9.30-11am : 20.11.03
Chair: Jo Tyndall, Chief Executive, NZ On Air
JT: I'm Jo Tyndall, the Chief Executive of NZ On Air and I'm chairing this session probably because I'm the odd one out. I'm the one person here on the stage who's not a broadcaster. However, as an independent funding agency for broadcasting with responsibilities across both television and radio, I think New Zealand On Air possibly have a unique view. We've just had a thoughtful and very thought provoking address from Bob Collins and very shortly the panel of New Zealand broadcasters are going to have a chance to respond. They're under strict starters' orders, ten minutes each. Lights will flash in their eyes, possibly all of the lights will go out in the auditorium if they exceed the allotted ten minutes each. Quite clearly I think from the comments that we've already had last night and the address this morning, New Zealand is not the only country thinking about what public service broadcasting means and whether it's still relevant in the globalised, digitised, commodified age of boundless consumer choice and if so how it should be delivered. Ireland's one example but the UK speakers both last night and again today I think will attest to the fact that there's quite a lot of viewing going on there too.
I am particularly interested in Bob Collins' comment about public service broadcasting's need to inform the entire fabric, not just welded on, but to be an integral part of a schedule and I think that that issue is one of the questions that's really at the heart of some of the things that we're talking about. Because while we're out looking at what other people are thinking there's equally a lot of interest elsewhere in what New Zealand is doing and has been doing over the last decade. You could say there's a bit of a rebalance act going on in both directions. Here we've got moves to put a lot more central emphasis on public service broadcasting, especially with TVNZ charter, the impending launch of Maori television and we've also looked at formative local content targets or quotas. Elsewhere, for example in the UK, there have been lots of questions around the fairness of a system that sees the funding going to one broadcaster which is screening quite a number of commercially competitive programmes while others have public service obligations as a condition of their licence to broadcast but no funding support.
So some of the questions that I think probably are going to get teased out today are around the question of whether you're focusing on public service broadcasting from a social objective, social and cultural objective, heading you in the direction of support for institutions that deliver it, or whether you're responding in a kind of economic or market failure way, heading towards a more programming solution. The Minister asked us to think about our ideal vision and I would suggest that as a starter for ten is that the ideal vision should take account of both. And I think that especially as we're heading towards a more fragmented audience with explosion of consumer choice that having both institution and programme solutions is an ideal way to go and the question is working out how we can afford to do so. I had some discussion about definitions of public service broadcasting and the report that Paul Norris referred to, which is available at the registration desk outside, starts looking into that and came up with the surprising and not surprising answer that there is no easy definition but there's a whole lot of ideas and elements that have already been referred to by Bob this morning around diversity. Around strong stories, around nation building, knowledge and shared experiences, around innovation and creativity and risk taking. And last but by no means least, around audiences, especially treating audiences as citizens not simply as consumers. I'm going to start with the speakers. The first speaker will be Ian Fraser, juggling skills definitely a prerequisite for his job as Chief Executive of Television New Zealand. He has three balls to keep in the air. At least three possibly more: not only is he delivering on a Charter but he also has to retain audience share and maximise advertising revenue and I think that, I'm sure that is going to be a key part of what he will talk about this morning, Ian.
Ian Fraser: Thank you, Jo. Kia ora tatou, good morning. I think it will be appropriate to begin by acknowledging what I think was a quite brilliant and luminous address by Bob Collins.
The last time I spoke at a forum like this - was it five years ago? - in fact, the last time there was a forum like this, though it was much less like this than this - I spoke directly after Michael D Higgins - like Bob Collins, one of the jewels of Eire. It's particularly appropriate for TVNZ to be responding to RTE, because you'd search the world in vain for two operations more similar in operational context and in remit than us. There are conspicuous differences, of course. But the correspondences are almost eerie. In fact, talking to Bob on Wednesday, I started to wonder which of us was the doppelganger.
I've got 10 minutes, so I'll need to talk in headlines - and rely on the argument that follows as the day goes on to fill the body of the text.
The journey that TVNZ is on, navigating by our newish Charter, is not a journey forward into the past. Public broadcasting was born three quarters of a century ago as a project of social and cultural engineering, what we would call social and cultural engineering - based on Matthew Arnold's proposition that men of civilisation, education and breeding had a duty to carry ‘from one end of society to the other the best ideas of the time'.
The society we are broadcasting to is different in almost every respect from that of Sir John Reith and Professor Shelley. The civilising mission would be regarded by our viewers now as offensively paternalistic. High culture is categorised as one minority taste among many. Difference and diversity are the order of the day, socially and culturally, and our job is to find creative ways to serve and satisfy and enrich as many as possible of all those tastes and audiences - and by Tuesday week. But, to hark back to Arnold, I'm not trying to propose it was Culture then and Anarchy now.
Our task is not an antiquarian one. Nor is it an exercise in nostalgia. Our account of TVNZ as a public broadcaster isn't going to be constructed out of what we see in the rear vision mirror. I have the feeling that some of our critics would be happiest if we were simply to set ourselves to recreate the television schedule from 1970. A time when watching the test pattern represented a great night in. Coronation Street was in black and white - where it belonged. The country's only licensed restaurant closed at nine. New Zealand was full of strong and silent types, with much to be silent about. And our political distraction consisted of watching the rise and rise of Rob Muldoon - the only man in our history to call Dial A Prayer to clear his messages.
In a multi-channel age, where watching the test pattern is more likely to be an obscure reference to sports doping, television's place is no longer pre-eminent and unchallenged. We are not all here today, I take it, because there's nothing decent on the telly, so staying home is not an option. (Or are we?)
Which means that, as we work to reinvigorate our piece of public broadcasting, we will be conscious that the balance of power in the relationship between broadcasters and viewers has shifted. We live in an age of viewer sovereignty. Our account of our task as public broadcasters is not based on the notion that we have a licence to bore. Viewers have choices.
And it's important to state that our bargain, as broadcasters, is with the viewers. Not the shareholder - whoever happens to be the government of the day, not the advertisers, not the commentariat - many of whom don't watch television, won't watch television and some of them despise the very idea of television. Not the television production industry, though we take our duty to support the sector very seriously indeed. Our bargain is with the viewers, who will not continue to sustain us unless we provide something for all of them across the range of what we put to air. And unless they are convinced that our output actually adds something significant to the range and choice of viewing from elsewhere.
