Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14707] 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 We come to the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and we are now talking about Part 1. We had the second reading in the House last night and it is pretty clear that all parties will support this bill. 
As we discussed the bill essentially brings the funding arrangements up to date in line with the technology. When the Broadcasting Act 1989 was passed only television and radio were on the horizon in New Zealand; we are now in a totally different environment. We have had the digital revolution and we are now in an environment where broadcasting already involves a lot of different platforms whether they be the Internet mobile phones things like video on demand— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not broadcasting; that’s narrow-casting. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister will get his chance to take a call. The general point is that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill actually engulfs or encompasses a variety of platforms. The current funding arrangements are really outdated for the technology we have now. This bill will allow the broadcasting funding agencies NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho which is the Maori broadcasting funding agency to direct funding to a variety of platforms. Previously as I said they were allocating them just to television and radio. But in this new environment we have to accept that people will source content across a variety of platforms and the arrangements have to reflect that. 
National has been supportive of this bill right from the start but what this bill really brings into focus are the areas where we do not agree with the Government. I think there will be some significant points of debate in the field of broadcasting in the future. We heard last year about Television New Zealand (TVNZ) failing abysmally in financial terms under the yoke of this Government’s policy which has saddled it with this dual remit whereby it has to give the Government a dividend and on top of that it also has to perform to the expectations of the charter. As my colleague Richard Worth aptly summed up last night the charter as we have it now is just a set of aspirational statements with nothing concrete that we can measure any outputs against. This leads to a heck of a lot of confusion and we have had some ridiculous examples of what constitutes a charter programme. 
It is quite clear that the Government does not actually agree with the people at TVNZ. There was no clearer example of that than when the chief executive of TVNZ when asked by the Maori Affairs Committee last year what Maori programming was currently on State television named programmes such as  
Location Location Location 
 and  
Police Ten 7 
. Quite clearly those programmes do not represent Maori broadcasting. We have such a loose charter that TVNZ can try to fit any old programme within what is prescribed by the charter. It is a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs. Steve Maharey when he was the Minister of Broadcasting was very keen on the idea of the charter; it has really been his baby. One really has to ask oneself what has changed between before the charter and after it. Has it really made a difference to what is on our screens? Well if one actually looks at it one sees that the reality is that the charter was supposed to deliver more local content for New Zealanders but in actual fact we now have less. If one of the functions of the charter is to ensure that New Zealanders can see content that reflects how we live here in this country one would have to argue that it is not actually performing as one would hope it might. 
But this Government has more problems in broadcasting than just TVNZ because it also has the issue of FreeView and digital broadcasting. The Government has invested a lot of taxpayer money into these new digital channels—$104 million in total. TVNZ was given $79 million to set up the channels then an extra $25 million. The reality is that the numbers of viewers have not grown as quickly as they might have. Have they plateaued? That is the real question. Unless the Government actually sets a date for switching off the analog TV signal or puts something on those channels that is really compelling to watch I do not think we will see the numbers grow. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I do not see much need to prolong the agony of this tiny little bill which brings us 10 years up to date. Essentially as has already been said the funding agencies are currently allowed to fund content that can be watched only on television. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill broadens the role so that the agencies Te Mangai Paho and the Broadcasting Commission can fund content to be used in other forms such as the Internet and cellphones as well as television. 
Although I think it is very interesting to hear a wider debate and discussion about whether the charter has met its objectives funding issues etc. the reality is that this bill is a tiny little thing. It simply takes us into this century and I— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Probably hardly that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member is probably right. All I recommend is that we progress this matter as soon as possible. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 In that respect the member who has just resumed his seat is absolutely correct—the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is probably long overdue. I guess those who inhabit the world of Generation Y—or is it Generation X—would say: “Goodness me where do these people come from? They are taking so long to enable the funding of new formats.” Obviously it is a phenomenon that will be understood a lot better by them than by some of us here. 
National supports this bill obviously. It enables the two funding agencies NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho to fund the production transmission and archiving of new forms of digital content. That is particularly important in the digital broadcasting environment. Also important is the fact it amends Te Mangai Paho’s primary function by adding the archiving of Maori language and culture programmes to those matters that it already funds. That is very important given that Maori culture and language are key to New Zealand’s unique identity. Again one would think that measure was overdue as well. It is a proper amendment to be made and as I said at the beginning it is probably long overdue in respect of both these funding agencies. 
