Television New Zealand Amendment Bill

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this

“Sins” was probably not the right word to use. The fig leaf was modestly covering what was masquerading as public broadcasting under the last Government. The reality is that Television New Zealand has been 93 percent commercially funded for many, many years now, under this Government and the last Government. The last Government tried to pretend it had a public broadcaster. In fact, it had a publicly owned broadcaster that at times showed public broadcasting content, and it will continue to do so once the charter is repealed.

This is a very honest and straight up bill. It removes the charter and replaces it with a set of statutory functions. The statutory functions of Television New Zealand are “to be a successful national television and digital media company providing a range of content and services on a choice of delivery platforms and maintaining its commercial performance.” I think it would be very hard to argue credibly against that. Furthermore, in carrying out its functions “TVNZ must provide high-quality content that—(a) is relevant to, and enjoyed and valued by, New Zealand audiences; and (b) encompasses both New Zealand and international content and reflects Māori perspectives. (3) TVNZ’s services must include the provision of channels that are free of charge and available to audiences throughout New Zealand.”

A further part of this bill makes available works previously locked up in the Television New Zealand archives—works that were made before the Broadcasting Act 1989. Up until this point a very complex process had to be gone through for those works to be seen, involving, basically, contacting every single person on the rolling credits shown at the end of each episode, which proved unworkable and meant that that material was never ever seen.

This legislation will replace the current arrangements with a scheme whereby a reasonable attempt can be made to notify people involved with the production. They can come forward and apply for compensation for the programme being shown, and if they do not come forward, the programme can still be shown. The legislation is bringing out a very workable scheme to unlock the Television New Zealand archive. The public will benefit from this; it will certainly be good for the producers and for the actors, and we think it is a very practical way forward.

When one looks at what we have done, one can see a very clear, honest approach to public broadcasting. We have maintained the $231 million a year that goes into public broadcasting. We have said there are a number of ways in which we can provide public broadcasting, and New Zealand On Air is an excellent model. We think it is best if we put the money through the New Zealand On Air model so that the best productions get a chance to be seen on the screen, and the public benefits.

Let us face it: the public today do not mind where they watch the content; they just want access to the content. I would be very surprised if anyone in this Chamber were to disagree with us on the point that the New Zealand On Air model does a great job for New Zealand, and has provided great content on the screen for New Zealanders for many, many years. This is just the next step in repealing the Television New Zealand charter.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this

What is next is the third reading. It will be very interesting to see whether Labour, in its broadcasting manifesto, will say it will reinstate the Television New Zealand charter—I will not hold my breath. I think Labour members will talk big on this, but I do not think we will actually see any action. They had 9 years to do something. If they really wanted to turn Television New Zealand back into a fully State-funded public broadcaster, they had the chance to do that. If they want to do that at the election they should say so, but they should also say where they will get several hundred million dollars a year to run it.

I commend this bill to the Committee.

CLARE CURRAN Link to this

It is good that the Minister may be able to respond. Labour is emphatically opposed to this bill.

I have a little story to tell today about this Minister and public broadcasting. The Government spends much more time with the commercial broadcasters than with the taxpayer-funded broadcaster. Last week I told members that the Minister of Broadcasting has met with the board of MediaWorks nine times since the election, and that six times of those times were last year—that is once every 2 months. I am still waiting for answers on what he actually talked about. Last week I also asked the chair of the board of Radio New Zealand National, Mr Richard Griffin, how many times the Minister had met with Radio New Zealand National since the election. Twice, I was told. That is since the end of 2008. Yet Radio New Zealand National is our public broadcaster, and it has had its funding frozen, which it admits represents a cut. It is trying its hardest to stay afloat, and one would think that the Minister would spend more time with it and pay it more attention. We do not know how many times the Minister has met with the board of TVNZ—he has not told us that yet—or how many times he has met with the board of Sky. Those questions are with the Minister, and we are waiting for answers.

