Shanks Katrina: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11676] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand to take a call on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
I would like to refer to the purpose of this bill for the benefit of all those Aucklanders stuck in cars going along at 5 kilometres an hour who have another hour to go before they get home tonight. I want them to understand the purpose of the bill. I also speak to those mothers in their cars in Auckland tonight who have kids in the car and who have been in the car for half an hour. They have food they have drink and their cars are a bit of a tip because they do this every day. They are tuning into the radio because there is nothing else to do unless they put their iPods on and listen to music in their cars because we are in a technical age now—or if they were members of the Labour Government they would have their Walkmans on in the car and they would be listening to music and driving along with only another 48 minutes to go now that I have spoken for 2 minutes until they arrive home to make dinner for their families only to start all over again tomorrow in their cars taking an hour to get to work because the roads are so poor in Auckland. So I thank anyone who is tuning in this afternoon. 
The purpose of this bill—not many people have actually spoken to the purpose—is to allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programming in a variety of formats. Many of us around my age and even up to the age of 50 understand that digital programming is extremely important in New Zealand. It has actually been around for quite some time now. If I were just to go into the background of this bill briefly—for those still in their cars with their children who are just handing Moro bars into the back seat or apples whichever type of food they have in their car at the moment depending on whether they have come from sport or from picking up their children from after school— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Stop mumbling. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Russell Fairbrother is over there taking the mickey out of those poor mothers in their cars who are driving along listening to this tonight. That is what he thinks of those poor people in Auckland—not much. 
The Minister has said that the bill would keep Government funding up to pace with the move to digital technology by allowing agencies to fund such things as video on demand on the Internet and to adapt programmes and other content for alternative platforms like the Internet and mobile phones. I find it intriguing that this has not happened until 2007. I know we have had a history lesson today from Martin Gallagher. As always he referred back to 1910 1920 1940 1970 and especially the 1990s. He gets stuck on the 1990s when he speaks in the House and on what National did in the 1990s. Instead of talking about what the Labour Government is doing now or about its vision he continually goes back to the 1990s. 
But I do not want to give members a history lesson; I want to tell them that this bill is addressing the technical age that we are in today—the digital age that we are in today. That is a good thing. But I have to ask myself why after 8 years in Government this Government is addressing this now. I think I have had a cellphone for 10 years. I think I have had digital television for about the same amount of time and most people had it a lot earlier than our family because in our family we are a bit slow in catching up with technology compared with some of our friends. I am wondering why it has taken this Government 8 years to get this legislation here. Surely it would have been more relevant earlier on. It seems to take a while for this Government to get up to speed. But once Government members take off their Walkmans and put on their iPods they might come into the technology age with the rest of us. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What’s an iPod? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Labour does not know what they are yet. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: We realise that iPods are cutting edge for this Labour Government but some of us have had iPods for a little while now and understand the need for legislation to stay relevant with technology. 
 So that is basically the background of why this legislation is here. That is all very good. 
I spoke last night in the debate on the second reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. That legislation was brought about by the good National Party person Dr Jackie Blue who made this Government realise that once again it has been on the Government benches for 8 years. She put through a little tiny bit of legislation only 2 pages long but very concise and very well written by Dr Jackie Blue and by the select committee—because obviously that member’s bill went to the select committee. That bill was about making legislation relevant and current to the environment we are in now and was very very similar to this Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2007 which is a bill that could have happened 8 years ago when technology was moving but no the Walkman era and the Walkman Labour caucus were not quite there. But it is good to see it. 
We support this bill because it is actually good legislation. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Where were you in the 1990s? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Where was I in the 1990s? I say to Martin that I was just talking about the history lecture that he gives us every day he speaks in the House. We are talking about vision. We are talking about New Zealand’s future. We are talking about the people of New Zealand. Are the people of New Zealand really interested in Martin’s history of 1990? 
I say to those mothers who are in their cars in Auckland driving along the motorway with their children in the back handing back the drinks the apples and the oranges because the traffic is so horrific in Auckland that I know exactly how they feel when they have a car full of kids especially if they have been to a sports event and have half the soccer team in the car. Mothers give so much to our communities. They are out there in the sports clubs and schools. They have a car full of children. They are taking them from a soccer practice back home again and they are listening to this now on their radios. They are not interested in the 1990s; they are interested in 2007 in the future and in our vision. 
This National caucus has so much vision. In 2008 when National is sitting on the Government benches Labour will see our vision and how good we really are. We will not sit back and talk about what happened in 1910 1940 1970 or 1990—like the members over there do—because we have vision and we will go forward. We will be producing legislation that is relevant in the period in which it is actually produced and we will be moving forward with society and being relevant in people’s lives—unlike this current Labour Government which does not seem to understand what relevance is. 
I must say I am really concerned about the type of legislation that is coming through this Parliament. It is not about volume; it is about the quality of legislation. This bill is three pages long and it does not seem to be too bad. But what really concerns me is what happened about a month ago in this Parliament when for the first time in 12 years the Standing Orders were suspended. For those mothers in their cars who are absolutely intrigued to know what happens when the Standing Orders are suspended I can tell them that we have a process for legislation to make sure it goes through a system. It is a robust system to ensure that the public gets to understand and to make submissions on legislation before it is made into law. That is when it goes to a select committee. What people are listening to today is the debate on the first reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2007. From here it will go to a select committee. Then at the select committee those mothers in their cars who will be in traffic for the next 43 minutes I would say if they have been listening for the last 8 minutes will have an opportunity to give their opinion on this legislation. But when the Government suspended the Standing Orders last month it bypassed the public’s right to have input into legislation and bypassed the way we make law in New Zealand. 
It frightens me that something might happen to this bill before it gets to its third reading that it might go to a select committee—[ 
Interruption 
] It might. It might not go to a select committee. It might get submissions heard it might go to the second reading it might go to the Committee stage—but no the Government might want to whip it back attach another bill to it and sneak it through like a Trojan Horse just like it did with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill only 1 month ago. The senior whip over there is rubbing his head and scratching his hair—not that there is that much hair left; it is starting to disappear a little bit I have noticed—thinking: “The weathertight homes amendment bill … did we really suspend Standing Orders? And is that really important?”. I can tell members that it is important and that it brought this House into disrepute. It actually happened. I hope this legislation goes through without those problems. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.