Mallard Trevor: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14715] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to explain this matter. It is somewhat embarrassing as a former accountant and a person with a variety of interests to have the role of correcting the English used in legislation of the former Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs whose specialty was English. But some things have slipped through Committee stages in the past. I am sure the legislation would have been fine when it went to the select committee; surely—and unfortunately—the work of my colleague the former Minister of Broadcasting was undone in a grammatical sense within the select committee. 
A number of these kinds of debates occur. I have heard debates in the Cabinet committee room around “which” and “that” and it is fair to say that opinions are divided as to when each should be used. There is a traditional form and there is a higher form and the higher form sometimes applies. In respect of things like having commas in the correct place and having apostrophes where they are appropriate I think that taking the opportunity to do a bit of tidying up as we are doing now is particularly important. 
I turn to the replacing of “Contents” with “Particulars”. I think it is important because— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: A tricky point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well “content” when talking in Parliament about broadcasting can actually have two senses. I am sure “His Excellency” will know that “content” is a very particular phrase from the House of Lords. It is what—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh the member has not spent time there? People in the House of Lords do not say “Aye” or “No”; they express the fact that they are “Content”. That is the genteel— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Oh I see. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am surprised that I am teaching “Lord Worth of Monaco” the approaches of the House of Lords. Trevor Mallard teaching Richard Worth about gentility is I think an interesting lesson! But “content” obviously has a particular meaning—I should not use the word “particular”; it has a specific meaning—within broadcasting that goes a bit further than “list of contents” or “particular matters to which are being referred”. That is why the change has been made and I think it is logical. 
I think it is fair to say that this Thursday afternoon debate is reminding me somewhat of what a Friday morning used to be like. When I was first a member here—and I do not think there is anyone as young as I was; Metiria Turei might be of that generation—members used to do regular work and to work on Fridays. The debates then did not always get to the core of the major issues. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where is this speech going? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was asked some questions by “Lord What’s-his-name of Monaco” and I have given him some responses. There are questions of language and there are questions of tidiness. I think every opportunity should be taken to get clarification in language because unfortunately some of the member’s former colleagues who are currently on the judiciary get quite perturbed about the position of a comma.