Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by a date that is 4 months and 1 day from the day that the bill receives its first reading.

This bill makes changes to modernise election broadcasting and funding rules in the Broadcasting Act in time for the 2017 general election. The bill removes the opening and closing addresses, so that parties can instead place this advertising in more flexible, engaging formats, using their allocation of funding under the Broadcasting Act. Instead of being limited to television and radio, parties will now also be able to use this allocated funding for advertising in online media. The changes in this bill build on a unanimous recommendation for a form of election opening and closing addresses made by the Justice and Electoral Committee in its inquiry into the 2014 general election. Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand (RNZ) also support change in this area.

The addresses are an outdated format and create an unlevel playing field amongst competing media companies. TVNZ and RNZ are currently required to provide free time for the addresses to be broadcast in prime time as blocks at the start and end of the election period. However, fewer and fewer people are tuning into the addresses, with TVNZ recording a 25 percent drop in average audience during the 2014 election opening addresses. Declining audience numbers, even in a prime-time slot, highlights that these addresses are losing relevance and are not as effective at engaging voters as they once were.

These addresses are usually much longer than the short-form ads that parties choose to place with their allocated funding. This means the costs of production are much higher. Where parties use their allocation on the production costs of the addresses, this is money that cannot then be used for more effective types of voter engagement. In light of declining voter participation, it is particularly important that political parties are enabled to communicate and engage voters effectively and efficiently.

The Government has agreed to a $750,000 increase in the budget for parties’ allocations under the Broadcasting Act to offset the broadcasting time lost with the removal of the addresses. This brings the total budget provided to $3.605 million. This is the first increase in the allocation since 2005, and the increase also recognises the loss in purchasing power since that time. By removing the cost to parties and broadcasters of having opening and closing addresses, enabling equivalent time to be placed as parties choose, and allowing the use of the allocated funding in online media, we will be creating a more relevant way of connecting with voters and ensuring a better use of resources for communicating with the public during elections.

Voters are increasingly choosing to get their information through the internet rather than through the traditional broadcast media of television and radio. However, until now parties were prevented from using their allocated broadcasting funding in any online media. This bill will give parties that flexibility so that parties have the freedom to choose the type of advertising that they see as best suited to engage voters and to effectively communicate their messages.

The bill does not make changes to existing election campaigning rules and safeguards, such as total expenditure limits. Parties will continue to be able to spend their own money on online advertising, while television and radio advertising remains limited to the funding allocated by the Electoral Commission, using the existing statutory rules. Although not changing the meaning of the law, the opportunity has also been taken in this bill to modernise the language of Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act, on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, to make it more accessible.

The select committee process is very important, and I encourage members of the public and other interested parties to have their say when the Justice and Electoral Committee calls for submissions. The committee is also currently considering the Electoral Amendment Bill, which is related to this bill in that both deal with related electoral issues and recommendations from the committee’s earlier inquiry.

The Business Committee has agreed that these two bills be treated as cognate bills from the second reading onward. Given that both bills respond to the select committee’s recommendations, I am hopeful that they can be progressed quickly alongside each other, so that changes can be in place and communicated to voters and parties well in advance of the 2017 general election. Having clarity and certainty as to the rules and how they apply will be beneficial for all parties in planning their campaigns. I commend the bill to the House.

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.

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.

There is a general agreement across the House, I believe, that the current regime for allocating time for opening and closing election broadcasts for registered political parties is out of date, antiquated, not necessarily riveting TV—depending on who you are supporting—and certainly in need of reform.

What this Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill intends to do—and I do note the comments of Jacinda Ardern, the previous speaker who has just resumed her seat. Yes, we will test that the effect of this bill is to merely remove the requirement under Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act for opening and closing addresses of parties during the election period, and does only that, with no other unintended consequences or provisions—we certainly will do that in the select committee—and also the requirement for Television New Zealand, willingly or not, and Radio New Zealand to provide time for them.

So instead of that regime, the provisions of this bill provide that the allocation of time is monetised, with a corresponding increase in the appropriation of funds to be allocated to political parties for advertising. What this gives effect to is it allows political parties more flexibility and the ability to spend their allocations on advertisements that are of value to them in reaching out to the general public. Across the House and the wider community there is concern with declining voter participation, so it is therefore important that resources and funding and the legislation allow for effective and efficient and more timely communication with voters. Thank you.

I am wondering whether there is a bit of a split in the Government over this bill, because it appears to me that Chris Bishop is very wedded to the party political broadcasts being shown on our State broadcaster. In fact, if he would rather watch that than an All Blacks test, then I guess you have got to ask yourself a question of how in touch he is. Perhaps that is a signal that Ginny Andersen is going to win in Hutt South.

