasting environment, content reigns supreme, and until the Minister of Broadcasting gets his broadcasting policy online these provisions could be superfluous, anyway. Minister Maharey’s performance to date has been woeful in National’s view. He was given a charter for Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to implement along with the commercial format, and that has proved to be a disaster. This dual public broadcasting and commercial remit does not seem to have worked at all over the last 6 years, and National on many occasions has pointed this out. Steve Maharey does not seem to have taken much note of it, but as far as we are concerned, in terms of content, $80 million worth of public money has been seemingly going down a black hole every year. The proof of the pudding, of course, is that TV audiences are still dropping, and at the same time the Government is trying to develop the digital platform.

We acknowledge that that is a big job to do, but the Minister has given very little real leadership to enable the public broadcaster to do this in a way whereby the viewing public of New Zealand, who expect a decent public broadcaster—and whose money funds this development—can be confident that we in fact have a decent public broadcaster in our presence. So there is a lot of work to do, and, as I said, the Minister has been a lacklustre leader in terms of the Government’s broadcasting policy. Although we recognise that these changes are probably necessary and make sense, in terms of the bigger picture that needs to be addressed I think Steve Maharey, for the short time he has left as the Minister of Broadcasting, has a lot of work to do. So we are asking him what the plan is. What, for instance, will he do about improving local content on TVNZ?

I recall the time when Rick Ellis came to the Māori Affairs Committee, about 2 months ago. We wanted to know how he thought he was doing in terms of Māori programming on TVNZ in relation to his charter responsibilities, and, surprise, surprise, he thought he was doing great. He thought that programmes like Location Location Location and and other programmes were satisfying the Māori content responsibility. What a laugh! What an absolute scandal! Just because there are Māori in prison on a TV programme, he thought that that satisfied the Māori programme requirement on television. So, as I said, although the changes in this bill are sensible, content reigns supreme when it comes to making them. The audiences will tell us that. They either watch or they do not, and, of course, TVNZ audiences have been dropping away, anyway. So there is another area in which the Minister has been very lacklustre. with Mike King is a very funny sports programme that I watch and enjoy, but I have to say that Mike King’s presence there does not a Māori programme make.

There was nothing in TVNZ’s announcements 7 or 8 days ago about its new Māori programming format that gave me, at least, or I am sure any other Māori MP in this Chamber, any confidence that it knew that tripling the number of hours is not necessarily improving local Māori content. Where is the funding for that, anyway? It is all very well to announce that it will triple the hours for Māori programming, but no funding is appearing to meet that. That is fine, because, as it says, it will compete with Māori TV for the same pūtea, so we will see how it does.

Tripling the hours is one thing, but getting decent local content is another. Perhaps TVNZ is going to triple the hours and have more ridiculous things. Maybe instead of one Māori family on Location Location Location, buying a house, it will have two families; perhaps that is the way it is going to do it. [] is on Māori Television, I say to Dover Samuels. We are talking about TVNZ here. This is the broadcaster that gets $80 million worth of that member’s taxes and my taxes every year, and has still to prove that it can properly manage its charter responsibilities and its commercial remit at the same time. So far it has not done that.

Just to finish off, in terms of Māori programming, I say that TVNZ will be competing with Māori Television for the same pūtea, the same pot of money. It does not deserve to get any if its content is not going to improve from the kinds of things it has produced in the past, and that Rick Ellis has said was Māori programming. As I say, it is scandalous that he should come to the select committee and sell those programmes as Māori programming. It is an insult to Māori audiences, and it is an insult to New Zealand audiences, actually. If the charter were working properly, then every New Zealander, and especially Māori, would feel they were getting a perspective of the Māori world view that they might not otherwise get. That is what these kinds of changes are aimed at, and that is what the charter funding is aimed at. Until the Minister of Broadcasting, Minister Maharey, winds the public broadcaster in the right direction, then this is possibly designed to fail, as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I think this Broadcasting Amendment Bill is a very good bill. It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker, who was the one small voice in the National Party, out of 48, who defended Māori Television when it was first established. As I recall, National Party members are crystal clear that if they have their way, Māori Television will be closed down. Have they made a clear and concise statement of apology to the people of New Zealand for their short-sighted criticism of what is now a wonderful television channel? I have to say that I find it absolutely ironic. Georgina te Heuheu was actually the best member in that caucus then. At least she raised one small voice in favour of Māori Television, and I commend her for that. But please do not let me hear criticism of Māori Television content, in terms of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), from the party opposite, when those members themselves, as I understand it, have been dedicated to closing down Māori Television. Quite frankly, I think their protestations with regard to Māori content on TVNZ ring hollow.

