Mapp Wayne: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17263] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This part deals with amendments to the Broadcasting Act. One of the problems with these kinds of rules generally is that they become highly prescriptive. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There was an oversight on my part on the voting before the dinner break. I have not discussed this with the senior Government whip but I seek the leave of the Committee to amend National’s vote from 27 to 25. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. I ask the member whether he refers to the vote on Part 1 as amended being agreed to. 
Simon Power 
: It was for all votes taken from 5 minutes to 6. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I point out for the benefit of listeners that Part 2 is about amendments to the Broadcasting Act. I know I will probably be breaching the Standing Orders but I say to the young people in the gallery tonight that this is an important part of the way that elections are run. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is breaching the Standing Orders. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This issue is about the way that our country has allowed public funding to help the democratic process. For a long period of time we have allowed free broadcasting to political parties at the time of an election. Typically there is an opening speech a closing speech and then time for advertisements. As soon as we get into that kind of situation of course there is a necessity for detailed rules so that everyone is treated equally. On top of that we now have multiple broadcasters. One of the issues that the Justice and Electoral Committee had to deal with was the fact that not every broadcaster is actually interested. Broadcasters will ask themselves: “Is it relevant enough to our listening audiences for us to broadcast the opening and closing speeches of the leaders of the respective parties?”. I suppose one could say that the public broadcaster acknowledges that responsibility. 
I have to ask some deeper questions. Although National is supporting this part this whole issue invites some profound and fundamental questions. I raise this matter because I was on the relevant select committee between 1999 and 2002. We heard substantial submissions on this kind of issue. One question the select committee asked at that time—and I know its work has informed the current select committee—was: “At what point do we say that this has all become too complicated and that it would be better to allow the parties to take that allocation of what is in effect public funding and spend it as they please?” The free-choice approach would be to say that rather than forcing political parties to have a certain amount of time on radio and television we would give them an allocation—determined on a number of formulae based on representation in the House polling and so forth so as to get some sort of fair formula—and then to leave it to the political parties to determine how they spend it. 
I believe that at some point this Parliament and the relevant select committee will have to seriously address that question. We are locked I guess in a paradigm whereby for television and radio there is a set allocation and a formula-driven approach for each of the parties and that is how it is done. Under the current legislation we have to deal with the fact that there are ad breaks and all that sort of thing and there have to be detailed rules around all that sort of stuff so that no one is disadvantaged or advantaged by that kind of process. At what point do we say that that is no longer workable? 
I know that Mr Franks will remember the submissions made by various submitters between 1999 and 2000—and no doubt much the same submissions were given more recently—that it is becoming increasingly difficult in a more complex broadcasting environment. We are no longer in the situation whereby just Television One TV2 and TV3 are free to air. We have multiple channels. A number of the Sky channels are also free to air. The role of the Internet was hugely important in the American election in particular. It profoundly influenced the outcome of that election. Yet our legislation does not recognise those kinds of things. [ 
Interruption 
] DrudgeReport.com was hugely important. I think it is probably time for a back-to-first-principles review of this area.