I am not myself certain that public broadcasting is a fixed destination, ideologically prescribed, neatly described. I see it as a journey, and I'm sorry to sound to you like John Mitchell - I see it as a journey which is clearly a concept far too existentially challenging for the Sunday Star Times - a journey where travelling hopefully and with conviction is arguably more important than arriving. And that of course makes it different from John Mitchell, who seems more committed to the notion of travelling hopelessly and not arriving at all. I think, therefore, it is about comparatives rather than absolutes. It is about better, it is about more, it is about greater diversity - and all of it delivered as part of an intricate and intense and endless negotiation with our viewers.
But the Charter gives us a flavour of the sort of public broadcaster TVNZ aspires to be. And the basic theme is about identity and culture - culture generously defined -and about innovation and creative risk.
TVNZ is the only television broadcaster wholly or even partly owned by New Zealanders. In an age of globalisation - when ‘Out There' threatens to engulf us in great global surges - there is a special place and a special opportunity for the national broadcaster. It is in the public space that Michael D Higgins waved at us like a banner at that conference five years ago.
There's a paradox in globalism. The more insistent the global signals and pressures become, the more insistent seems to be our need to feel that we are part of this unique community in this unique place. Our vision for TVNZ, mandated by the Charter and by the fact that New Zealanders not only view us, they own us, is that we'll be even more unconditionally than now the place New Zealanders turn for the defining moments in the deep, shared experiences.
Finally this: TVNZ, like RTE, continues to work to a dual remit. The existence of the Charter is an acknowledgement that it's OK - indeed, it's mandated - to think and speak in terms of the public good and the public space once again. It guides us towards an editorially driven television where cultural objectives are as highly prized as commercial ones.
TVNZ is no longer primarily driven by a legislated requirement to do at least as well as a commercial, private sector operator. If the purpose of TVNZ were simply commercial, it's very hard to see why you wouldn't let the private sector take it over. If the only measure - or the main measure - of shareholder value is the size of our dividend cheque, you'd be better to put TVNZ on the block for sale. (I see that that's Don Brash's prescription.)
But we are something different - and more different as the journey proceeds - from a commercial operator - from the Australians at Prime, or the Canadians at TV3, or Rupert Murdoch, of no fixed abode but tramping across the Sky in his seven league boots.
However, like RTE, we have a dual remit. Our job is to deliver the Charter while maintaining our commercial performance. I am confident we can do it and at TVNZ we feel a real sense of mission in tackling the challenge. To answer Bob Collins' challenge, we do want to be public broadcasters - but it is a challenge and we don't underestimate it. It's the challenge of rendering unto God and unto Caesar at the same time. A delicate sense of balance is required matched by a strong unyielding sense of purpose.
That's why it's so important to be taking another look at how public broadcasting is funded. The terrain has changed so radically, and in such a brief span of time, that it's vital to be examining, and re-examining, the funding structures and mechanisms to establish whether they are still relevant and effective.
I'm not going to say any more on that subject right now, mindful of course - I'm not attempting to be coy - but I'm mindful of the fact that as I came here this morning I passed by the billboard for the Dominion Post which had in huge black letters the words "Gangs target Public Servants".
JT: Your time is also up, Ian.
IF: I salute the Government's commitment to review the support mechanisms - and, in the wider sense, I think it's terrific that we are talking together here about the shape and purpose of public broadcasting in the 21st century. It feels like a long time between drinks!
JT: Thanks Ian. Our next speaker is Sharon Crosbie, Chief Executive of Radio New Zealand, so strongly identified with the broadcaster that she's practically an institution herself. She will be speaking from the perspective of a more traditional commercial-free broadcaster and as she's counting down the days for her departure from Radio New Zealand House on The Terrace I am sure we can expect a no holds barred commentary.
Sharon Crosbie: Well kia ora and good morning. New Zealand's broadcasting scene is probably one of the most interesting the world. For years we've tried to find the perfect mix but you could say that public broadcasting in New Zealand is only one public radio network and conferences every five years in an attempt to define public television is interesting. It's interesting too to look at the passionate arguments of 1994, Paul Norris, Dr Harley quotes from Mr Rennie. We still haven't got it right. However, it could be said that despite having its origins more in political accident than principled commitment Radio New Zealand has achieved the best outcome.
In 1990 public radio was the quiet backwater with a suitably grey image that attracted little attention. Part of a bigger commercial entity with over forty stations. When the decision was made to sell the commercial stations after deregulation, the challenge was what to do with non-commercial networks. Friends of those networks lobbied for a Charter like the BBC and enlightened select committee membership led by Steve Maharey supported the approach and lo there was new legislation with the Charter enshrined in the Radio New Zealand Act. The company, though, had fallen foul of the funder. Funding was reduced from $28m to $19m. $19m left little room for manoeuvre but concentrated the mind wonderfully. New structure, new charter, 20 per cent less income, 20 per cent fewer staff, then they took the premises away. It was around this time, though, that the Charter came into its own and I guess that's our focus this morning. What a godsend, like armour, like the Magna Carta. The Charter was open ended not too prescriptive, infinitely adaptable and clearly reflects, if you set out to deliver its provisions, the integrity required to define yourself as a public broadcaster. If you have a legislative Charter you have a power you didn't have before. If you have a Charter with a price attached but it's a transparent price, easy accounted for.
There's a lot of cheap sneering about poor old Lord Reith and public broadcasting, the Michael Jackson of his day. So he liked to go skinny dipping in Scottish burns with fit young men and only allowed hymns and classical music in a minor key to be broadcast on Sunday to please his mother. But he saw the great gift that broadcasting offered to society, or as the stocktake paper from Culture & Heritage that many of you have seen would have it, “the power and pervasiveness of broadcasting as a form of communication and shared experience means that broadcasting media play an especially significant role in the functioning of a civil society and can either promote or undermine its core values and goods”. How right that is. How wrong to abnegate that responsibility and instead see the role as one where you give the people what they want. They'll tell you nature programmes and really they'll watch the E Channel and Celebrity Cannibal Survivors. But given a choice, as the ABC in Australia found, even those who didn't use “your ABC”, still defended its right to exist and believed in why it was there.
I think that Radio New Zealand has been extraordinarily lucky. It is a public broadcaster and one that has changed with the times. Looking out five years I see new technology, new and exciting ways of delivering what we do. I see a Charter that is enthusiastically reinterpreted every year so that programmes both reflect the changes in this country and the Charter content in new and innovative ways. Every day our top performers - the ones that behave - will reinvent themselves in line with the Charter and that is how it should be.