My colleague Dr Coleman was right to put an emphasis on the woes of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and the Government’s performance in that arena in the last 9 years. It is interesting that Marian Hobbs is the presiding officer in the Chair because the charter might more rightly be called her baby. But let us attribute the baby to both Marian Hobbs and Steve Maharey who are so in love with it. It has proved in a way to be their Achilles heel in National’s view. The dual remit has seen TVNZ as I say have a very woeful time of it for the whole 9 years this Government has been in power and frankly there is nothing to say that in 2008 it has got its head around it yet. That is not a fair return to the taxpayer—it just is not. Millions of dollars have gone into a black hole. There has been no accountability whatsoever. Every time others try to get some accountability especially at the select committee when I was more involved in broadcasting in previous years they would say: “This is commercially sensitive.” So there was never any way that one could actually pin TVNZ down. 
One matter I want to mention is that National would be very very concerned if for instance TVNZ applied funding for content that could be accessed only through pay-per-view cellphones. This is taxpayer funding we are talking about and it seems to me that sometimes TVNZ tends to forget that. That is an area we would be very concerned about. I have just seen in the  
Independent 
 I think an article about TVNZ setting up a pay-per-view channel. Well goodness me; TVNZ gets taxpayers’ money to deliver FreeView into hopefully every home. The cost of course is prohibitive and there will be a lot of New Zealanders who are not able to afford the cost of taking on FreeView. Many of them also have Sky anyway and have had it for some years. They have been willing to pay. TVNZ needs to think about that but still it goes to the Government as it just did in the last weeks of last year. 
There are some reports of TVNZ going to Te Mangai Paho wondering why Te Mangai Paho was starting to be a bit tough on its plans for Maori programming. I will never forget the day—and my colleague referred to this—when representatives of TVNZ came into the Maori Affairs Committee and had a list of programmes that they thought fitted the Maori remit. One TVNZ person referred to programmes about Maori being in jail and about a Maori family buying a house on  
Location Location Location 
. It was absolutely ridiculous. No doubt  
Dancing with the Stars 
 qualifies because there are some Maori dancing on there. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I would say that we should be able to feel immensely proud of our public broadcasting system but we have not actually got to that stage yet. We have not got there I think because we have created a situation that is almost impossible for public broadcasters and in particular for Television New Zealand. We require that it acts in a commercial manner but we also require that it fulfil the provisions of a charter—and I will briefly touch on that. 
I would also say that it is unfortunate that we are not presented with a greater opportunity in this bill to make the sorts of changes that I believe should be made. There was the opportunity in this bill for example to provide security of funding flows to Television New Zealand to New Zealand On Air to Maori radio and to Maori television. We have not done that. There was also an opportunity to put in some hard measurable goals so that those organisations responsible for funding could have confidence that the money would be wisely spent. We have not done that. National is supporting this bill but we say it is a pity because it could have gone so much further and been so much better. It could have been a seamless web but in fact it is now rather a tangled web I would say. It could have been clear of ambiguity in those areas of broadcasting where there is ambiguity but that has not been done. I would say that the objectives for public broadcasting should be spelt out with a clarity that incentivises those who are involved in public broadcasting and for those who are in that body of listeners or viewers who can gain pleasure and enjoyment in knowing that professional product is being delivered to their ears and to their eyes. 
I have made comment about the Television New Zealand charter because of course these organisations that we have identified—in particular NZ On Air—have that funding responsibility. The charter as I said last night is in the process of review. Indeed it is a plan for the Commerce Committee to look at its content in the next short period by way of inquiry. But the charter itself is so broad-based it is so aspirational it is so meaningless and it is so lacking in measurable goals that it is in need of substantial rewriting. One needs only to look at the way it is structured to see that that is quite clearly so. I gave as an instance the section in the charter that is headed “An Informed Society” and if one follows through the particular parts in just that section one sees how inadequate and broad-brushed those provisions are. 
So in supporting the legislation I express the hope that the next time broadcasting legislation is presented to us in bill form it will achieve some of the objectives that are so clearly lacking here. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to continue our support for this legislation which the Minister is responsible for bringing to this Committee. I will comment in relation to the extended functions provided to Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi under Part 1 of this bill. The Government ought to be lauded for providing this extension given the advancements made in technology and the uptake that the people of New Zealand are making in terms of this new technology. But I tell this Committee—and I am glad that the officials are present—that with these new extended responsibilities I hope that when the budgetary round comes around and bids are made the funding for Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi also known as Te Mangai Paho will be increased to match the increased responsibilities that have been extended to that organisation. 
Allied to that of course is the fact that—as I understand it and as alluded to by the previous speaker Dr Richard Worth—the charter is currently being reviewed. I hope that as a consequence of this bill people like those in Television New Zealand will not exercise their licence to include such programmes as those that have been referred to like  
Location Location Location 
 to address their commitment to the charter of meeting that particular requirement. I wanted to mention that in this debate and to reiterate the point that New Zealand First certainly supports the intent of this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I also want to speak to this bill. The Maori Party will also be supporting it but I will take the opportunity to raise a couple of issues. 
