Broadcasting Amendment Bill

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”?

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.

—with a full stop.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: The comma’s been lost.

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.

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.

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 Māngai Pāho. As such, the content that it funds, no matter which platform it comes through, must always be freely available to all New Zealanders.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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 Māngai Pāho, the Māori 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.

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 Mōtatau Māori 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!

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