In fact, other issues we are waiting for answers on are about the withholding of information on the business plans for TVNZ relating to TVNZ 7, and about the proposal that was prepared and put to the Minister to try to keep TVNZ 7 afloat. In a select committee a couple of weeks ago TVNZ told me it had provided the Minister with proposals about keeping TVNZ 7. Will the Minister release that information? No, he will not release it, but we will keep trying. The proposal is called “TVNZ 7 investment scenarios”, and it has been withheld for commercial reasons. Why would that be, given the widespread public concern about the decision to discontinue funding for TVNZ 7: about the public interest issue, and about the potential harm that this decision might cause to the whole public broadcasting environment in New Zealand? One can admit and accept that it might be legitimate to withhold financial figures that might be reasonably expected to compromise TVNZ’s commercial interests if they were made public. But it is difficult to make that argument with regard to TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7, given that TVNZ 6 has already ceased operation and that the Government has now announced its decision to cut TVNZ 7. So it would be interesting to hear the Minister say why that information cannot be made public. After all, it is difficult to argue that either TVNZ or the shareholding Ministers have any commercial interest in withholding information on channels that will not be continued.

That brings me to another issue, which I mentioned before, about the Minister having spent a lot of time meeting with the board of the commercial television broadcaster and very little time meeting with the public broadcasting sector. Of course, we all know that MediaWorks was given a $43 million loan from this Government to defer the company’s spectrum licensing payments. That happened at a time when the Government was deciding to axe the Television New Zealand charter, which is the central issue in this bill and a very central public interest issue. It also happened around the time that the decisions were made to freeze the funding for Radio New Zealand National, which is essentially a cut to that funding, and then to make TVNZ 6 go commercial, and subsequently to cut the funding for TVNZ 7 altogether, leaving New Zealand with no national public television broadcaster.

I want to share a little story with members about the public interest issue, and it relates to this bill because in substance the bill attacks the public interest by doing away with our public television broadcaster and doing away with the charter. That makes TVNZ behave as a commercial broadcaster would, which is not in the public interest. It is also not in the public interest to give MediaWorks a $43 million loan, and the Minister well knows that. I would like to share with members that in May 2009 the Minister for Communications and Information Technology wrote to the Radio Broadcasters Association and rejected its request for a deferral of spectrum licensing fees, because that would be a fiscal risk to the Crown. The Minister said he was not convinced that the Crown ought to be an alternative to services. In August 2009 the Ministry of Economic Development advised the Government that there had been much lobbying by MediaWorks and the Radio Broadcasters Association, including an approach to the Prime Minister, which we now all know about. They were recommending that a single channel of communication be used to ensure there was no risk of creating ambiguity or mixed expectations. In September 2009 they advised Ministers that the MediaWorks problem was with its capital structure, not its long-term viability, and the advice was accompanied with a Deloitte’s report.

In October 2009 a memo went to Cabinet and noted the urgency of making a Cabinet decision on a deferral of MediaWorks’s spectrum licensing payments. That stemmed from MediaWorks’s capital restructure plans, so there was no public interest issue there. Late in September 2009 a draft Cabinet paper noted MediaWorks’s lobbying and Treasury’s misgivings, because it saw the move as a policy shift. It required a sign-off under the Public Finance Act, but Treasury did not spot that at the time. Treasury opposed the deferral of spectrum licensing payments, and we know that Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development opposed the deferral and the providing of a loan to MediaWorks. [Interruption] That was a very significant public interest issue. In October 2009 a draft Cabinet paper showed that the urgency was all about the arrangements with the banks for a capital restructure. Treasury advised on the risk of the Crown becoming a creditor and acting as a bank. The Cabinet decision went through in October. Cabinet approved the alternative payment arrangements, despite that advice from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development.

But then Treasury worked out that there was a problem, because under section 65 of the Public Finance Act the deferred spectrum licensing payments required the approval of the Minister of Finance—

CLARE CURRAN Link to this

—which it had not got—

CLARE CURRAN Link to this

—and in order to get that—

CLARE CURRAN Link to this

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. This issue goes directly to the public interest in terms of cutting or axing the Television New Zealand charter.