One is an issue that I raised in my speech yesterday which was that in 20 years there has been only one operational increase in funding for Maori radio stations. That increase was a one-off and it came last year. That is a record to be ashamed of considering that the funding came as a result of a High Court decision that obligated the Crown to take steps to protect Maori language and culture. 
I am thankful that we do have Maori radio and Maori television and I think that they provide our country with an opportunity particularly to hear Maori music. Maori music was simply not getting played anywhere until Maori radio came along. In fact when we started our Maori radio station in Kaitaia back in 1989 on 17 December at 6 a.m. we had only a half a dozen CDs apart from music by Howard Morrison and a couple of others. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: They were good. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: They were not good; actually they were fabulous and we played them time and time again. Howard is the guy they called in for Labour but he is actually a signed-up member of the Maori Party. 
Be that as it may; the important thing is that there have been positive steps but I would like to see not just a commitment to ongoing funding but a commitment to an ongoing increase in funding if for no other purpose than to match the rate of inflation. There has not been any operational increase per station since that time. So it is an issue that we would like to see considered. 
We would also like to see whether it is possible to consider the make-up of Te Mangai Paho itself which is done by ministerial appointment. I use as an example the appointment of the board for Maori television which is a joint exercise between the Crown and a Maori electoral college known as Te Putahi Paoho. That model has been used in fisheries and in a number of other activities as a result of Te Putahi Paoho first being used to establish a Crown relationship in the appointment of bodies like the Maori Television Service board. 
I was the first chairperson of Te Putahi Paoho and I think that the model is a particularly worthwhile one to be considered for the appointment of members to Te Mangai Paho and possibly even Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori. That is a different entity again from broadcasters but Te Taura Whiri has a role in the establishment and monitoring of standards for Maori broadcasters so it makes sense to consider whether those governance functions should be established in the same manner. Koina no taku korero. 
[ 
That is my address. 
] 
Thank you very much Madam Chair. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I think previous speakers have brought up a number of points that bear revisiting. When we look at what this change will mean to funding arrangements we see that it really reflects the broadcasting environment that we are moving into. We talked previously about the fragmentation of audiences across platforms. The fact that Te Mangai Paho and New Zealand On Air will be able after this bill passes to fund content for those different platforms really sends a message to the traditional broadcasters and that is that the days of audiences going to just one broadcaster to get all their content are rapidly disappearing. The generation of people who are under 25—and let us face it none of them is in this Chamber—currently source their broadcasting content very much on an iPod model. They use software like LimeWire to download episodes of popular programmes like  
Desperate Housewives 
 from websites in America. They watch what they want when they want. I can tell members that the broadcasting environment is changing very very quickly. 
That is a major threat for traditional broadcasters like Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and TV3 because viewers will not be glued to just one channel. They will not just sit through whatever stuff is served up or sit through commercials. It is not a matter of their just channel surfing; they are going to assemble their own content very much along the iPod model for music. They will put all the stuff they want to access in one place they will watch it when they want to and they will not have to watch the advertisements. That is going to be a major challenge. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: People are doing it already. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No that is what I said. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You said that they will but they are now. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well increasingly more people will but people are doing it already. But I bet the Minister of Broadcasting is not doing it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well actually I’ve got some very good people who help me with it. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister is getting help—OK. He admits he needs help in this domain. But I think the Minister will acknowledge that this is very much something that the younger generation of New Zealanders are doing. For people above the age of say 30 it may be a novel concept but that is the way it is going to go. 
What does it mean for TVNZ and TV3? It means it will be very hard for them to continue making the money that they have made out of advertising. Their audiences are dropping off. They are decreasing year by year. With that audience drop-off there is far less advertising revenue and of course the bottom line for those stations will not be good. It will be adversely affected. Last year we saw from TVNZ’s financial results that it had its first-ever loss. It was a loss of $4.5 million on revenue of $375 million. One has to ask what TVNZ is going to do to respond to that. That is the real challenge that faces the executives of TV channels today. They are trying a variety of different strategies but they do not know whether any of them will work. Last year TVNZ launched TVNZ ondemand which is a web-based model whereby people pay to download content but TVNZ does not know whether it will work. It does not really know whether it will produce enough revenue to turn things round. All broadcasters are facing these challenges and it will be interesting to see what the revenue models for broadcasting in the future are actually about. 
My colleague Georgina te Heuheu also mentioned that this bill will allow for the funding of Maori content and I think that is highly appropriate. Maori content was not being produced 20 years ago when the Broadcasting Act was originally passed. This bill brings the legislation into line with the cultural needs of New Zealanders and I think everyone would support that happening. 