When I joined broadcasting the challenge was whether we led or followed the public taste. When there's so much talk about dumbing down are we leading or following? But five or ten years on we should still be publicly funded, non-commercial, Charter driven and pure public broadcasting. If we're not, god help us. Do you want to be told how to vote by Murdoch and the angry white men on Fox TV? Do you want to rely on Murdoch the great Satan for your quality news and information as I and many other BBC World fans have come to do for $800 a year? Do you want your government to be determined by political debate turned into a game show with a worm, do you want to be always wondering about the other side of the story, do you want to make decisions with half the facts, do you want to be left wondering if you really got the facts or something altogether different? Do you want news McNuggets delivered in sound bites by youngsters who want to be famous or on TV? Do you want to have to buy access to the truthful at eight hundred bucks a year and then get someone else's truth anyway? BCC World is good but it's not New Zealand. Do you want an unremitting diet of blah? Reith believed that the supply of good things creates the demand for more. That public broadcasting would be a nation asset and that down the years it would bring the compound interest of happier homes, broader culture and truer citizenship. A small flexible forward-looking society like New Zealand whose presence in the world far outweighs its size and population should have the vision and courage to create a truly representative non-commercial public system for radio and television. Let's think of one another as citizens not consumers all the time. And ask the question, if we didn't have it would we have to invent it - and more and more the answer is yes.
There's concern in the United States that fewer people than ever go out to vote. Electronic media carries more opinion than analysis, talkback delivers not information but niche prejudice. Some politicians are beginning to see that there has to be somewhere accountable, fair and honest to debate the issues of the day. Their future may depend on it. Democracy may depend on it. I believe that society needs sources they trust for their information. They don't all subscribe to Consumer magazine, so let it be one cost effective section of the electronic media. It's money well spent; a well informed population is priceless. In the end of course it all comes to money.
Public broadcasting must be adequately and securely funded. It must be fully publicly funded I believe. Give the public a feeling of ownership, of institutions as well as programmes, don't compete with commercial broadcasters for audience, sponsorship or advertising, offer clear alternatives to commercial broadcasting, have bulk funding to make the broadcaster accountable and keep government at arm's length. The public broadcaster must be seen to be the servant of parliament, accountable to parliament and the people and must not be required to earn advertising from programmes that are publicly funded.
And perhaps it's time for a resurrection of those strange and quirky things that I once looked after, set up by Johnathan Hunt, called the Broadcasting Advisory Committees. They were much derided as worthy and woolly, cardigan wearers who clamoured to join. But without them, that audience, we are only talking to ourselves. Thank you.
JT: Thank you Sharon and well done, you were two minutes under time making up for Ian's going into over time. Our next speaker is Dr Leonie Pihama, who is a member of the Board of the Maori Television Service. The Service has had a difficult genesis, dogged by delays and some controversy, but it is gearing up for a launch, counting down the days, or the weeks. It's a channel with a clear public service mandate and it will fill a vital role providing Maori language and tikanga programming. Leonie.
Dr Leonie Pihama: Titiro titiro ki te maunga titohea ki runga o Parihaka o Waitotoroa Ngati Moeahu, Ngati Aupoto. Ko te takiritanga i te kahu o Wikitoria kai toa kai toa! Ko toku ko te whitinga o nga manu e rua. I patu te hoa riri I te rangimarie. Kss aue! Kss aue! Ahakoa ra i te pahuatanga o Parihaka ue ue uea! Tena koutou.
Tena koutou i runga i te ahuatanga o te wa nei. He mihi tenei ki a Te Ati Awa te hau kainga i pohiri mai ki a matou inapo tena koutou. Tena hoki koutou nga whanaunga nga tuakana nga teina nga kaimahi Maori kei waenganui i a tatou i tenei wan a koutou nga tangata i kawea nei i tenei kaupapa mo ngai taua te iwi Maori no reira tena koutou, tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Hone kua tae mai koe mo te Putahi Paho tena koe. Me te ahoranga a Ani me nag hoa mahi tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. He mihi hoki ki a koutou kua tae tawhiti mai, nga manuhiri tuarangi tena koutou. Michael koutou ko Bob mihi tenei ki a koe kua mauria mai tou reo ki waenganui i a tatou i tenei ata tena koe.
Just a greeting from the mountain, the maunga of Taranaki, to you all this morning and from the Maori Television Service. Greetings to those who have come from afar, and particularly to you Bob because we have a particular connection to you and to the Irish struggle in terms of Irish language broadcasting. There's a clear relationship in terms of truly indigenous language broadcasting that we have with you. So on behalf of us here we greet you particularly. But to all the guests who have arrived to share their thoughts and to the Minister tena koutou.
Maori Television - there are a few points I want to make in terms of Maori Television initially if I can get the machinery to go. First of all we're still here. No matter what you read here, no matter what anyone tells you, no matter what start dates you were given just, just know [Maori] we are still here and that's one thing that Maori are very good at and that's long term survival. We are going to get to air. It may not be in the weeks, Jo, but we are going to get to air and for any of you who have been a part of developing broadcasting of any form from the beginning you know how difficult a task it is. So we'd ask that people stop asking us the date.
And we're going to be here for a very long time. Why? Because we are of this land, we're here, we're indigenous Maori and we intend to stay here for a very long time. We intend to broadcast Maori language and Maori culture for a very long time. And we have a very strong indigenous base and a very strong Treaty base and if I draw on a line from Moana Maniapoto from one of her waiata where she says the Treaty won't go away - and Maori Television won't go away.
I want to talk a little bit about where we've come from. I know that the Minister said let's not relitigate the past, well that is a habit that we have as Maori, is actually looking to the past in order to negotiate where we are and to know where our future, and I think that's something that we need to come to terms with a little bit more in this country in terms of developing a future and national identity. I think public broadcasting is one of the key questions we need to ask, is what are we and who are we as an identity. As a cultural identity in this country - and I agree with the notion that Minister talked about this morning, that a lot of recent movements in terms of national identity have come as a direct response and engagement with Maori cultural renaissance and we see that across the board, across the various sectors. In education, which is the sector which I come from., the development of Maori language initiatives through kohanga and kura, who are instrumental in the instigation of more language and more cultural requirement in mainstream schooling.
So, in terms of the past, where we've come from Maori Television is based on a couple of key premises and the struggle for te reo Maori. One is tangata whenua and mana whenua. We are the indigenous people of this land. We have the indigenous language of this land. We have the indigenous culture of this land and those indigenous rights have never been extinguished as a foundation from which we are built, upon which we are built. In that we have a Treaty relationship. We have the Treaty of Waitangi and this is the document that defines our relationships across the country. And was a key document in the development of Maori Television and in particular with the very struggles that came through the 70s to which we owe a huge amount of gratitude, to Nga Tama Toa, to Te Reo Maori Society, to all the language people who've worked extremely hard, to bring the language into a point whereby what we have as a Maori Television Service now could actually be established. And in particular people like Huirangi Waikere Puru, people like those who are on Te Putahi Paoho, the Maori Electoral College, and the taking of the Wai11 claim to the Tribunal.