The point I am making is that under the Public Finance Act the Minister of Finance had to sign off that loan. There was no public interest, and what had to be found was a reason for public interest. The facts and the paperwork show quite clearly that there was a scrambling around, looking for a reason relating to public interest. The Minister for Communications and Information Technology made it clear to the Minister of Finance that there was a problem, and that if the Minister of Finance did not sign off the loan, then the policy would be unlawful. The Ministry of Economic Development suggested that the public interest test could be met, but only on a technicality of a retraction of the deferral, avoiding the minimal risk—I stress the word “minimal”—of business closures and destabilisation of the broadcasting sector. That was a market rationale, not a public interest rationale. The bigger issue was the significant risks to Government credibility for licence renewals and to damaging good faith with the industry. This was really all about the Government’s bumbling on this issue, and the fact that it had to scramble around and find a public interest test.

SUE KEDGLEY Link to this

Mr Chair, could you please do something about that ridiculous backbencher Mr Paul Quinn, who cannot do anything in this Chamber, it seems, except shout and seek to intervene. I request your protection from his shouting.

SUE KEDGLEY Link to this

I am raising a point of order. I am sorry—thank you, Mr Chair. I am asking you to protect me from the constant shouting—

SUE KEDGLEY Link to this

—of that ridiculous member.

SUE KEDGLEY Link to this

I believe that, because the purpose of this bill is to strip TVNZ of its public service functions. I was speaking to that point. I was saying that having stripped TVNZ of its charter, of its public service functions, no doubt with a view to readying it for sale, we could end up with, effectively, a foreign-controlled broadcaster running all of the television channels in New Zealand.

BRENDON BURNS Link to this

Speaking to the point of order, I am drawing an analogy between the Minister’s comments suggesting that NZ On Air provides funding and is secure for the provision of alternative content for television other than the content that might be provided under the commercial model, which is the heart of the change—

BRENDON BURNS Link to this

We come back to the function of this bill. Part 1, clause 4(b) specifies that the purpose of the Act will be to “ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial performance;”. That is the heart of Part 1, the heart of clause 4, the heart of the bill, and the heart of the Government’s broadcasting policy.

If we look at this Minister’s record in respect of that, we see that it is not flash, in terms of a situation that began with him refusing to have a review of the competition issues within television, particularly when that was despite Treasury’s Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit saying that not having such a review would risk eroding the shareholding that the Crown owns in Television New Zealand (TVNZ) as Sky became increasingly dominant. That was the starting point of this Minister’s tenure as Minister of Broadcasting.

Next, he moved in quickly to freeze Radio New Zealand, to the point where its new chair suggests that it may have to raise funding through cake stalls and selling its grand pianos. I also note that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for more than a year and a half since the charter ended and was due to have been renewed at the beginning of January last year.

I will come back to the functions of TVNZ, as prescribed under Part 1, and TVNZ maintaining its commercial performance. In fact, TVNZ has been following this Minister’s dictates for most of the last 2½ years. One example of that alone was in May of last year. The content that New Zealanders had paid for through their broadcasting licence fee back in the 1970s and 1980s, through their ownership of TVNZ, is not available to them, but it is available to them if they want to take a subscription to Sky television and watch the Heartland channel. They cannot watch their own back content on a specific channel, but they can watch it if they want to pay the coin to Rupert Murdoch. That is another example of how TVNZ, even before this bill is passed by the House and given effect to, is already tipping its cap to the signals the Minister has provided. That is just disgraceful.

TVNZ 6 has already gone—it has become a music channel—and TVNZ 7 is going next year. Where is the legacy of this Minister in respect of the broadcasting portfolio and in respect of TVNZ? Things have been frozen, things have been lost, things have been cut, and things have been handed across to the private sector, and that is a woeful track record.