I mentioned earlier the review of digital broadcasting. I think it will be pretty interesting. There is a lot of pretty wordy documents there. I do not think many members of the public will read through them. They will mainly be of interest to broadcasting academics politicians of course and a few journalists. They lay out a series of options for regulation. It is my belief that the Government does not want this regulation issue to rear its head before the election. It knows that the public response could be pretty mixed. 
But the Government has a problem: it has put $104 million into FreeView and basically it has to make it financially viable. There are two options. At some point the Government will have to turn off the analog TV signal and everyone will have to be able to access digital television. But the Government will be faced politically with a difficult situation. There will always be a group of people who are late adapters or who do not have the financial wherewithal to take up digital television. I think that that is one of the challenges for the Minister. I hope he will take a call to tell us what the plan is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s hardly part of this. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister has said that in 2012— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a very good discussion at the second reading. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister can take a call. He has plenty to say now. We would love the Minister to take a call. 
Hon Member 
: It’s not in this bill. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well broadcasting encompasses this issue which is what people want to hear about. The relevance to this bill is that we are moving into the digital environment and this bill is all about— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Yes. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Mark Burton says that is true so there we go. It must be true if Mark Burton the previous Minister of Justice says it is true.This bill is all about broadening out the financing arrangements to reflect technological changes. The digital review of broadcasting is all about the Government’s drift-net for ideas because it is out of ideas. Frankly it is completely exhausted after a shocking 9 years. It needs new ideas for broadcasting. It has thrown this bill out for public consultation and it is hoping the public will throw up a few ideas so that it can justify the sort of regulation it needs to bring in if FreeView is to be a success. When this Government goes in the election later this year I think it will be a great relief to a lot of these people because they will not have to deliver on a lot of this Government’s lofty ideals and plans for broadcasting. FreeView will become an albatross to sling around someone else’s neck because this Government will really struggle to deliver on it and make it viable. 
With FreeView the Government has set up digital television channels that are part of TVNZ. The people who watch those channels which $104 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on have to come from somewhere. Where will they come from? They will come across from Television One and TV2. There is no advertising on those digital channels so the problem is that if those channels are a success they will take audiences away from the channels on which TVNZ can show advertising and its revenues will go down. If that does not happen then the digital channels by definition will fail. So the Minister is really stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is faced in this bill—which we all support—with some real challenges because this bill will speed up the fragmentation of audiences. It will take them away from Government-favoured projects like FreeView and that will produce a real headache for the Minister. He will have to come up with some answers as to how FreeView can be viable and how TVNZ can continue to be viable. 
The last point I would make is that National members are very keen that any funding given to new platforms goes to programmes that are available free to air to New Zealanders. We think that if a programme has Government funding people should be able to access it on a free-to-air platform. Within that we would include FreeView because analog television will disappear. But we do not want Government funding to disappear to a Vodafone pay-per-view download on to a mobile phone or any pay-per-view sort of platform. It is really important that there is accountability around Government funding and that the public have access to it. We saw in the  
Independent 
 yesterday that TVNZ is thinking about getting into pay TV. Well we would say that pay TV— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it’s rubbish. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Here we go; it is the Minister again. He ought to take a call. He will get a chance in a minute but I bet that he will not take it. I bet the Minister that he will not take a call. He will just interject on other speakers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How much? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well I ask the Minister how much we should make it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 When I first looked at Part 2 I thought there would probably be little in it. After all it is headed “Miscellaneous” and it comprises only three clauses which are numbered as clauses 14 15 and 16. But then my attention was drawn to the heading to clause 14 which is “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”. The clause referred us to the schedule to see exactly what those stylistic amendments were. I do not believe that they are stylistic amendments at all. They are not issues of style; they are issues of grammar and issues of punctuation shortfall. 
The amendment to section 4(1) which is the first item identified in the schedule states: “Omit ‘which’ and substitute ‘that’.” Is that a style change? I think not. Those of us who have suffered under the hands of stern grammar masters and mistresses know that they would not have us yield to an argument that that was a style change. Then I looked at the amendment to section 6(1)(ba) and saw: “Omit ‘seconds’ and substitute ‘seconds’ ’ ”. I wondered what the change was there. Well it is quite subtle. It is an apostrophe after the second “s”. Is that a style change? I would say that it is probably a grammar change. I do not believe that it is a punctuation change. In the amendment to section 16(2) we are treated to another example: “Omit ‘unless—’ and substitute ‘unless—’.” I wondered what the significance of that might be if a court came to interpret the provisions of section 16(2) which in some particular setting might assume critical importance. 
