Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14672] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is a heady time in the broadcasting sector and I express regret on behalf of the National Party that the opportunity was not taken in the context of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill to touch on some of the issues that the previous speaker referred to. Quite clearly in an environment that is hugely uncertain the certainty of funding flows to enable broadcasting activity to continue on a broad rich basis has not been seized upon. 
This is a tricky time in the sector and no one would dispute that. I think we saw that most recently in a discussion that took place on the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill. One aspect of that legislation is relevant to the issues that confront the House on this second reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. That is because in that copyright legislation the Government seized on two issues to advance. Those two issues related first to amending the existing rights to broadcast or to include a work in a cable programme service in order to provide a technology-neutral right of communication to the public and also to extend copyright protection to a technology-neutral category of communication works. The second and highly controversial aspect in that legislation was the proposal to repeal section 88 of the Copyright Act which allows cable programme services to retransmit free-to-air television broadcasts without the permission of the broadcaster. 
A number of speakers before me have spoken about the Television New Zealand charter and I wish to talk about that albeit only briefly. It is an interesting document in a number of respects. The legal position is that under section 12(4) of the Television New Zealand Act 2003 the charter or if one likes the base or governing document of Television New Zealand is required to be reviewed by this House at 5-yearly intervals. The first review was due to commence before the end of February 2008. We are now beyond the end of February 2008 and the review has not commenced yet. There are a number of deficiencies in the current charter. Other members have spoken about that but the current charter has been the subject already of revision submission and now a redraft. 
The charter is structured under a number of headings and they include “An Informed Society” and “National Identity and Citizenship”. There is a section on Maori interests. There are sections on “Diversity” “High Standards” “Innovation” “New Zealand Talent” and “Presenting New Zealand Overseas”. All of that is captured in some four pages of material. In looking at the charter I think one is struck that there is something in it for everyone. It contains lofty aspirational sentiment without any measurable goals at all. I think that is a significant shame because for charter documents to have any meaning at all there should always be appropriate evaluative criteria. 
I will take as an example just the first chunk of that material. It is headed “An Informed Society” and it states that the goal is “To provide impartial and comprehensive New Zealand and international programmes that are essential to having an informed and educated society …”. How will Television New Zealand achieve that? Well under that heading it proposes to provide a range of programmes; strive for the highest standards of quality; provide independent comprehensive impartial and in-depth news and current affairs; promote democratic participation; provide programmes of an educational nature; and provide programmes that extend the range of ideas and experiences available to New Zealanders. 
All of that significantly reinforces the proposition I have advanced that just in looking at that section on “An Informed Society” one sees there is something for everyone. It is meaningless material in the context of meeting charter obligations. So it will never be possible for Television New Zealand to say it has fulfilled the charter obligations. They are in themselves not capable of fulfilment. All that can be said is that Television New Zealand thinks it has fulfilled the charter obligations. What a pity that is. Why do we not put some hard goals in the charter so that those who have a responsibility in terms of putting much-valued data into society can say they have achieved their goals and fulfilled the aspirations set out in the charter? 
So we come to look at this bill which as I have said is supported by National. It gives effect to the Government’s decision to enable the broadcasting funding agencies to be able to support the production transmission and archiving of digital content with the development of digital broadcasting in New Zealand and internationally. The funding agencies are the Broadcasting Commission known as NZ On Air and Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi known as Te Mangai Paho. If one looks at the two annual reports—those of NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho—one sees there is not a great deal to be gleaned from them except in respect of the financial information that is contained within their covers. But there is interesting comment in the annual report of NZ On Air touching on the very critical issue of funding for archiving. The point is made there by NZ On Air that it funds the New Zealand Film Archive to provide television programme archiving services and funds Sound Archives to provide radio programmes and archiving services. 
Not a great deal of money is spent on that significant task. This year apparently $1.26 million was spent on radio and television archiving services. The New Zealand Film Archive archived 1440 hours of television programmes and carried out preservation work on another 210 hours of programmes. The Sound Archives archived 1983 hours of radio programmes and carried out preservation work on another 2003 hours. Those who have written the annual report note that as well NZ On Air supported the New Zealand Film Archive to purchase digitising equipment so it could move forward with its strategy. There is reference to “options explored arising from opportunities offered by digital developments.” 
In looking at the issues though we see that apart from the question of archiving digital content what this bill does is to amend the Broadcasting Act 1989 in order to enable the broadcasting funding agencies to fund some types of content and transmission likely to be integral to digital radio and television platforms. Of course the bill allows the broadcasting funding agencies to fund those types of activities to supplement and enhance the delivery of their primary functions. There are significant philosophical issues that touch the broadcasting sector generally but what can be said about this bill I would say is that the amendments it proposes will permit the broadcasting funding agencies to fund such developments as video on demand interactivity between broadcaster and audience and the re-versioning of content for non-broadcast platforms such as the Internet or mobile phones. I have already commented on the amendment in the legislation in respect of the archiving of Maori language and culture programmes. 
So here this legislation now sits ready to pass to the Committee stage in this House. National supports the bill. The bill could have gone further; it could have been better.