So we have a long history that says we need institutions across the board that will maintain the obligation for language and culture, and this is what makes us very distinct in terms of our development of public broadcasting - is that we don't only have all the obligations that have been talked about today in terms of providing social responsibility, cultural identity, all of those things, but we have a particular relationship for the Crown that is based in the Treaty. The Treaty brings a distinctive way of being to public broadcasting in this country. As you can see from this quote, from Kingi Ihaka to a broadcasting hui in the early ‘90s, we need the institutions such as broadcasting to actually be a part of that.
I've put this up from 1985 from the Aotearoa Broadcasting documentation, which was the application for the third channel to remind us that the development, this development has been in the public sphere for a very long time, since the Tribunal claim. And in '85 ABS said very clearly at that time that television is a critical, has a critical role to play in public broadcasting for Maori and for Maori language and culture. And when I read the second part around television being primarily run by Pakeha people and primarily Pakeha people with little or no emphasis on Maori language and culture, my thoughts went to that comment of Greg Dyke in terms of when he first entered into the BBC and the reported notion of it being hideously white. I think that aligns very much with the kind of views that were held in regard to broadcasting in this country for Maori.
In the 80s we clearly had a distinction in terms of how broadcasting was being viewed and the long struggle for the attempt to bring Maori language and culture into that debate through the application for the third channel, which was not successful. And now nearly 20 years later we're in the establishment phase for the Maori Television Service. There are things within that, that have sort of happened some time ago, that would have been useful. I want to just flick now quickly to the Maori Television Service ourselves, the vision.
Very clear visions and goals for the Maori Television Service that are aligned to the aspirations of Maori people to articulate the language, to articulate culture, to represent ourselves. To ourselves first and foremost and to the world as well. And the vision of Maori Television is very much around that aspiration. Broadcasting as a service, as a responsibility in terms of the Treaty to provide for te reo Maori and tikanga Maori. The whakatauki that we hold to in the Service is actually one of the waiata in the powhiri last night, and [Maori - to be transcribed]. The essence of this whakatauki is around the sustenance of the people. The need to actually provide for sustenance and the aspiration of people because it is the people in terms of what is the most important thing in the world is the people, is the people. That is I think a very clear culturally defined requirement and obligation and responsibility for public broadcasting and it's something that we have taken on board in terms of the Maori channel, Maori Television Service.
Our values are based fundamentally in tikanga Maori. There are notions of rangatiratanga, manaakitanga whanaungatanga, wairuatanga. All these things which you know after the channel has been up to air for a few months you will all be very conversant with what these mean, because you'll all be watching it intently, the Maori language learning, teaching and learning programmes. But what they are, they are fundamentally about how do we sustain ourselves, how do we be confident in the world, how do we express ourselves in the world. How do we care for each other in the world, all of the fundamental values that underpin Maori culture are inherent within the values statements that the service adheres to.
And my time is up and I'm going to keep company with Ian and be a little bit later. There are a couple of other things that I want to touch on just for a moment.
One is the Minister's point this morning around needing a coherent view in terms of broadcasting and we're in agreement with that. We need to also recognise that coherence does not mean singular and that there is a huge diversity of requirements in this country and we see it not only in television but also iwi radio. I'm surprised to hear that iwi Radio are not at this table given that Whakaruruhau covers such a significant number of stations and audience in this country. But also the development of Niu FM through Pacific Radio, a whole range of cultural diversity, so we cannot allow “coherent” to be “singular”.
The further point I want to make is something about sitting at this table because you know if you remember Sesame Street, you know “one of these things that's not like the others” and it's not Jo. But to sit at this table - and there's a huge debate going on in terms of the funding and the notion of the funder/provider split - and I guess one of the things that I'd want to make at this point is that there was a clear Treaty obligation in relation to all elements of broadcasting and we would be unhappy to see any form of re-mainstreaming of Maori broadcasting under any new development in public broadcasting. We stand as a Treaty partner. We stand as a provider of a Treaty responsibility and cultural obligation and so the mainstreaming option is not at all an option for Maori Broadcasting in terms of future development. I think that's a really important point to make at this point.
So I want to call on the Maori Television Service [waiata]
Kia whakakapi ma te waiata mo tenei wa no reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.
Maku ra pea, maku ra pea, maku koe awhi mai, ki teara ara tuku maku koe e awhi e.
No reira tena tatou katoa.
JT: Thank you Leonie and just to note that iwi radio will be presented on the next panel just after morning tea. We have one final speaker, Brent Impey, the Chief Group Executive of CanWest New Zealand. He nearly wasn't here because he was due to be in Australia and reluctantly, very reluctantly decided that he'd take a flight back just for today. But I suspect now he's probably cancelled his return to Sydney. He represents a very commercial broadcaster. A venally commercial broadcaster but nevertheless CanWest is clearly part of the public service broadcasting picture and TV3 has had commitments to drama, Mataku, to questions [?] for example, to documentary programmes like Open Door, the children's programming and on radio a strong commitment to New Zealand music and now also on C4. Brent.
Brent Impey: Thank you, yes I'm definitely not going back there tomorrow. As Shona Geary said to me as I walked in today we really are, we really are putting a fox in the chicken house when it comes to you so here we go. “A Kiwi Solution”.
We have shown in New Zealand the ability to be able to come up with broadcasting structures appropriate for our own country. It's not the BBC model, the Australian, the American, The European, Irish, with respect, or Canadian. The tenor of my thesis is that we should continue to be innovative and develop a mix of private and public broadcasting that suits where New Zealand is going as a country.
We are different. The issue of Maori broadcasting is unique to this country. We have more radio stations per head of population than anywhere in the western world. We have four full commercial television networks compared to three in Australia. Pay TV is reaching subscription levels comparable to international markets. We now have the only free-to-air music television service. The New Zealand On Air model is unique. Our self-regulatory advertising regime, through the Advertising Standards Authority, has become a benchmark.
So let's not throw it all out to adopt some model of what some perceive as public broadcasting, which in reality will take us back rather than forward, which is where we must go if we are to truly serve the public interest. We do not need an Ofcom, which would be naturally bureaucratic, and stifle creativity and diversity.
How do we make it work here? It's a mixture of government, broadcasters, industry groups and activists working out solutions. The development of advertising codes is a perfect example of this. It works.