I then noted another issue which was the amendment to the heading to section 70C. There was a bold plan there: “Omit ‘Contents’ ”—which is in bold script—“and substitute ‘Particulars’.” which is similarly in bold script. I invite the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard who clearly is familiar with this legislation to explain why that—it seems to me—particularly subtle change was necessary. What is wrong in the context of section 70C with using the word “Contents”? Why must later generations who look at this legislation be forced to speculate on the reason for the change from “Contents” to “Particulars”? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I can see that my colleague has very cleverly motivated the Minister to take a call and we look forward to that shortly. I thought that my colleague raised some very very important issues. If he does not mind I just want to mention one that I do not think he mentioned. Again reading from the schedule to the bill it is in relation to a change under section 71(4) where it states: “Omit ‘77A’ ”—with a comma—“and substitute ‘77A’.”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: With no comma. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —with a full stop. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The comma’s been lost. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The comma has been lost. It is absolutely intriguing. I can see that the Minister has hurriedly pulled some book out of the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The dictionary. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It is the dictionary. We await his response with keen anticipation at 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon with some MPs contemplating flying out of Wellington this evening. Who knows the Minister’s contribution in a few minutes might be just the tonic we all need to send us on our way at the end of what has been an interesting week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’m ready to go. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: OK—all right. Just one thing though that I want to pick up from my earlier contribution is that National would be concerned if Television New Zealand thought it could use the funding for content that comes through pay telephone. I am not sure how we monitor that. Some of these new platforms are so clever. I hope the Government knows just exactly how it will keep an eye on those matters. This is taxpayers’ money we are talking about that has come through both New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho. As such the content that it funds no matter which platform it comes through must always be freely available to all New Zealanders. 
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. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. It is a brief part that contains the miscellaneous provisions. 
I do not want to dwell on clause 14 “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”. These amendments were ably covered by my colleague from Auckland Dr Richard Worth and they were covered again by the Minister in the chair. It is not clause 14 that I want to cover in any detail; nor is it clause 16 “Remedial technical amendment to Television New Zealand Act 2003”. No it is in fact clause 15 that I would like to focus on in some detail. 
Clause 15 is entitled “Spent sections of Broadcasting Act 1989 repealed”. That clause gets to the heart of some key National Party policies. It is about driving out bureaucracy and driving out regulation—taking bureaucracy and compliance costs out of the marketplace and out of legislation. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill does that in clause 15. It is at the heart of what the National Party stands for—getting rid of compliance costs for small businesses and allowing them to get ahead without the burden of undue compliance costs. We see this in clause 15—in some detail. 
Clause 15(a) repeals section 92 which was a transitional provision in relation to the broadcasting station levies. Clause 15(b) removes section 93 which was a transitional provision in relation to the Broadcasting Tribunal. Getting rid of bureaucracy and getting rid of compliance costs are at the heart of the National Party’s vision for this country. We want to make it simpler for businesses out there to get ahead to grow their businesses to improve their profitability and ultimately to improve the wages they pay to their employees. That is a core part of National Party policy. 
Clause 15(c) which repeals section 94 drives out more compliance and more regulation. Clause 15(d) takes out section 95 which was a transitional provision in relation to radio apparatus licences. It is a provision that we no longer need and it needs to be driven out of the bureaucracy and out of the legislation to ensure that we reduce compliance costs. 
Lastly clause 15(e) repeals a small section section 96. It takes out of legislation the requirement for a final report of the Broadcasting Tribunal. Who needs a final report? We do not so let us get rid of it. Again getting rid of compliance costs and driving them out is at the heart of National Party policy. That is why the National Party will be voting for Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Dr Jonathan Coleman I say that you are the last person I will call. I think we are almost frittering with the Committee’s time. The last speeches we have had have been actually reading the bill. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I want to comment on the Minister’s contribution. The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has an awful lot to say when other people are speaking but when it came to his opportunity he just dwelt on those minor stylistic points. We were really hoping he would address some of these serious issues that we were discussing relating to the implications of this bill and the impact it will have on the broadcasting landscape. For the Minister to get up and talk about minor points of grammar style and apostrophes was a wasted opportunity. 
What is interesting here is that clause 16 “Remedial technical amendment to Television New Zealand Act 2003” brings us back to the charter debate. That was the Act that established the charter and the charter is at the heart of a lot of the difficulties we are currently seeing Television New Zealand in. As my colleague Dr Worth said to the House last night the charter is nothing more than a set of aspirational statements with no measurable goals. That really is the problem. The charter can mean all things to all people. We can put “Dancing on the Stars” on television and that can be construed as a charter programme. 
Jill Pettis 
: With! With! 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I have heard that Mrs Pettis is going to be on that programme in 2009 when she has left the House and that will be pretty interesting. 