On a more serious note, this is a fairly straightforward bill—it is a fairly straightforward amendment to the Broadcasting Act 1989. Labour is supporting it to the select committee, and I want to acknowledge the work that has clearly been done through the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2014 general election, and the clear need to modernise communications to the public around election time. It appears that there is a degree of unanimity around that.

I do, however, want to introduce a note of caution in that this appears to have been a rather curious process. Although I am acknowledging the process through the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry, there has been another process happening at the same time, along with this election inquiry. These same measures—and others—have also been canvassed in a parallel process conducted by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage under the auspices of the Minister of Broadcasting, who happens to be the same person who is the Minister of Justice. Under her auspices, this particular piece of legislation has emerged.

Why that is curious is that process seems to have been a bit left off to one side in this piece of legislation. That process has actually got a name. It was a discussion document that was called Content Regulation in a Converged World, and it did a lot more than look at party political broadcasts during the election campaign. It focused on the effects of convergence in the media sector on the regulation of content in New Zealand, looking particularly at the requirements and restrictions relating to the classification of content, broadcasting of election programmes, and advertising times, and it also considered the Government’s interventions to support the production of broadcast content, all of which is pretty important. It was intended to be a health check on the existing frameworks to ensure that they reflected the current media landscape and remained fit for purpose. It sort of reflected, to some degree, what the Minister just said in her speech around modernisation, but this parallel process does not appear to have made it into the backgrounding that has formed this bill.

This review was put out to the public last year and there were a number of submissions. The submissions—as you would expect, given it was a convergence review in the broadcasting environment—mainly came from the broadcasting sector. They included submissions from Radio New Zealand, and I am going to read you out a little bit about what Radio New Zealand had to say because it is directly impacted on by this and, presumably, will submit again in the select committee process. Radio New Zealand took the issue and looked at it a lot more broadly than the narrow scope that is being provided for in this bill, and I think it is worth just noting that Radio New Zealand said that “The law must be clarified to ensure advertising and editorial material are clearly and consistently distinguished from each other.” That includes political satire, which “should not be constrained in any way by rules that apply to advertising.” It makes the point—and I think it is a valid point—that Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand “once dominated the channels of distribution to media consumers but are now two of many participants competing for consumers’ attention both on-air and online.” It also made the point that “It is anomalous that RNZ is obligated to carry opening and closing addresses.”

Its submission also talks about a principle that was mentioned by a number of submitters on this review. This is that a principle should be adopted so that “it is political parties that need to be regulated and not broadcasters.”, and that “It is ironic that during general elections, the period of time in which the free flow of information and ideas is surely paramount, freedom of political speech in editorial coverage is restrained by the Electoral Commission.” Those issues are pertinent and important, but this bill has a very narrow scope, and this review that has just been undertaken is raising bigger issues, wider issues, that should be being canvassed—perhaps through legislation, perhaps through another process—and this bill, unfortunately, does not go there. It looks as though it is going to be pushed through quite quickly and we are not going to get the opportunity to have the conversation that perhaps we need to have.

I am also going to just quickly reference the submission by the Coalition for Better Broadcasting, which mentioned another issue that, again, is not being canvassed. This is that “it is apparent from cases such as the appearance of the prime minister talking with celebrities on an ostensibly non-election programme on Radio Live (the complaints about which were rejected by the BSA but upheld by the Electoral Commission), that there is a need to extend the definition of what constitutes an election-related programme.” This is an important issue as well, and my concern is that this parallel process, which is raising important issues, does not appear to be being considered by the very same Minister who has introduced this legislation, even though she is the one that initiated this review.

Finally, I want to talk about the context of that review, because that review looked at a whole lot of other things. In 2 years this is all that has emerged—this very narrow-scope piece of legislation—while there are huge seismic shifts happening in our media sector at the moment with two major media mergers being considered. The future of Radio New Zealand is under a cloud because its funding has been frozen for 8 years and it is having to sell its Auckland building in order to be able to keep operating. Television New Zealand is spending $60 million on refurbishing its building. There are a lot of things really out of kilter here. The future of media is really up in the air, to a large degree, in New Zealand, and here we have got a very narrow-scope piece of legislation that looks as if it is the only one that will emerge in 3 years of this Minister of Broadcasting, even though she is doing this as the Minister of Justice. This is it.

Apparently we are going to get a digital convergence bill that will address two other matters, which are the classification of content online and on television to try to harmonise that and to look at the issue of advertising on television on Sundays. Both of those things are important, but they are hardly earth-shattering, are they? The point I am making is that there is a much wider context and there are much broader issues, some of which have been touched on by submitters in this parallel process that has been undertaken, which this Minister clearly is not interested in touching. We will support this bill to select committee. I am looking forward to there being a robust discussion as a result of some of these submissions. Hopefully, submitters will raise these issues when they come before the select committee.