Let's look at the good points. New Zealand On Air, which was developed by the Labour government of 1987-1900, is a gem in our broadcasting environment. Back then a hit local TV programme was "not bad for a New Zealand programme", or a hit song "good for a New Zealand record". We had a major inferiority complex, in that whatever was produced here was not up to international standard. Now look at in 2003. There's a record level of programming, equalling just under 40 per cent of prime time on TV1, 2 and 3 and with 950 total hours of New Zealand On Air television funding. In radio, local music content has risen from below 5 per cent in the mid-90s to over 17 per cent in 2003. These results are stunning in themselves, and even more so if you consider the quality of much of the local programming on television, for example Inside New Zealand, The Strip, MercyPeak. And New Zealand music has spawned international acts such as Bic Runga, King Kapisi, Hayley Westenra, Scribe, Brooke Fraser and Anika Moa and many others.
The key to New Zealand On Air's contribution to this success is the contestable funding model. This creates a structure from which independence, diversity and creativity is fostered in programming.
Just as an aside, there is a misconception that New Zealand On Air funding of TV3 programming ends up back in Canada. The truth is that CanWest takes no direct funding whatsoever. It all goes to the producers. Also, CanWest, unlike TVNZ, normally takes no equity position. So any profit from the programmes goes to the right holders, namely the producers and the people of New Zealand, through New Zealand On Air.
For the future, if local programming and local music are important objectives, then it is vital that the contestable funding model remains. New Zealand stories should be seen on a broad range of channels and it would be a major backward step if they were ghettoed strictly within TVNZ and even more so if that led to creating of zones for Charter programming. A significant imbalance is likely if funding is limited in that way.
Another bouquet goes to the government, and the Minister of Broadcasting and the Associate Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage. We have achieved through cooperation and consultation, consensus on the development of both local content on mainstream television and local music on commercial radio. I talked previously of the results, however the initiatives in getting us to this point should be acknowledged and that's leadership.
The third bouquet to the self-regulatory advertising regime. Codes are developed after extensive consultation with all interested parties and there is an independent and robust complaints procedure. There are acknowledged difficult areas, such as obesity and therapeutic, but the ASA process has stood the test of time. The codes on liquor are one of the best examples.
And also a bouquet to the government and Pacific islands Trust of Niu FM. Many of you may not know but the Auckland radio survey came out two days ago, 55,000 listeners in Auckland this week, a 3.6 per cent share. That's a massive performance.
Now a few brickbats, but you'll be pleased to know I've limited these to three only.
The first is media freedom, and in particular the ongoing threats both overt and covert to restrict the delivery of news and legitimate political comment. John Pilger, in his essay "The Media Age” in Hidden Agendas, said: Journalists ought not to stand outside the closed doors of the powerful waiting to be lied to. They are not functionaries, and they should not be charlatans: 'your sham imperialists', as Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, 'wolves in sheep's clothing, simpering loyalty as they suppress'. They ought to be sceptical about the assumed and the acceptable, and especially the legitimate and the respectable. Their job is not to stand idly by, but to speak for the 'the true witness, those in full possession of the terrible truth'.
The "Corngate" decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority highlights two of the central issues. One, the credibility of the BSA itself, which is reliant upon Cabinet for tenure and at the same time acting as judge and juror of complaints from the very people who appointed them.
The second is inconsistency. Witness the dismissal in 1999 of a complaint against TV3 over its use of the same "ambush" technique with the then aggrieved party being Dave Hilliard, Chief Executive of Timberlands, the subject of Nicky Hager's book Secrets and Lies, and the partial uphold in the Prime Minister's complaint over its use of the ambush technique, the subject of Nicky Hager's book Seeds of Distrust.
Constant turnover of personnel is another contributor towards the inconsistency, and there is a strong sense amongst broadcasters that the Authority is overly conservative and out of step with the vast majority. I say abolish it. The newspaper industry has long been self-regulatory through the Press Council, it's time for broadcasting to do likewise.
The second brickbat is the increasingly different treatment by the Crown to broadcasters. Favouritism based on political acceptability. There are compliance issues that are simply left with no action. An example is George FM in Auckland, which has an iwi licence but broadcasts Maori programmes only from 4am to 7am and at other times is a dance format aimed at the Ponsonby set.
There has also been a move away from the level playing field. National Radio is granted an automatic right to convert to FM and retain its AM. No argument about the role of National Radio, but there is an issue of unfair treatment. Why should the same not apply to private broadcasters such as TRN's Newstalk ZB and CanWest's Radio Pacific? Or Radio Rhema for that matter.
There has been a bias in government policy, which serves the interests of public broadcasters rather than the interests of the public from broadcasting services. Unfortunately, there is a prejudice in policy formulation in favour of "non-commercial public broadcasting" which is counter to what the public watch and listens to.
This bias to public broadcasting also raises issues where the same Minister has responsibility for public broadcasting and broadcasting policy. This conference - is it about public broadcasting or broadcasting policy? The responsibilities should be split. There is a clear conflict of interest.
Thirdly is the TVNZ charter. To turn around a recent quote from me when referring to news ratings between One and Three, "who's taking the piss?". Surely the concept of funding charter programming on TVNZ is to allow the broadcaster to provide a broader range of New Zealand programming than was achievable under the old commercial model. This for the benefit of all New Zealanders who will be exposed to a broader spectrum of programming, with TVNZ leading the way with innovative new programming that would not otherwise be produced and screened.
TVNZ in my opinion is instead abusing the funding, by funding already existing programming and purchasing of foreign programming. This is taking the Charter and making a mockery of it. The programming funded by Charter seems to be broken into three major categories: Renewal of existing programmes - Mercy Peak, Spin Doctors, Willy Nilly; The purchase of foreign product - BBC World, in fact the TVNZ annual report confirms that 2,400 odd hours of Charter hours of which nearly 2,200 are for BBC World; And the new initiatives. Of these, only the last category, the new initiatives - Big Night In, Frontier of Dreams and Flipside - are legitimate use of charter funding.
Sadly, TVNZ had no Maori programme to claim as Charter, so they threw a basket of money at Mataku. On an hourly basis they put more Charter funding into that programme than any other except for Willy Nilly. Sadly it would have been produced anyway, as TV3 was in negotiations with TMP and New Zealand On Air for series two, after a successfully series one which, by the way, TVNZ had turned down for years. TV3 had the courage to provide a broadcast licence and to commit to a prime time screening of the series. Do we really believe the Charter was meant to provide an unfair advantage so the state broadcaster can take local programming from other broadcasters?
So far, the Charter and the use of funds allocated to Charter by the government can be best described in my opinion as a failure, but could be described in much harsher terms. The challenge for TVNZ is to rise to the challenge, to clearly identify new and incremental projects for all the funding and proceed with those projects. The challenge is to create programming that will truly add to the mix of programming, not duplicate it. The state broadcaster has a huge marketplace advantage and they should use that for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
Since my time is up I'll move quickly.