I compliment the dynamic and energetic Minister of Broadcasting, Steve Maharey, who is more than equal to all the 48 members—or however many—National has over there in his vision and leadership in this portfolio. I also acknowledge the previous Minister of Broadcasting, Marian Hobbs, for her energy, drive, and vision. Obviously this bill is very, very important.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I would just like to take up from where the previous speaker left off. I think his name is Martin Gallagher. What did he say? He said: “I join with her.”, and he was talking about the Hon Georgina te Heuheu from the National benches. Clearly, he is feeling the pressure of being part of this Government and already he wants to jump ship. Well, we have news for him!

I too would like to extend my congratulations to my most excellent colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. In spite of what the member Martin Gallagher said, we have some contrary views here. Experts are saying that Labour’s broadcasting policy is in tatters, with Steve Maharey failing to front up to the public. So why, under Steve Maharey’s stewardship of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), are 160 people being laid off, and why are experienced news staff expressing serious doubts about the quality of news and current affairs?

This is a huge bill of about three pages, which, again, is really indicative of this Government’s failing position. It is bereft of ideas, bereft of initiatives, and bereft of policy. Its members are constantly hammering us for policy, because they have no ideas of their own. They have no ideas of their own, so they come out with a bill that is tantamount to about three pages in length.

Let us look at those three pages. I note that clause 9, “Commission to have regard to Government policy”, amends, in subclause (2), section 44(2)(b) by omitting the words “current affairs programmes” and substituting the words “any current affairs programme or content”. The commission is to “have regard to Government policy” and “any current affairs programme or content”. So now the commission has to have regard to the Government’s policy on content. I just wonder what that will really mean for us in the future, given the very sound words from my most honourable colleague Georgina te Heuheu, who talked about Māori programming in relation to programmes such as Police Ten 7, Dancing with the Stars, and .

When we look at that one clause, we then have to start thinking seriously about what the Government’s policy is. Is it going to be robust? That is another area where Steve Maharey has absolutely failed. He is saying that the charter is under review. Well, we know that there are plenty of reviews going on currently, because all that this Government can do is to have review after review. I do not know how many documents are out there in the public forum for consultation. I read another one just recently that said: “Carers, tell us what you need and what works.” Hello! How many times have carers been asked that question? If we look at how many documents are out there for public input under this Government, we will see that they cover just about every single subject one can think of.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa te Whare. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill gives the House a good chance, a good opportunity, to look back on some of the first principles of broadcasting in Aotearoa. When I talk about principles, I am talking about those Treaty principles that both New Zealand First and Labour, with their large bands of Tontos, voted to dump from legislation, but that Māori up and down the country hold fast to as the only validation of the Treaty in legislation in this country.

This bill arises out of the broadcasting assets case New Zealand Māori Council v of December 1993, where the Privy Council noted in its decision that “The Treaty records an agreement executed by the Crown and Maori which over 150 years later is of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand.” It is such an important point that it is worth repeating: “The Treaty records an agreement executed by the Crown and Maori which over 150 years later is of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand.” The Privy Council decision also stated: “Foremost among those ‘principles’ are the obligations which the Crown undertook of protecting and preserving Maori property, including the Maori language as taonga, in return for being recognised as the legitimate government of the whole nation by Maori.” It further stated: “Again, if, as is the case with the Maori language at the present time, a taonga is in a vulnerable state, this has to be taken into account by the Crown … and may well require the Crown to take especially vigorous action for its protection.”

