CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : I rise to strenuously oppose the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 2009. Labour is opposed. This country needs a strong, modern public media service. Instead, we are getting a weak, regressive media that has no coherence, that is about propping up monopolies, and that pays lip-service to New Zealand content. This Government has no commitment to public media or to public broadcasting. This bill is about erosion, and it is a disgrace. It mirrors the gutting that is happening to Radio New Zealand and it reveals the true agenda of this Government, which is to erode public broadcasting services, both television and radio. Public broadcasting is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It reflects us back to ourselves. It enables robust, quality public debate that is unencumbered by the imperative of just the ratings dollar, and it enables a level of scrutiny and high standards in the context of news delivery that only a true independent public broadcasting service can deliver.

Tonight I am talking about erosion and confusion, and I want to focus on two things. The first is the replacement of the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter. Here it is. There are 24 points being replaced by three. That is a shame; it really is. I want to read a few of those 24 points and what they signify. They say that TVNZ will “feature programming across all genres that informs, entertains and educates New Zealand audiences.”, and it will “strive always to set and maintain the highest standards of programme quality and editorial integrity.” It should “provide shared experiences that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity; … ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice; … play a leading role in New Zealand television by setting standards of programme quality and encouraging creative risk-taking and experiment. … play a leading role in New Zealand television by complying with free-to-air codes of broadcasting practise, in particular, any code with provisions on violence;” and “support and promote the talents and creative resources of New Zealanders and of the independent New Zealand film and television industry”.

What is it being replaced with? That it should “provide for the functions of TVNZ, the Crown entity responsible for conducting a television and digital media business;”, and “ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial”—commercial!—“performance;”, and that it establish “a process that will enable TVNZ to screen, in specified circumstances, programmes made before 27 May 1989 and held in the TVNZ Archive;”.

Brendon Burns: That’s it.

CLARE CURRAN: And that is it.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, what’s wrong with that? What difference did the charter make to what we see on TV? That’s the real point. If you can answer that, you’re getting somewhere.

CLARE CURRAN: The Minister of Broadcasting talks about aspiration. Aspiration for what, I ask. It is small and quite pathetic.

The second point I will talk about tonight is enabling the screening of TVNZ’s archived works. I think there is a big question mark over what that means, and this goes to confusion. I do not think that the Minister has worked out what he means in relation to this. The question is whether this work will be available to all New Zealanders via free to air. There is a failure to spell out any requirements for Television New Zealand to screen New Zealand content. I think that a lot of questions need to be answered on that issue.

I want to talk about the future and, as I said at the beginning, the importance of having what Labour thinks is a strong, modern public media service. I will refer to a couple of items that I think clearly go to this matter. The first one is a bit sad, but it is from a conference that was held in August 2007 in Wellington entitled “New broadcasting futures: Out of the box”. This was where the future of our broadcasting system in this country was being discussed and a lot of things were out on the table. I will read to members what that conference was about. “Just what will a fast-changing digital landscape mean for audiences, content creators, broadcasters, platform providers and policy makers? If we peer into a crystal ball, is there a broadcasting-led but happily converged future, giving boundless content, with viewers increasingly in control of their own digital communities? Or is this the sad end of free-to-air broadcasting as we know it, with audiences splintered across multiple platforms and Kiwi voices drowned in a sea of global content? What do we need to do to get it where we want to be?” Unfortunately, I think we are being left with the latter.

The second item I will read to members is from an article that was produced by an Australian online organisation called Inside Story. It is entitled “Public broadcasting looks for a future. The pay TV industry has opened up a new front in its battle with free-to-air”. It was written by Margaret Simons and published in January 2009. It was written in response to the review of public broadcasting in Australia. She wrote: “changes of ‘lifestyle and technology’ are the very reason why public input is more than ever necessary. They constitute the main challenge to public broadcasting, and also the main opportunities … The public broadcasters are being challenged to redefine their purposes and their claims on the taxpayer’s purse. The challenge is coming not from government, not from the cultural warriors of the right (or not only from them) but from pay television, … Channels Nine, Seven and Ten are almost irrelevant in this. The pay television sector understands that the commercial free-to-air business model is broken. Commercial free-to-air television cannot afford to compete with pay television in providing multiple channels of specialised content to niche audiences. To do so would fragment the audience and remove the motivation for mass market advertisers to spend their bucks on television commercials. Public broadcasters are a different matter. They are, potentially, the main competition for pay television. The ABC doesn’t have to worry about advertising. For Auntie, there is nothing but opportunity in the capacity to provide more and more choice. She already has two digital television channels, and plans several more—a dedicated children’s channel, a public affairs channel, an education channel, and a ‘best of overseas’ channel. SBS also has multiple channels, and plans more. So in the new battle between pay television and free to air television, the ABC is in the front line. This is why it is the ABC, not the commercial channels, that has taken the lead role in the Freeview organisation, which is leading the free-to-air sector in its marketing efforts. Channels Nine and Seven have not even announced what they plan to put on their new multi-channels. In fact, they give the impression of wanting the whole multichannel thing to go away. This battle between public and pay is not only about government money, but also about spectrum and government favour.”

The only thing that I can say is sensible about this bill is that it states that Television New Zealand is both a TV and a digital media business. I am all for a multi-platform digital media company; that is convergence. But there is no mention of a public broadcasting service. The bill before us tonight is driven purely by commercial imperatives, and we oppose it.