TVNZ can become a Charter driven company. At this point, it looks like the Charter is something they "have to do" and I'm very encouraged by what Ian said about the goal within, but they still seem more interested in beating the competition instead of adding to the fabric of New Zealand.
TVNZ has a huge position here. It has well over 60 per cent of the audience and close on 70 per cent of the ad revenue.
TVNZ is a great broadcasting company and I'm sure under its leadership it will behave like one.
So, to conclude. We've got a lot right here. Much more right and wrong. We don't need to import an overseas model but develop our own Kiwi solution. The brickbats can be solved also: even if the BSA is not abolished, there is hope that the new Chair and members can regain ground that has been lost; even though ultimately the self-regulatory regime is the answer.
The government can easily review the level playing field in broadcasting and I urge you to do so, as well as deal with the compliance issues.
Finally, on the subject of digital television, we must have a Kiwi solution. Tens of millions of dollars have been lost. Fifty million pounds in distribution we heard, - public and private - and just look at the UK. The Minister, simply reserve the spectrum and work with all of us and all other parties to achieve a positive result. The spectrum has always been there, all it needs is preservation.
There is a Kiwi solution to all these issues. If government acts as coordinator and shows the leadership that is shown in many other areas, we broadcasters will help resolve them.
Thank you.
JT: Thank you Brent. When the - give it a moment for the air to clear of chicken feathers that are floating around - we can open the floor up to questions. Now just a reminder that both Bob Collins and the Minister, Steve Maharey, are still in the room and you're welcome to address questions to them as well. We'll just make sure that the mike goes to either one of them if questions are directed to them.
So we're ready to take questions now. David Jacobs. Yes if you could identify yourself, David.
David Jacobs: Kia ora. David Jacobs from Connected Media. My question is primarily for Ian. I'm currently making a programme to be broadcasting on BBC World and so as a part of the production process I was sent some pages from the BBC Handbook. With your indulgence I'd just like to read a paragraph which I think is relevant: 'The BBC is committed to providing programmes of great diversity which reflect the full range of audiences, interests, beliefs and perspectives. Representing the whole spectrum is a requirement of all programme genres from arts to news and current affairs, from sport to drama, from comedy to documentary, from entertainment to education and religion.'
And the final sentence I thought was particularly relevant. 'No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or under represented on the BBC.'
It strikes me as concerning and significant that for example in New Zealand Open Door isn't shown on a TVNZ channel, it's shown on TV3. And neither do we have on either channels, but I'd like to see it on a TVNZ channel the strand for higher budget, independent, viewpoint documentaries where our own John Pilgers, perhaps Alister Barry and others, would be making programmes that contribute to our nation building in their opinionated way and to democratic dialogue within the country. Can we expect to see such things happening on a TVNZ channel and can we expect there to be TVNZ equivalent of the likes of Open Door on TV3?
IF: I mean the short answer, David is yes you can expect that. I think that that is part of the journey. In terms of your question about advocacy, first person documentary. Did you miss Murder on” The Blade”?
DJ: No
IF: Well.
DJ: I suppose I'm looking for a strand, a place where these things can regularly happen, rather than very valuable one-offs, with much respect for Murder on “The Blade”.
IF: Whether, whether they happen as special one-offs and if they do there should be lots of them or in series is something I think for the programmers. The more important thing is the commitment to the proposition that those sorts of programmes should be regularly available. And I give that commitment.
JT: Thank you.
Leonie Pihama: Can I just say something which is no relative obviously to TVNZ, but Maori Television will be making low budget radical viewpoints, so you know if you want to hear an alternative Maori view you just need to tune into us when we go to air.
JT: Thank you. Another question?
TP: Tino Pereira is my name, National Pacific Radio Trust, or Niu FM. A question for Ian. The demographic profile of this country in the next ten or twenty years is going to be young and brown. That is not reflected in your programming.
Brent Impey [?]: Watch TV3.
IF: I'd never recommend that! I don't disagree with you and we know that there is a huge amount of work to do in that area. It's not just a case of the kinds of programming we commission and bring to air. It's also to do with the look and the feel of both the channels. There's a commitment to make it different. The commitment I believe is already being delivered on but as I said in my substantive address, this is a journey that we're on. The first thing is to recognise without being unduly defensive about it that these points are well founded and then to have a commitment to try to make it different and the commitment is there.
TP: ??
IF: Absolutely, and in the years that follow.
Robert Boyd-Bell: My question is probably for the Minister I guess. In the reflective stage of my life it seems to me that one of the besetting sins of the late ‘80s and ‘90s was our adherence to the absolute theocracy[?] as a funder/provider split and the demolition of policy advice in broadcasting progressively so we've reached the stage where this is very limited expertise at the centre. There are officials making decisions that confuse roles as Brent referred to about enforceability of regulations, of compliance issues, about allocations of frequency and great confusion about how those things can be fairly treated. I just wonder whether the Minister has any clear hint of where those central functions might land or is that the whole purpose of the day?
Steve Maharey: I don't have any idea Robert because I don't have one at the present time. The point of the day, yes, is very much to work through those kinds of issues but you can see that they have to be resolved. We're now, just to take one example, we now have two different ways of funding an organisation like Television New Zealand. They receive a slightly rolling amount of money directly from me basically and then they receive a bunch of money from New Zealand On Air, both New Zealand On Air and TVNZ have commented on that. How does that work, where did that come from and is that going to be the way we'll see things in the future? It's clearly a debate. It's clearly, you know there are two different principles being used to fund the organisation and it's one where you need to resolve. I would like to think we will be in a position to give an answer to your question at the end of the cycle of discussion which will be in the first third of next year, which is what we're aiming for.
JT: We go to the back, Geoff Leyland and then Sue Kedgley in the front.
Geoff Leyland: Sharon, really the question is for you. I'm a National Radio listener but my students aren't and I fear for them and I fear for National Radio. They see National Radio as complacent, a large amount of old blokes wittering on about the 1930s. I fear they will never listen to National Radio, where is the new audience going to come from?
Sharon Crosbie: This has been a challenge for a long time and of great concern to us because if you take Concert FM out of the equation, which is of course specialised, you actually have one AM network, until the New Year when we move to FM. They've tried to do everything. All things to all people, and I think, the future for the new Chief Executive is exciting and full of promise because of the technology that will allow us to do some of the things that are quite common overseas. Audio on demand to have simulcasting, given that we have simulcasting with AM and FM, to perhaps do dual casting. So that Saturday night, which as you know is Ave Maria for the elderly listener, will also on the FM channel potentially offer something that's more of The Mix, or whatever. We do have a young audience but it's cult and it's in small pockets of the programme output. But I would say in our defence that the programmes are far less complacent than they were a decade ago. There is innovation. It's every encouraging to see the cross-section of staff we have that represent the younger generation. I am now at the wrong end of the spectrum and am about to go. It's, changing, it's changing - I take your point and I think that the disadvantage has been that one major network trying to do everything.