That is the basis from which we need to consider this bill. Does the bill include the vigorous action by which Māori language and culture will be promoted and protected? Does it bear in mind the constitutional importance of the Treaty? Does it deal properly with the obligations of the Crown to protect and preserve Māori property? It is with those guidelines in mind that the Māori Party will support the proposal to amend the Broadcasting Act 1989 to enable New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho to fund digital broadcasting content, archiving, and transmission.

But we still ask the question: “Does it stack up against those criteria established by the Privy Council?”. Well, the Minister of Māori Affairs thought so when he said on 26 July 2007 that: “Without a dedicated Maori digital television service, there is the potential for a diminished presence of Māori language and culture in the lives of all New Zealanders”, and gave the assurance, particularly in relation to Māori television, that “there will be no decrease in the amount of Maori language programming on the first channel”. The Minister’s words are important, because the debate over Television New Zealand (TVNZ)’s Māori programming strategy suggests that some clear direction about Māori language programming across all channels is needed.

The Māori Party supports the current framework for purchasing programmes and broadcast services through New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho. Both agencies continue to have a focus on Māori programmes and services, and archiving of those programmes is a positive step. But we also firmly believe that Māori must have a greater say about the way that resources are allocated for the promotion of Māori language and culture through broadcasting. The TVNZ Māori programme tragedy is a classic example of the need for that. When it was first announced, the increase in Māori programming hours sounded great, but when one looked at the scheduling one quickly realised what a sham it really was.

For example, if we take Te Karere, TVNZ’s Māori news flagship, we find it has never ever been treated by TVNZ as a news programme, and its timing has always reflected that. For years it played second fiddle to sport, getting shunted back to midnight whenever cricket was on. Then, when cricket shifted to Sky, got left out in the boonies—out in the kids’ programming slot at 4.30 p.m., and replayed at 6.05 a.m. on the following day. Now, with TVNZ’s new Māori programming tragedy being announced in a blaze of publicity, we find that is—wait for it; drum roll and all the rest of it—being dumped into an even worse slot. It is going to be out with the soaps at 3.45 in the afternoon, and replayed at midnight and 5.45 a.m., for heaven’s sake! Then we find that and , TVNZ’s major Māori documentary and current affairs programmes, have just been slashed in half, and that has just been shunted back into Sunday morning, after slowly building a solid audience in its Saturday morning slot. That is just another insult to Māori programming. I challenge the Minister of Māori Affairs to take steps to ensure that Māori language programming is not downgraded by people whose ignorance of Māori programming is already clear for all to see.

The Sunday morning shuffle that TVNZ is engaged in with regard to Waka Huia reminded me of a similar dance from a few years back, so I had a look through the records, and can members guess what I found? I found a article that described the time when was pushed back from 11 a.m. on Sunday to 10 a.m., to make way for the life-changing, New Zealand society - building, revolutionary children’s programme . It reported a comment from Hone Kaa, a former presenter and co-producer of , who said at the time: “There are powers which determine when you might be seen … I think it’s about time those people started to realise that we are the indigenous tangata whenua, and that maybe we ought to have priority over some of the American shit that we’re watching.” The date of that article was 28 March 1987—20 years ago—but it could have been written yesterday, for all the progress that has not been made on Māori programming at Television New Zealand.

The point is that this bill looks good and we support moves for video on demand, interactivity, reversioning, and so on, but it all means diddly-squat if the State broadcaster is using that process to relegate Māori programming to the twilight hours. That brings me back to the point of giving Māori a more direct stake in the growth of Māori language and culture through broadcasting. The Māori Television Service is an enormous achievement, but the Government must continue to support the development of management and technical skills and experience within the industry, and as well allow the service to grow its commitment to Māori language and culture. It is great that in its short life the Māori Television Service has taken prizes for best event coverage at the 2006 Qantas television awards, awards for best documentaries, people’s choice awards, and other awards, but we must not blind ourselves to the reality that TVNZ was fully, absolutely, and totally State-funded for 40 years, whereas the Māori Television Service has only ever been part-funded, for 5 years. Māori radio has not received an operational increase in its funding in almost 20 years. The Government needs to accept a great obligation to Māori broadcasting, to ensure continuous and ongoing improvement in both radio and television.