I will pick up on the points that my colleague Clare Curran raised in respect of the Minister’s contact with the board of MediaWorks. I note that he has met the board nine times as Minister, and six times last year, as a sweetheart deal was being brought together for that media organisation. He has met the board of Radio New Zealand two times in the entire tenure of his holding the broadcasting portfolio. I do not know how many times he has met TVNZ’s board—the board for which he has responsibility—but I would like to know. I would be interested to know whether it is as many times as he has met the board of MediaWorks, for which a sweetheart $43 million loan deal was organised. Of course, the Minister and the media organisation will deny that that deal carries any editorial influence for the Government. I say to the Committee, as someone who has sat in a senior editorial position, that nobody had to tell me that we had to bend to a particular master in respect of a media organisation, but subtle signals were sent. I have to raise very serious questions about the editorial integrity of media organisations under MediaWorks and ask their journalists to assert very loudly, publicly, and clearly that they are not getting implicit signals from their owners in respect of whether they should be giving the Government an easy ride because the Government has come to the rescue of that organisation with a sweetheart $43 million deal—

BRENDON BURNS Link to this

That is right; it is deferred. I will tell members that other people would very much like $43 million in deferred licences. Many organisations would like that. It has taint around it; it has disgraceful taint around it. It is a sweetheart deal for a media organisation. It is not appropriate in a democratic country like New Zealand that a Government provides a sweetheart deal to a very influential media organisation that not only has a strong television network but also has a suite of radio stations. It is wholly inappropriate, and in any other democracy around the world it would absolutely be looked down on and commented on. It is just not appropriate. It is another hallmark of the tenure of this Minister in Government that he met that organisation six times last year, as that deal was being brought together. He has met that board nine times in the course of his tenure as Minister, and twice met with the board of the organisation that he has imposed a swingeing freeze on, at a time when there was an established KPMG report that said Radio New Zealand was desperately short of funds. We now have the new chair of Radio New Zealand suggesting cake stalls and piano sales in order to try to fund the future of that allied broadcasting organisation.

I come back to Part 1, which effectively repeals the charter and says to TVNZ that all it has to do is maintain its commercial performance. Let me give an example of the sorts of ramifications that has. Next weekend in my city of Christchurch there will be a telethon. There will be a global telethon to raise money for the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal. I applaud that initiative. Who is doing the broadcasting for it? Do we look to our State broadcaster to provide all the technical expertise, staff resources, camera operators, networks, stars, and personalities to try to give some mana to that effort to raise money for my desperately needy city of Christchurch? No, our State broadcaster is not doing that. Why is our State broadcaster not doing that?

I acknowledge, looking at Georgina te Heuheu opposite, that Māori Television has stood up and has taken on that role. Māori Television is becoming the State broadcaster for this nation, in the absolute absence of anything resembling a State broadcaster that should be stepping up to the plate and should be helping beleaguered communities like mine in Christchurch Central that are desperately in need of funding, support, and assistance.

In the past we have looked to our State broadcaster to step up to the plate and provide that kind of leadership, because it has the mantle to do that, the signal from the Government to do that, the connections to do it, the will to do it, and it is allowed to do it. But under Part 1 of this bill, TVNZ is told that the only thing it has to do is perform financially and commercially. That is an appalling indictment. That is unacceptable. It is a measure of the kind of approach that TVNZ will not just take as a result of this bill but is already taking. It is already taking that approach.

We had a concert in the park in Christchurch last November to raise funds for the city after the first quake. Who did the broadcasting for that? It was TV3. I commend TV3 for doing that. But where was the State broadcaster? We have now had two major events, two major fundraising events, that have been televised to the nation—in fact, televised even more broadly than to the nation, because Māori Television will be doing a global telethon—and who did the broadcasting for those events? The first time around it was TV3, and the second time around it is to be Māori Television. Where is TVNZ? Where is our State broadcaster? Why should TVNZ not be doing it, because that has been its role and function before this bill? This legislation strips TVNZ of any requirement, any compunction, any sense of responsibility, and any connection to the communities it is supposed to be serving.

