Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment to the Broadcasting Act which alongside the Electoral Act shapes the rules of the game as it were for the election period. This debate today is hot on the tail of the first reading for the Electoral Amendment Bill which the Minister of Broadcasting flagged and which is already before the Justice and Electoral Committee. Given that this is so close to submissions on that bill it does make sense that we try to progress this bill to the select committee as quickly as we can in part because it has had some cursory discussions already by our select committee.When we reviewed the last general election as we always do as a committee there were a number of submissions that spoke specifically to the issue—not the broadcasting allocation—that we are debating today which is the use of opening and closing broadcasts. So we have to a certain extent already had a few views on this matter and we are now officially putting a solution to the public and to those interested parties and seeking feedback on that. So expediting that discussion back to the select committee does make sense. I also want to flag that there have been conversations outside the review of the general election. My colleague Clare Curran is much closer to those discussions as our broadcasting spokesperson but there has been specific debate about this very issue within the convergence review. It is a shame that we cannot have a quick almost committee-style format in this House with the Minister to ask a few questions around the overlap of those two items of business but I will leave my colleague Clare Curran to talk about that review because it is pertinent to what we are discussing today. I think the really important point I want to make is that this bill—and this is what we will need to check as a select committee—is not intended to change any of the rules around electoral broadcasting bar the fact that we have a specified opening and closing broadcast within the legislation. So we are not proposing to change any of the rules around what an election programme is when it is able to be broadcast or the allocation—outside the fact that we are apportioning a slightly higher amount in lieu of there being an opening and closing broadcast. But generally speaking we are not intending to change any of those other rules that surround electoral programming and broadcasting. Those rules are there for good good reason. In New Zealand there is a cap on the amount that can be spent for radio and television broadcasting and we are still suggesting here that a cap should remain. But what this bill proposes is that opening and closing broadcasts are an antiquated way a restrictive way to engage with today's voters and that if the intention is to give registered political parties the ability to put out to the public and to voters a set of policies and ideas and that that be allocated in a fair way why should we restrict ourselves to one lump of time on one broadcast channel at one specified period during the electoral cycle? If our principle is to engage with voters that seems like a wholly restrictive way to communicate. That was a point that was raised by a number of submitters including the New Zealand Labour Party where we made the point that actually our engagement online reached far more people than the 2014 opening broadcast which if I recall was in direct contest with an All Blacks fixture. We were doomed from the beginning.Chris Bishop: Oh that's a bit harsh. JACINDA ARDERN: Everybody Chris Bishop was doomed from the beginning. Do not tell me that the ratings peaked when John Key sat looking at a blank screen with the New Zealand flag behind him giving us his opening broadcast. So opening broadcasts are an antiquated way to communicate with voters and that is what this bill tries to acknowledge. What the bill does is take the allocation of time and turn that into a dollar amount that is then added to the overall broadcast allocation that the Electoral Commission will apportion out to registered political parties—a very simple solution. It will allow that funding to be used for broadcasting radio television or online advertising. That makes sense. It is important too though that caps exist for the amount that is able to be spent on television and radio but not for print and online. There is good reason for that. That is something that no doubt the select committee will discuss at greater length but it is interesting to at least note that difference. So what we as a select committee will need to discuss also is the way to make sure we have an even playing field so that parties are given the same access to the same rates relative to each other and relative to the commercial sector and the fact that we have not always had comparable rate cards is something that has been flagged. But we also need to make sure that it is relative to each other and that it is a fair and even playing field. So we will need to be mindful of what some might try to achieve through bulk discounting. The law is intended to set out that we are all treated equitably and that is what the select committee should be striving to do.I want to point out that TVNZ made a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee's inquiry into the 2014 general election. This is probably a personal perspective but I want to put on record that I was not persuaded by an argument by a State broadcaster that it had no duty or role to play in communicating with the general public at election time and that opening and closing broadcasts should be left to Parliament TV. I do not want to leave any disparaging remarks about Parliament TV. It is a very important tool to communicate with the general public but is it necessarily appointment viewing? Unfortunately probably not. But actually if you look at a younger demographic you see that half of that demographic is no longer tuning in for appointment viewing anyway so we do need to get savvy. Things like My Sky do not allow you to see ads that we are using as a tool to communicate with the public so we have got to move with the times. I took issue with TVNZ making that its main rationale for us not dumping the opening and closing broadcasts but simply removing the responsibility that it had. So look TVNZ we are doing something that makes sense for the public and for political parties to communicate but that does not mean that there will not be a responsibility to allow access—but at market rates—to you as a broadcaster to communicate. So those are just a few opening points that I really wanted to make. I think the suggestions here are sensible. They are in line with where we are in a modern digital world. We will be testing at the select committee that we have indeed really only done what we intended which is to merge opening and closing broadcasts into a bit more flexibility and that we have kept all of those other rules in places. But otherwise I think the most robust most important discussion is likely to be held at the select committee with submitters making sure that we have got this right in time for the next election.