The Green Party supports this legislation. It has been a long time coming that the time be, essentially, cashed up and made available to political parties to spend more wisely, especially in the new digital age. This legislation seems to be just a natural kind of progression and change in the law to meet the new challenges and the new opportunities of the 21st century.

I will not go on too long, but I would just say, in response to some of the comments made about TVNZ and its submission, that TVNZ has been wanting for a long time to get rid of the broadcasts of opening and closing addresses. It has been arguing for some elections now that it should not have to provide this service as part of its civic responsibility. I disagree. I think that the arguments have always been poor and that, in fact, as a public broadcaster, it does have a responsibility to assist with this right of citizens to access good quality information, free from interference, about the electoral system and the system of governance that they have. TVNZ might prefer to reduce access to that information. There is a part of me, actually, that is reluctant about this bill because I want to force it to have to engage with its civic responsibility as a public broadcaster. I do not really want to let it off the hook.

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s not a public broadcaster.

It is TVNZ. It is publicly funded. It has a responsibility, and I think—

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s not a public broadcaster.

Look, you can have your opinion and your say in time, sir.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I might, I remind the member.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. There is a part of me that is a little reluctant to let TVNZ off the hook, but, none the less, it may well be hoisted by its own petard, given that the whole point of this shift is to allow parties to move away from TV to some of the more accessible and modern digital communication channels that we have available to us.

I do note, and am pleased about, the increase in funding. There is no doubt that the bulk of it will go to Labour and National because of the way the rules allocate that funding. We have long argued that the allocation system is unfair because of that, and there are ongoing issues with it that will have to be addressed at some point. It will not be addressed through this legislation, but there is an unfair allocation process.

We also accept that in making this change, those of us who are in medium-sized parties and smaller parties certainly will not get the bulk of the benefit of this change. But, none the less, it is necessary and needs to happen, and so we support the legislation. Thank you.

The broadcasting time spent on opening and closing addresses by political parties at election time is substantially wasted these days because those advertisements are not really watched by very many people. Whether there is an All Blacks test on at the same time or not, people just do not watch them any more.

So the bill enables parties instead to use public money to communicate with voters through other means—in particular, through the digital media, as well as other broadcasting means. It does that by removing the requirements for the broadcasting by Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand of opening and closing addresses, so that parties would instead then be able to use an equivalent allocation of funding for internet advertising in addition to television and radio advertising, as is currently permitted.

There is nothing wrong with that; that is fine as far as it goes. But there is a problem. The bill provides for the appropriation of public money to fund those election programmes and advertisements, and the Electoral Commission, as we know, is responsible for deciding how the money is to be allocated to parties.

The bill generally re-enacts those existing provisions relating to allocations to the parties, and the Electoral Commission must allocate to eligible parties in accordance with these statutory criteria, and they are these: (a) the number of persons who voted at the preceding general election for a party and its candidates; (b) the number of persons who voted at any by-election held since the preceding general election; (c) the number of members of Parliament a political party had immediately before the end of the last Parliament; (d) any relationships that exist between one political party and another; (e) any other indications of public support for a party, such as the results of opinion polls and the number of members of the party; and (f) the need to provide a fair opportunity for each registered political party to convey its policies to the public through broadcasting. So those are the criteria.

Because of that, New Zealand First is going to have to oppose this bill unless the Government undertakes that it will also legislate to change those criteria. This is because we think they are unfair, we think they are archaic, and not a good fit for MMP elections, we think they are uncertain and complex, and, most of all, we believe they give a massive advantage to the big parties. So the medium-sized parties like the Greens and like ourselves, we see as being disadvantaged.

I would like to just read out the amounts of money that are actually involved in those allocations for opening and closing addresses. In 2014, National was allocated $1,053,622, Labour $919,829, Greens $401,380, and New Zealand First got only $200,690. Even the tiny Māori Party got $100,345, while the one-member ACT Party still got an incredible $76,930. There is no clear proportionality involved in those figures, and goodness only knows how those specific amounts were actually calculated.

New Zealand First has written to the Minister saying that our support for this bill would not be given unless those criteria were reviewed, but we have not had a response. So that leaves us in no other position than to vote against this bill, because we see that this legislation is only doing half the job, and the job will not be fully done unless and until those criteria are altered.

This is not the first time this has been raised. I remember it being discussed at the previous election, not just by us but by other submitters, as well. So there is also a significant degree of support both among political parties and the public for changes to those criteria.

The particular provisions that we would seek to be changed are these: first of all, replaced Part 6, section 78(2)(b) must be deleted, because by-elections are poor indicators of nationwide support for a party. By-elections are fought on an array of different circumstances. That—

💬 Chris Bishop: If you say so.