I also want to refer to the amendments in the bill to change Te Māngai Pāho’s primary function by adding the archiving of Māori language and culture programmes to its role. I am reminded of a story from another trailblazing Māori broadcaster, Ernie Leonard, who said that while watching the elders walking up the steps of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art during the Te Māori exhibition, the hairs rose on the back of his neck as he thought about what would happen if the plane carrying those people home crashed and they were all lost. Preserving and protecting our stories is absolutely vital to our future as a people and as a nation, and is a development that we support fully.

I leave us with one final comment. The Māori Party is gravely concerned that Māori language programme funding is already very tight, in spite of the ruling of the Privy Council, in spite of the statutory direction of the Broadcasting Act, and in spite of the huge surpluses that TVNZ has run up. I have to ask the obvious questions. First, what strategy does the Government have to provide annual increases in Māori broadcasting funding to support the development of management and technical skills and experience within the industry, as well as allowing the Māori Television Service to grow its commitment to Māori language and culture? Second, what funding increases have been determined to enable Māori radio and television to benefit properly from digital broadcast development? Third, is Māori broadcasting expected to take on video on demand, interactivity, reversioning, and digital broadcast content, archiving, and transmission without the funding to do so? Or will Māori broadcasting be expected to cut back even further, to enable its funding to be used for mainstream digital broadcast development? Budget 2007 gave some money to Māori radio and the Māori Television Service, but it falls well short of what is required to properly develop those services and their products, and we hope to use the select committee process to raise those constitutional, legal, and financial issues, to ensure that Māori broadcasting is not neutralised in this new digital era. Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koutou. The Green Party will be supporting this bill, although it must be said that we have not had any briefing on it. The bill seems to have been put rather hastily on the Order Paper today, and we have not had the time to be briefed or to research it. Recently I asked the Minister some questions about its implications and he was not able to answer them. So with that caveat—that we do not fully understand the ramifications of this bill—we will seek to be on the select committee that considers it. We think this is a very important piece of legislation, but we do not fully understand its implications. I will explain what I understand they are in the very brief time that we have had to come to grips with it, and in the absence of any briefings.

The digital revolution is well and truly upon us, and it is good to see. Firstly, Television One, TV2, and TV3 are actually providing new digital free-to-air channels on FreeView, and, secondly, the Government is recognising that in this bill by allowing funding for digital initiatives, whether that is new digital platforms—and the bill outlines what some of those might be—interactivity, or video on demand, etc. The Minister did point out that there are rapid changes here, so some new developments may be about to come upon us that we do not even know about today. It is good that the Government is responding proactively to the need to allocate funding and provide for the new digital initiatives, and that it acknowledges we are well and truly in the digital age. The Minister talked about how we need to be ready to radically change and adapt to that.

The positive from this, as far as we can see, is that the legislation will enable producers to apply for and get funding from New Zealand On Air for programmes that can be screened on these other platforms, including the new digital channels—one of which is about to be launched very shortly. We think that that is a very positive development. But we understand that in so doing it will fundamentally change the way funding for New Zealand On Air is allocated. At present two things need to happen. Firstly, a producer needs to have a good idea for a programme and, secondly, he or she needs to get a commitment from one of the main free-to-air broadcasters that that broadcaster will agree to screen the programme. Otherwise, the producer will not be able to get funding from New Zealand On Air. So in our understanding this will radically change the process, and there will no longer be a requirement, as we understand it, to get that agreement from one of the main broadcasters to fund a programme.

We think that that probably is a very good idea. At the moment, the requirement to get approval from—normally—Television One or TV3 to screen a programme has actually been something of a stranglehold for many small producers, who have not been able to get that commitment. So we think it could help smaller producers to get the chance to develop ideas that have not yet had funding from New Zealand On Air. The thing is that it sounds reasonable to ask: “Well, why not give publicly funded money—taxpayer-funded money—through New Zealand On Air only if a programme is going to be screened?”. That does seem fair and reasonable. The problem is that the people who are deciding what they are going to screen on television are not driven by what is high-quality, intelligent programming; they are driven by what will maximise their profits, what will please their advertisers, and what will drive up their ratings.

