Gallagher Martin: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15239] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 In speaking on Mr Copeland’s very valid Supplementary Order Paper I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of agreeing with the previous speaker Dr Coleman in terms of the concept he has put up. The logic of it—to explain it really slowly—would be that we would have a situation whereby FreeView could go in and grab Prime Television and suit itself. 
In terms of a commercial model—of intellectual property—it is very obvious what the previous speaker said. Because it is “free view” and free-to-air yes there is a commercial model. Some of the “free view” will certainly consist of so-called public service channels and community channels. Other parts of “free view” in the sense of the free-to-air bit will very much consist of commercial businesses that are using FreeView as a platform but are being paid for in terms of commercial reach through advertising sponsorship and other means. They as a broadcasting business—just as with public television—should choose which platform to use. I agree with Dr Coleman in the sense that I think some of those issues will be sorted out commercially. There will be a point where appropriate arrangements are made. 
I am not sure whether the previous speaker would agree with me on this but I was reading somewhere in one of the papers about the so-called FreeView Plus model. Frankly why should Sky or anyone else just be able to beam in from wherever and be the only pay TV model in town subject obviously to FreeView offering the vast majority of its channels in terms of the free-to-air model? 
And what do we mean by the free-to-air-model? We mean that it has either New Zealand On Air funding etc. or advertising funding and is broadcasting appropriately. But certainly there could be a FreeView Plus model whereby FreeView might want to charge for certain products in the future. That again would be a degree of healthy competition between that particular consortium and Sky. 
Obviously if we look at regional television we see that we certainly want to encourage it. Stratos for example is now taking a range of regional television and putting it up on the platform. We certainly want to have a situation whereby those regional operators subject to financial assistance to get up on the satellite platform or on to terrestrial television should ultimately be able to make the choice. 
For example I was with David Bennett the other day being interviewed by tvCentral which covers the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. It is based in Matamata and it is an amazing story dare I say it of incredible enterprise and a lot of faith and hope. It is a regional television channel that is now providing for us in the Waikato and Bay of Plenty a genuine family-viewing product. 
Quite frankly in terms of tvCentral’s mix and its product it ultimately I say to Mr Copeland should have the choice the business choice as to whether to negotiate with Sky and go up on that particular platform. An equivalent example would be a situation with Burger King and KFC. Burger King could come in and say it likes the product of the outfit down the road and just grab the patent the product and reproduce it. 
So without further ado I say that although I certainly respect the sincerity of Mr Copeland and the point of view he puts forward we on this side of the Committee—and I think this is reflected in the Minister’s view—could not support that particular Supplementary Order Paper for the simple reason that the broadcaster itself should have the ultimate choice relatively speaking as to which platform to go on. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 1 and the following amendment in her name to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 56A(1)(d)(i) “and” and substitute “or”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 154 in the name of Gordon Copeland to clause 49 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.