Sue Kedgley: A question for Ian and perhaps Minister or two quick questions. Firstly, no one has commented on the - Channel 2 hasn't really come up and I'm just wondering does TVNZ have a commitment, an equal commitment to implementing the Charter on the channel that our children watch or is there still a sort of a thought that basically TV2 is the cash cow and we'll turn TV1 into BBC. And if there is such a commitment why is there 27 per cent less local content I think it is on TV2 and what is the commitment to TV2? Secondly, perhaps you'd like to comment on some of Brent Impey's provocative comments, but particularly the one about why that Charter funding was going to existing programmes and BBC World programmes because it is something that has bothered me and which I was planning to raise at a later point. Thank you.
Ian Fraser: To answer your first question first. The Charter applies across both channels. It's not our intention and it's not policy to try and turn the two channels into a kind of slob-snob choice - to use TV2 as a cash cow in order to be able to indulge some kind of cult of public broadcasting on Channel One. Both channels are there to deliver the Charter although they will do it in very different ways and they will do it with an account of their sort of demographic reach. The second point, I'm not going to get into a major argument here with Brent because we don't have the time. And I think we can both spare ourselves that, we've taken pieces out of each other's hide over the course of the last year or so. What you saw in the first set of accounts for TVNZ, which were for the 2003 financial year which ends at the end of June, was a period of three months of Charter compliance - if I can call it that - the Charter was formally introduced on March the 1st. There were a number of programmes that we committed to, not just the new "Charter" programmes - and frankly, you know, I use a term like "charter programme" out of deference to a lot of the people who are more comfortable to see that we do is a sort of a mixture of Charter and non Charter. I mean my, my view is that everything that we broadcast one way or another reflects the Charter. But, but to look at the Charter programming that we've listed with the dollar figures against it in our annual report, there were a slew of programmes that we had committed to such as Frontier of Dreams, the New Zealand history series, Big Night In, Flipside, and a number of others, all big ticket items. There were also some new series or last series of programmes that we were already making. I can say categorically that had we not had the promise of Charter funding in some cases we would not have proceeded with those programmes either. So although they are not new, had the Charter funding not been there, we would arguably not have continued with some of them. But this confusion which I think comes because the Charter was introduced well into a financial year will not continue. We will find from the reporting on the year 2004 on that there is a far more discrete sense of where the Charter money is going to, in a sense also that it's being deployed to make Charter programmes that would not otherwise be brought to air.
Paul Smith: Paul Smith, TVNZ Board. Just a question for you [Brent Impey] as an old chook, sceptical old chook, you've endorsed all the solutions that came from the 1990s barring the Broadcasting Standards Authority and you slammed the ones that came in the 2000 Millennium if you like. What are your solutions, the Kiwi solution that you're proposing for broadcasting in the future, leaving aside those bearing in mind what I just said? And second question is that if CanWest doesn't take money from the programmes that are assigned to you by contestable funding where is the revenue from commercials going?
Brent Impey: Okay. First of all the solutions, I was ripping through, the “time up” was on the screen, I was scared of Jo. In regards to the solution number one in terms of the Charter, I mean Ian has been talking about that. And that is the solution, to see the Charter become an integral part of, of Television New Zealand's philosophy. That's number one. Number two I talked about the Broadcasting Standards Authority, there is a new Chair and there is great confidence among broadcasters in Jo Morris. There's hope that the situation improves substantially. The compliance issues are ones where the government can, primarily through MED, act if it so wishes and I urge it to do so. So those are the three solutions to the problems that I outlined. In regard to CanWest's situation, we pay licence fees as well to New Zealand On Air per programme. I can tell you with one exception, namely the Inside New Zealand series, CanWest either breaks even or loses money on pretty well all New Zealand On Air funded programmes. That's not to say that we're not committed to it because we are as part of our responsibility as a broadcaster here and join in with TVNZ in terms of local content and work with New Zealand On Air. But it is a balance and it is wrong to assume that, that you know this is necessarily a profitable exercise. Now it may be because we've got, we may have made some mistakes. We know we have but it is incorrect to form the view that it is profitable and it finds its way into the Aspers' pockets.
JT: We've got five minutes before morning tea.
Keith Lambert: My name's Keith Lambert, I make the Open Door programmes I was so pleased to hear mentioned, thank you. And to the Minister, if I could, and I'll read something so I hope I don't ramble. It seems certain that the world is moving to a multi channel environment of such complexity that the vast majority of viewers will use a personal video recorder augmented by an electronic programme guide in order to make their viewing choices. The evidence so far suggests that in these circumstances at least 85 per cent of people will not view anything live, except for sport, and we've all watched the All Blacks together, and some reality shows. And it seems therefore that the whole notion of channel loyalty and the taking of the viewer on a journey to places that they would not otherwise go, is severely under threat and go. We might not have that facility, in which case could you suggest any other alternative?
Steve Maharey: Like you I read all this stuff and I guess that's one of the driving debates we're having about the role of a public service television channel. Greg Dyke mentioned last night when he was talking about the future of the BBC in Britain in a multi channel environment, you may record what they're doing and may even put it on television themselves as part of the interactive nature of television in the future. What is the role of a traditionally nationwide universal access kind of a broadcaster?. I think I'm starting from the point that in that environment we may well find that we need that kind of broadcasting more than ever. That's the starting point that I've got. Now we may well find ourselves proven wrong. That, as this century goes on, all countries will just carry on fragmenting internally as people go off to do their own thing, accessing these multi channels and doing their own television shows, etc. However, I guess I am of the view at the moment, and certainly the government is of the view, that one of the reasons we're back into talking about public service television as are all countries, it seems, is that we're trying to say in that environment what should public service television look like in a way which allows you to have a nationwide broadcast holding that cultural entity together? And if you can do that we would say that it's probably got some real pluses. There's not much else that holds us together these days, remember. That borderless world we talk about means that financially, economically, everything else is going. It's the cultural part that holds us together as a nation. And if that is the role of public service broadcasting how do you do it in the environment you've talked about? That's the question we're asking and we're trying to come up with the formula that will do it. It's the same for MTS in a way, against all of those fragmenting influences, can they provide a public service nationwide channel of a kind that will capture the interests of New Zealanders towards that kind of television. Same kind of question. I guess we'll live the experience of finding out whether it's going to work or not but at the moment we're committed to trying to find out what the formula is.
