Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14718] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I really had not intended to take a call on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill until a few moments ago when I looked at these three short clauses and suddenly realised what their significance might be. One is the title clause the second is the commencement clause and the third is an amendment to the principal Act. As I looked at the title clause I read: “This Act is the Broadcasting Amendment Act 2007.” Then it occurred to me that we are in 2008 so clearly a change is required there. 
Then I looked at the commencement provision: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Now there are a number of different ways of drafting commencement provisions; I guess there are three that are commonly in use. This is an example of one. Another way that commencement clauses are worded is to provide for a specific date and a third is to provide for a date so many days after a  
Gazette 
 publication. 
Before the Chairperson assumed the Chair this afternoon we were briefly contemplating the Limited Partnerships Bill. There was comment in that bill as to what the Commerce Committee saw as the preferred way that commencement clauses should be drafted. As we saw in the context of the Limited Partnerships Bill this is not the preferred way. The preferred way I would contend—and I would be supported by the Commerce Committee in this regard—is to actually nominate a specific date and we do not see that here. Although the class of case that involves legislation coming into force after a  
Gazette 
 notice is probably the most to be deplored because of course it adds a substantial degree of uncertainty there is nevertheless a degree of uncertainty with this type of commencement clause. So I urge the Minister to take back to his colleagues the proposition that it is a better plan a much better plan in this particular case to have a firm date. What would be the downside of specifying that in the context of this legislation? Absolutely nothing. 
So I come to clause 3 “Principal Act amended” which states: “This Act amends the Broadcasting Act 1989.” In the course of this debate we have examined exactly what the impact of this bill will be on that legislation and noted the tragedy that the opportunity was not taken to make substantial and more far-reaching change to the bill than has occurred in this particular instance. We are looking at quite serious issues certainly when we look at the position of Television New Zealand because we see that since 2003 the value of Television New Zealand has gone down from $381 million to $194 million and operating revenue has dropped by $117 million or around 24 percent. The aspirations in the charter which has been so derided in the course of this debate have also failed to deliver local content. In 2002 Television One was delivering 60 percent total local content; in 2006 the figure was 53 percent. Over the same period local content on TV2 dropped by 5 percent and it is now just 20 per cent. So I repeat the view of National that it is a pity a greater effort was not made in this legislation to produce for us a public broadcasting system of which we could be much more truly proud.