That has effectively been the driver for all programming on Television New Zealand (TVNZ), and explains why we have Agenda on Saturday mornings, in some obscure—I cannot remember what—time slot, and at 11 o’clock on a Thursday night; why we have the charter-funded programmes screened in very obscure time slots; and why we have New Zealand On Air funding going mainly to programmes such as —programmes where the programmers, above all, are concerned with the advertisers. So this may usher a change—we do not fully understand—and if it does we think that is good.

We note that the Minister has reminded us that—and it is referred to in the bill—one of the purposes of New Zealand On Air and, indeed, of public service broadcasting, is to increase the amount of New Zealand content. Sadly, this has not happened. We have New Zealand On Air, and we have a charter. We were told that all of this would usher in a new era of quality New Zealand programming that would reflect New Zealand to New Zealanders. Instead, what has happened since the charter was introduced is that the quality and the amount of New Zealand programmes have steadily declined. TVNZ does not appear to feel the need to even give lip service to the charter any more. TVNZ, particularly TV2, has become almost indistinguishable from any other commercial television channel. Indeed, I think TV2 is screening some absurdly low amount of local programming—something like 19 percent. So 80 percent, or the vast majority, of programmes on TV2 are foreign programmes, such as repeat action programmes from America. We have to wonder what the point is of having public service television, if all we are going to do for 80 percent of the time is screen inane foreign action programmes, almost all from America. How does that reflect New Zealand to New Zealanders, and how does it do all the other things that Television New Zealand’s statement of corporate intent and the charter say TVNZ should do?

Of course, the problem, the fundamental flaw at the heart of TVNZ causing this terrible dilemma for the broadcaster, is the dual conflicting remit on the one hand to make a profit, and on the other to somehow or other be a public broadcaster. I think we are the only public broadcaster in the world, other than Ireland, that has this absurd dual remit. We know full well that producing commercial revenue is the overriding objective. We are even returning dividends to the Government—how absurd! The consequence is that on New Zealand television we have the lowest levels of local content of any country in the Western World, by a country mile. England has 91 percent of local programming, Italy has 83 percent, and Canada has 75 percent. Even America has well in excess of 90 percent. And what do we have? We are down on something like 30 or 35 percent, across channels, and down to 19 percent on TV2. [Interruption]

These details are causing conniptions for Mr Mapp, but I want to assure him that New Zealanders share the Greens’ dismay about the state of television in New Zealand, about the lack of New Zealand programmes on New Zealand television, and about the fact that we are swamped mostly with inane action-adventure programmes from America. Many, many New Zealanders are questioning why TV2, the channel our young people watch, has barely any local content whatsoever. Why is it that TV2, when it does have local content, plays it almost in the middle of the night?

These are fundamental questions and they are what we should be asking ourselves as we contemplate this Broadcasting Amendment Bill. The Green Party will certainly be raising these and other questions in the select committee. Thank you.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

It is my pleasure to stand to take a call on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill.

I would like to refer to the purpose of this bill, for the benefit of all those Aucklanders stuck in cars going along at 5 kilometres an hour who have another hour to go before they get home tonight. I want them to understand the purpose of the bill. I also speak to those mothers in their cars in Auckland tonight who have kids in the car and who have been in the car for half an hour. They have food, they have drink, and their cars are a bit of a tip because they do this every day. They are tuning into the radio because there is nothing else to do, unless they put their iPods on and listen to music in their cars, because we are in a technical age now—or, if they were members of the Labour Government, they would have their Walkmans on in the car, and they would be listening to music and driving along with only another 48 minutes to go, now that I have spoken for 2 minutes, until they arrive home to make dinner for their families, only to start all over again tomorrow, in their cars, taking an hour to get to work because the roads are so poor in Auckland. So I thank anyone who is tuning in this afternoon.

The purpose of this bill—not many people have actually spoken to the purpose—is to allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programming in a variety of formats. Many of us around my age, and even up to the age of 50, understand that digital programming is extremely important in New Zealand. It has actually been around for quite some time now. If I were just to go into the background of this bill briefly—for those still in their cars with their children, who are just handing Moro bars into the back seat, or apples, whichever type of food they have in their car at the moment, depending on whether they have come from sport or from picking up their children from after school—