JT: Thank you. Tainui and then we might have time for one more depending how long his question is.
Tainui Stephens: Kia ora Jo. Kei te tuahine tena koe. Kei te mata o tuawhakarere tena koe tena koutou. E te MTS ma na koutou i tutu mai te whakawaha mai i ta koutou kaupapa kia roa rawa atu. Ana ko te iwi Maori tera koroki, koroka.
Kia ora Leonie. I'd like to just, to acknowledge I have a question for the Minister or it's a request for an insight I guess, but firstly I'd like to acknowledge the significance of the presence of the Maori Television Service at this time at this hui. With regard to what the Minister referred to earlier on, our need as a nation to reshape ourselves from within ourselves or courted along that line and the MTS is here, it looks good and [in Maori, still to be transcribed] tena koutou and as Leonie said so succinctly Maori Television is here and I think for many of us we've been sent through sometimes a maelstrom of media journalism with respect to what's happening at the Maori Television Service. And it's important on behalf of a number of people I think to acknowledge the efforts of people like Derek Fox, Joanna Paul, right back to Huirangi Te Hana Jackson, to all of those people who have fought to maintain the kaupapa, because the presence of the Maori Television voice in my view is one of the keys to establishing what it is that the public service is. What it is that the market is, what it is that we're here for. Tena koutou.
Minister, you talked about, a little earlier on about the Maori Television Service being led a little bit by TPK, but that's sometimes a worry, to be led by an acronym, particularly one that's had not the best press recently. It's a concern too for Maori broadcasting efforts generally that we have a relationship with Parikura which is important and he's not here, not part of the mix. [In Maori, still to be transcribed] we're also very mindful that despite the negative press and publicity there is a growth in Maori pride and the Maori voice and Pakeha interest in that in this country. It's interesting that to think now that twenty years or so after I started in the business to hear the mispronunciation of Maori names from the news or wherever is more and more seen as unprofessional because it's just part of the way we are that we expect the language to be pronounced correctly. But struggle carries on and, as Leonie said, Maori are more and more influential survivors rather than victims and it's the influence that we as Maori hold which I and others who are here and who I know would like to bring to the attention of this gathering. And so Minister, my request for insight to you I guess is that given the weight of public opinion, given the perceptions that the public have about Maori television. Given the systems which occasionally conspire against things being able to be done, when you go to the Cabinet table, when you argue on behalf of kaupapa Maori or elements of Maori broadcasting define for me please sir how you feel about that? How you feel that partnership that we all talk about can be revealed through Maori broadcasting and your commitment to that, your work. Kia ora.
Steve Maharey: That's morning tea cancelled, I'll be holding you here for a wee while yet. One thing I should just point out in terms of this discussion about Maori television, MTS in particular, from the point of view of the broadcasting portfolio of course it doesn't come out of the broadcasting portfolio. We've been in a sense interested commentators on what has gone on. But let me make a very firm and perhaps radical statement: I think it should have been. I think what we'll find in the future is that Maori broadcasting will want to be within a stable of broadcasting. While the issues may have come out of development and language issues I am betting within weeks Maori Television will want to be a broadcaster and they'll want to talk about their issues as broadcasters so that they can succeed on that broader mission and I do think that one of the issues that probably has confronted Maori Television over the last little while is that they've had to almost debate the entire future of Maori development and language as they've tried to get the channel off the ground. And we want to be aware of that when we're talking as New Zealanders about the issues that surround Maori Television, we should realise they are carrying a huge amount of baggage as they try to get themselves on screen. So when I go to the Cabinet table and I say you've got someone who is massively enthusiastic about this, that I believe that we have to have as a nation Maori television on screen. That it needs to succeed and not as people often say for Maori alone, and this is a nationwide broadcaster. I think all New Zealanders are going to start get very excited about what they see on this channel. They're going to want to watch it and that's why I think it's going to be driven if it's successful by a broadcaster, by its role as a broadcaster. That is what will make it successful so that's what I have consistently argued around the Cabinet table for, that it should happen, that it should be totally supported by New Zealanders and it should be a New Zealand broadcaster because that's what's important about it. So that's what I take to the table.
Leonie Pihama: Just a couple of things. Maori Television Service is very clearly a broadcaster. We know our role. We know our intent and we know the business that we're in. But we are a particular kind of broadcaster. We are a kaupapa Maori broadcaster. That makes us different from a New Zealand broadcaster. We're a Maori broadcaster, located on Maori land which happens also to be called New Zealand. So we're very clear on the intent and it's really great to hear the Minister talking about that as well in terms of where we're going. And the aspirations to broadcast to the world, you know to the world - and I think that analogy about being a window into our world and having a window out to the world is a very clear analogy in terms of Maori Television as a broadcasting body. That's what we are. We are, we do have an intent, it's also about Maori first and foremost and Maori aspirations first and foremost, but that's not a limited exclusive aspiration and I want to pick up again on the Minister's point that we are - we expect many, many people in this country to tune in and at least once for a look. At least once. And if we can hook people in, in that first tune-in, then they'll come back. So we're very clear on that as well. Kia ora Tainui mo to mihi mai ki a matou mo te kaupapa nei.
I think there's a second thing I want to just kind of clarify, and that is the notion of being led by Te Puni Kokiri. Te Puni Kokiri is one of the ministries in the Crown relationship as is the Minister Michael Cullen's role in that relationship. Obviously we need more of a clear relationship with your Ministry and with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and also the Ministry of Economic Development are a huge player in our, in who we inter relate with. That is part of the Crown relationship. This is actually a Treaty relationship that has a second partner, partnerships don't come in one. The other partner is Te Putahi Paoho, is the Maori Electoral College. We also have direct obligations to those Maori organisations. We always have this dual thing going on in terms of those relationships and obligations and as a service we're very clear on it, I think as a community many in the society are very unclear on it. We get a huge amount of confused media about our relationships and as time goes by we're hoping that that will clarify itself. Our key now is to get on air and to broadcast and to broadcast te reo Maori to broadcast tikanga Maori in both Maori and in English. Kia ora.
JT: That's clearly, it was clearly a longer question from Tainui, not a shorter one. We've gone a little over time so that's a good note to end on and I'm sure many of the questions that you have not been able to ask, well you'll have an opportunity to raise after morning tea and later this afternoon. So thank you to the Minister, to Bob Collins and to all the speakers on the panel this morning and to you for the questions that you have already raised to start the debate.
END OF TRANSCRIPT