We see the problem that the charter is placing Television New Zealand in. It is being told on the one hand that it has to return this dividend to the Government—it was let off the hook on that last year—but on the other hand it is supposed to be providing public broadcasting content for all New Zealanders. When we look at the reality of what we see on a Television New Zealand promo and we line that up against the charter it is hard to see what the connection is. If we look at any promotion for what is on Television New Zealand and what is coming up we see it features all the entertaining American British and European shows. We have  
The Sopranos 
  
The Tudors 
 and  
Desperate Housewives 
. If we look at the charter and all this notional aspirational stuff we could say that all it really is is something that is holding Television New Zealand back. Why are there no measurable concrete goals? 
We have just had this charter review and we are going to be reviewing the redrafted option soon at the Commerce Committee. I have read through it pretty closely. All it does is rearrange headings reclassify material and rearrange the chairs on the deck of the charter  
Titanic 
. I think it is pretty disappointing stuff and I reckon the Minister should get up take a call and say what his plans are for getting TVNZ back into the black. It is this Television New Zealand Act 2003 that has got Television New Zealand into much of this trouble. The Minister really has to address these problems. He cannot just fritter away and wind down his time to the election by stalling by getting up when he has an opportunity to talk on broadcasting and just giving vague vacuous speeches on apostrophes as he did when he was referring to the schedule. We had Dr Richard Worth cover that material in admirable form. 
Let us go back to clause 16 “Remedial technical amendment to Television New Zealand Act 2003”. That particular clause does not do much. Subclause (1) amends the Act. Subclause (2) states: “The item relating to the Broadcasting Act 1989 in Schedule 1 is amended by omitting ‘Preamble’ and substituting ‘Long Title’.” I think we could apply those comments to much of what the Minister said when he had the opportunity to speak on this. 
Part 2 just mops up a few miscellaneous aspects of this short and succinct bill which it looks like the whole of the Parliament will be supporting. Just to sum up again I say that it changes the funding arrangements whereby NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho the Maori broadcasting funding authority can fund content across a range of platforms. People are sourcing their content on the Internet and they are looking well beyond traditional television and radio. This brings us into the 21st century and means that the funding arrangements will be fit for the future. That will be pretty important. The main caveat we have to have is that if this content is to be funded with public money it has to be available to all New Zealanders free to air. We do not want it to be pay-per-view. I would like to hear the Minister talk about this. I know Mrs Pettis is getting bored; this well exceeds her attention span. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I hope that my short contribution will not be regarded as frittering away the Committee’s time. I just want to go back to clause 14. I ought to say that the English teacher at the Motatau Maori District High School would probably have used the word “grammar” as opposed to “stylistic”. But I want to commend the Minister for actually using the word “stylistic” because in the mid-1970s to early 1980s there was a group called the Stylistics a Motown group from America. I think it is just appropriate that it is used here in a bill called the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Before my time! 
PITA PARAONE 
: Yes that is true. But I would have thought that if previous speakers who have spent a bit of time talking about whether that was the right use of language felt so strongly about it they would have submitted a Supplementary Order Paper and I perhaps might have supported it. But in the absence of a Supplementary Order Paper I just want to reiterate and congratulate the Minister on his choice of words in this part. Kia ora. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules agreed to.  
Clauses 1 2 and 3  
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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I will respond briefly to the points that the member Richard Worth made. 
I will not refer much to his comments with regard to clause 3. It is clear that this bill is a minor bill and it is clear also that major work is going on and that major legislation will follow on from the digital review. 
On the question of the commencement date I generally agree with the member’s comments. Whenever there is a substantive amendment I think it is important to be clear. The approach in clause 2 is one that does leave a lot of power in the hands of the executive. I was trying to bring to the front of my mind a particular piece of legislation that was passed when National was in Government I think in coalition with New Zealand First that was never brought into effect because the Order in Council was— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act was a very good illustration. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We will just leave that. I think the point needs to be made that this approach leaves a lot of power in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of Parliament. I agree with the member that with especially something of substance—I am not pretending that this is substantive legislation; it is minor legislation—it is important to be clear. 
On the first point that the member made I was surprised by it. He is an experienced member and he is a lawyer. He should know by now that the Clerk’s Office does amend and it is within the discretion of the Clerk’s Office to amend legislation for things like the date. 