TVNZ is supposed to be a public service. What more important public service could we expect to see than a broadcaster stepping up to the plate and helping the beleaguered community of Christchurch, which has had a $30 billion impact from two earthquakes? Why should we not ask the State broadcaster to roll out its stars, bring them on board, and give some hope and a signal to the community of Christchurch that our State broadcaster is behind us? Who are we referring to? We are referring to Māori Television. Thank goodness for Māori Television.

KRIS FAAFOI Link to this

Yes, it does. I can speak from experience; it puts all of that at risk, because the standards of journalism that the New Zealand public have come to expect over decades will be gone in an instant. What will we have? National members ask how. What will happen when people tune into Television New Zealand’s One News at 6 o’clock? They will be tuning in, and the most important thing about that hour for Television New Zealand will not be the news coverage, it will be the ads in between, because there will be a commercial imperative in relation to the news. We will get a dumbing down of news quality and news content, because the only thing Television New Zealand will care about is making money. The only thing Television New Zealand will be worried about will be making money. It is in black and white right there in the purpose of the Act. Clause 4 of the bill states that the purpose of the Act is to “(a) provide for the functions of TVNZ, the Crown entity responsible for conducting a television and digital media business; and (b) ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial performance;”. “Commercial performance”—that is all this is about. My very good friend Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga said if I were still working there, I would get paid more. Well, it is not all about the money, I tell Sam. It is not all about the money.

While we are at it, it is not all about commercialism; it is also about the part Television New Zealand plays in the Pacific. Sam Lotu-Iiga knows very well that Television New Zealand’s One News, the 6 o’clock news, is a big rater in Samoa. Television New Zealand’s One News plays a very important function in making sure journalists are trained in and around the Pacific Rim. All of that will be gone because that does not make us any money, does it? That does not make us any money, so let us stop doing it. The quality of journalism around the Pacific will fall, and I think that, as a Pacific Island member of this Parliament, Sam Lotu-Iiga should be very worried about that.

This bill changes Television New Zealand from a public broadcaster to a commercial broadcaster, pure and simple. So all of a sudden it is about the money, and the substance of the stories starts to suffer. I can speak from experience, because investigative journalism takes time, it takes experience, and it takes research. Investigative journalism in New Zealand is very important, as the Hon Rodney Hide will know. It is very important to make sure one can dig to the bottom of issues, especially around this sphere. Digging to the bottom of issues exposes issues of national significance. But that will be gone, too, because that does not make money. That costs money; it does not make money. So the commercial imperative will come over the top, and all of a sudden investigative journalism at Television New Zealand will be gone. Under this regime, news coverage will be more about, as I said, the ads in between the stories, which will decrease in quality.

KRIS FAAFOI Link to this

So Georgina te Heuheu does not like the quality of TVNZ news now? Georgina te Heuheu would rather watch the ads.

CLARE CURRAN Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am talking about the archived works and the ability to see them on television. I think it is quite clear that that is what I am talking about.

CLARE CURRAN Link to this

I refer again to public interest. When those heritage programmes were made we were all paying licence fees for public television. The public had already paid for the production of those programmes through their fees and taxes. Those programmes are owned by the public of New Zealand, and they should be seen by the public of New Zealand, not just some of the public of New Zealand through a pay television channel. That is one of the key issues we are addressing in the bill with regard to the viewing of archived works and how they are seen by the public.

I note the comments of the member from the Greens, Sue Kedgley. She talked about the future that we are looking at as a country, in terms of how we will view content. She talked about the ultimate plan that this Government has for us to see content, and about whether it is archive content, which is covered under Part 2 of the bill, or whether it will cover more than the archived works and will end up being most of our content.

The other point I will make, because it is important, is that most of the content that New Zealanders will end up watching will come from overseas. Less content will be produced here, because the television channels are driven by commercial imperatives—particularly Television New Zealand, which is being required to return a particular dividend to the Government—and have to find programmes they can get a commercial return on. Therefore, the quality programmes that reflect the distinctive Kiwi sense of humour—the Fred Daggs, the Lynnes of Tawa, the David McPhails—