John Carter 
: He knows what he is talking about unlike the Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know what I am talking about. Members do not have to have been here for as long as I have to know that the date of an Act is something that is amended on the way through after this process by the Clerk’s Office. Doing it that way saves another printing of the bill. It saves us a bit of money and I think it is a logical thing to do. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I suppose we can be appreciative of the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard talking a call. But again I thought he might just treat us with it being 1 hour now until the end of Thursday—the end of a parliamentary week in Parliament—to the plan for the future. That seems to be a favourite slogan that the Prime Minister is rolling out after her visit to the Australian Prime Minister. The Minister did say there will be major legislation following the review. That is of the charter I take it? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no no the digital review. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It is the digital review. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: The secret agenda! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am not sure. I am not sure when he thinks that major legislation will come in because he is actually running out of time. So it might have been a great thing for him—as Labour is running out of time and as he might not get his so-called major legislation on to the floor of the House—to treat us to his views. I am not sure how long the Minister has been in this particular job. He will have some views obviously; he has been here a long time. 
My colleague Jonathan Coleman has been asking pretty continuously about the continued roll-out of digital and about the switch-off of analog. He has asked many times over the last year. This Minister might not necessarily know because he has only just taken over the job recently but given that he is a longstanding experienced member of the House one would think he would be reasonably up to date and that he would be aware that we have been wanting detail on the continued roll-out of digital. We do not have it yet and it looks like we are never going to get it anyway because this Minister will run out of time. That is a great shame in a way because he has been in the job now for the odd few months and we still really do not know what his view of the future is. 
I come back now to the bill before us and clauses 1 2 and 3—particularly the title clause. When Jonathan Coleman was on his feet the Minister kept saying that this is not about broadcasting. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister was saying something along those lines. It is about content and it is about funding content so in that sense it is narrow. But this is the broadcasting environment and it is obviously an area that New Zealanders who fund the whole industry in terms of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and whose money has been poured into that organisation by the millions over the last 9 years have a very direct interest in what the Minister plans in terms of digital television. Frankly millions have already gone in have they not? 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: $104 million. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: $104 million has gone in. When we look at the title of the bill—the Broadcasting Amendment Bill—those issues cannot help but come to the forefront of the mind of the Opposition whose job it is to speak for the public about expenditure and to watch the Government in the way it spends public moneys. 
In terms of TVNZ over the 9 years sometimes as I said earlier that has appeared to be a black hole into which money has been thrown and the Labour Government does not appear to have been terribly worried about what the New Zealand public has got back for it. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is not Labour’s money but Labour is in Government with a mandate to spend money responsibly. That is it is not in Government to take money in the way it does in terms of taxes but if it is going to take those taxes then it has to make sure it is accountable for the expenditure of that money. I would say that a television broadcaster that thinks that  
Police Ten 7 
 and  
Location Location Location 
 satisfy the requirement of the Maori component in the charter has totally lost the plot. Indeed the Prime Minister Helen Clark actually said the broadcaster had lost the plot. I wonder whether this Minister the new Minister of Broadcasting has done any work with TVNZ to make sure it is getting the plot right. That is what National would have liked to hear and unfortunately we are never going to hear it. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I think my colleague Georgina te Heuheu just hit the nail on the head there because during the Minister’s speech he made a fatal slip. He said that major legislation is going to be following on from this digital review. Now that is quite incredible really because we have these discussion documents out there at the moment. The Minister and his officials are saying that it is all a blank canvas and they do not know what is going to happen. But it is quite clear that there really is a secret agenda in broadcasting and it is going to be heavy-handed regulation and the Minister I am afraid has let that one out of the bag. We are talking about the title of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill; it sounds like this Minister has a lot he is going to be amending about the broadcasting environment in the months to come. I agree with my colleague Mrs te Heuheu that we should ask why the Minister will not tell us what is really on his mind. Why waste the time of the public the broadcasters and the officials with all this sham consultation process which we see in a lot of areas this Government puts its sticky beak into when really it knows what it wants to do all along? 
Trevor Mallard knows what he wants to do because he has a big problem with FreeView. He has a massive problem with it. This has been the Government’s baby. The Government has put $104 million of taxpayers money into FreeView but it does not know how it will succeed. It is a real issue. The FreeView consortium has a set of television channels but the figures will plateau because the basic problem is that there is not a lot that people will want to watch on it. So the Minister can either get something on those channels that people want to watch or he can turn off the normal analog television signal. That will be politically difficult for Mr Mallard because he does not have a plan for telling people how he will switch off that last group of people who refuse to get into digital television or how he will convert those people to digital TV. 
If we look at the digital TV uptake across New Zealand at the moment about 800000 households still need to be switched over. By the Minister’s timetable he has until 2012 to set the date for analog switch-off. That poses a problem because if 800000 people do not have digital TV by 2012 there will be 800000 pretty upset people. Of course this could all be fiction as far as the Labour Government is concerned because the chances are that it will not have the responsibility of shepherding all that stuff through. 
Trevor Mallard has made an interesting statement and it would be great if he would take a call on this and explain what he means when he says major legislation will follow on from the digital review. The Minister has had lots of opportunities this afternoon to get up and say something substantial on broadcasting. People are waiting for him to do so. It is no good that he goes around the sector as he has done saying: “Well I’m very busy I know nothing about broadcasting. I am holding the baby here because Steve Maharey has retired.” That will not work. People want some substance and Minister Mallard has to lay out his plans. This digital review is already 4 months behind schedule and why is that? It is because the Minister wants to keep secret this agenda of regulation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I wanted to read and understand the material before it went out—that’s why. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Does the Minister understand it now? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think I do. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: OK. Well the Minister understands it and I think what the Minister understands is that he will launch— 
Jill Pettis 
: Why isn’t this man out saving lives? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Why is Mrs Pettis not giving up the waste of space she fills in Parliament and letting in someone to actually rejuvenate this absolutely exhausted Labour caucus? Why is Mrs Pettis not out doing something useful? There is no answer from Mrs Pettis because there is nothing useful she can do apart from making those ridiculous comments. 
There is a problem that Trevor Mallard has to face up to because we have a failed broadcasting policy that has been delivered by this Government that has brought Television New Zealand to its knees. There is no plan for how it will recover. The executives there are doing the best they possibly can. Labour has failed on broadcasting. 
Labour has a real problem. How will it make FreeView successful? Labour members do not know. They will not tell us. We know they want to legislate. Trevor Mallard is dying to legislate. Frankly if he had his way he would socialise absolutely everything. He has let the cat out of the bag today. He is smiling and playing the nice guy. He has a big problem now. He has told us there will be major legislation after this digital review. Why then is he wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on this review? Why will he waste the time of the hundreds of New Zealanders who will respond to this review when he already knows the answer? Why does he not just take a call now and say what he wants to do in the whole area of digital regulation? 
The answer is that it is because he knows that his secret agenda will be pretty unpalatable. It will make it even harder to bring this failed Government within any hope of re-election. As it is Labour members have pretty much lost all hope and are giving up on the whole exercise so they are wondering why they should bother being transparent with this regulatory agenda on broadcasting. 
Basically if the Minister does not bring in his regulatory agenda he has no other way of propping up FreeView. If he cannot get something worth watching on it or if he does not switch off the analog TV signal which will be pretty unpalatable for those 800000 households concerned his FreeView project will be in big trouble. Basically it will need some innovative thinking which I think is beyond this Minister. He has admitted he knows nothing about broadcasting and he is not really very interested. He is pretty busy on a lot of other projects and in fact he is doing his emails on his BlackBerry now. He is not even really interested in the issues at hand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hang on! If you can’t ride two horses get out of the circus. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Oh he is not doing his emails— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I am doing my emails and listening. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well he knows he is not meant to be doing his emails. He should have his mind on the job and the job is what will happen in broadcasting. Why does he not tell us about the secret agenda he referred to before when he said there would be regulation after the digital review? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I didn’t. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister did say that but he is now denying it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I didn’t. I said there would be legislation not regulation. It’s quite different. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Legislation regulation—what is the difference? [ 
Interruption 
] There will be legislation. With this Labour Government legislation means regulation. Labour members want to laugh it off but the public is on to them. The public is tired of this far-reaching nanny State regulation we get every time a diehard Labour supporter opens his or her mouth and people at home had better believe that this is what Labour will be doing in broadcasting. Trevor Mallard wants to bring in a heavy-handed regulatory regime because it is the only chance he has of turning FreeView round. 
Look at what Steve Maharey has done to TVNZ. He actually halved its value over the time he held the portfolio and I reckon that if he had had the portfolio for much longer he would have chomped through the other half of it. It will be very interesting to see what the financial results of Television New Zealand are—very interesting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Very good at the moment—very good. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister says the results will be very good. That is another slip that we have on the  
Hansard 
. We have a lot of material now. Every time the Minister opens his mouth he is digging a grave for himself in broadcasting. I think if the Government had time for a reshuffle before the next election Mr Mallard would be saying: “Can’t I swap this portfolio for the Rugby World Cup one?”. The answer is no—bad news he will not be able to. He has lost that portfolio. He will have to do his time in broadcasting. It has got pretty tough but he will have to see it through. 
To come back to the title the Broadcasting Amendment Bill will bring the funding arrangements into line with what is happening out there in terms of the technology. There have been wide-ranging technological changes to broadcasting. Broadcasting now occurs over a variety of media. It is not limited to just radio and television and the funding arrangements have to reflect that because New Zealanders are sourcing their content on the Internet they are watching things downloaded through their mobile phones. New Zealand on Air and Te Mangai Paho want to be able to reflect that in the way they fund broadcasting. This whole Parliament is supporting this bill but there are wider issues. The wider issues in broadcasting are regulation the future of Television New Zealand and the charter. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.