I can show that to be the case, because on the one hand National got a hiding in Northland when Winston Peters stood there, but I think that could be in contrast to other by-elections, like one that is about to be held in the relatively near future. So you can see that the circumstances in which by-elections are held are widely different from each other, and nothing much can really be drawn from them except the particular issues around that by-election. They are not a good means by which the support for a political party should be determined for the purposes of the allocation of public money for advertising.

Section 78(2)(d) should also be deleted, because relationships between parties—such as between Labour and the Greens—are actually completely irrelevant. I fail to see how a relationship between one party and another one could have any relevance whatsoever on the allocation of funds for advertising at a general election.

Section 78(2)(e), we feel, must be amended by deleting the reference to the words “any other indications of public support for that party, such as the results of public opinion polls”, because opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate—notoriously inaccurate. Time will not allow me to do it, but I could go through the last two or three elections to show how grossly inaccurate those opinion polls were as far as New Zealand First was concerned. In fact, when I was first elected to this House in 2011, the opinion polls said that New Zealand First had 3 percent. In fact, we ended up with almost 8 percent—more than double what the opinion polls said. That is just one of several good examples of that.

There are good reasons why some parties poll differently from others. New Zealand First, for example, tends to get its support more from the older cohorts of the electorate, and opinion polls do not reflect that. The way that they carry out polls means that that shows that our support is not properly measured, and there are other reasons that I could give as well. So although National could reasonably expect a considerable financial advantage from this proposal if those criteria are not changed, there would be a corresponding disadvantage for parties the size of New Zealand First and, I think, the Greens as well.

So I think the enthusiasm from National for this half-baked approach, where only some of the changes required are being made, actually shows that National sees where its particular advantage is and is not willing to fairly look at this as far as all parties in this Parliament are concerned. That is why New Zealand First will not support this bill, unless those criteria are also reviewed so that we would then get an opportunity to discuss that and to propose changes to them. Unless that is done, this particular bill is going to result in an even more unfair allocation of public money for broadcasting for political parties at the next election than we had even at the last election, and that was bad enough. As I say, this is a half-baked bill. It is one that is OK as far as it goes, but the point is it is doing only half the job, and if it does that, it is going to make the situation worse and not better.

So that leaves New Zealand First, as I have said, in the position that we have no choice but to oppose this bill, but we will certainly be taking a lot of notice of this at the select committee stage, in particular. New Zealand First will be putting forward at the Committee of the whole House stage a number of Supplementary Order Papers aimed at rectifying the situation, so that National cannot do what it intends to do just to get another advantage for itself and disadvantage for the smaller parties in the Parliament.

I just want to stand and refute those last comments that were made by the member from New Zealand First, Denis O’Rourke. This bill, as it came through the Justice and Electoral Committee—in terms of the review of the last general election, it was absolutely all of us looking around and taking a cold, hard look at the technology that is available today and looking at the fact that these opening broadcasts were outdated and outmoded.

TVNZ records that it had a 25 percent drop in its average audience numbers during the 2014 opening addresses. We have all tried to say that that is because of the changing nature of people watching television, but it may have something to do with our own content—but none of us would want to admit that. I know that my colleague Chris Bishop was an avid watcher, so he clearly was not in that 25 percent.

If we are going to remain relevant to our voting public, if we are going to ensure that—if we are actually spending taxpayers’ money on political party broadcasts at all, then we might as well be spending it in the most effective way. If money is going to be spent on a television programme that nobody is watching, we might as well do away with it altogether.

This bill is about us trying to keep up with the trends of modern society. It is about wanting to ensure that we have people engaging with the democratic process. There is no agenda here from anyone trying to get any kind of unfair advantage. It is merely that we will do a better job for the people of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

I think the contents of the bill have been well canvassed, but I just want to ask the select committee that is going to review this bill a couple of questions for clarification. The first question that I have is with regard to the amendments that will be made to the Broadcasting Act 1989—particularly, Part 6 around election programmes as it relates to the candidate election programming, as opposed to the party electorate programme.

The question I want to ask is, in determining what actually will happen with regard to the fees versus any additional costs or the costs that might be charged to that candidate—because from the Bills Digest it was not clear, from my reading of it, how that would be structured and how that might be structured. So I would be asking the select committee to spend some time to perhaps look at that particular issue and make some determinations about defining how costs versus fees might be allocated.

The other thing that I would like the select committee to perhaps spend some time on, and I hope it is within the scope that the committee will look at—and I could not find a summary of changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee review produced in the Electoral Amendment Bill—is around what will happen with social media and online content with regard to advertising. I just would like the select committee to look at advertising, look at timing, and look at all of those issues that we struggle with at the time of elections, given that there are some anomalies with how we use social media with regard to the election period.

On that note, I will commend the bill to the House.

on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: I move, That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be reported to the House on or before 4 March 2017.

Motion agreed to.

I seek leave to correct our vote on that previous vote. The correct vote should have been 28 votes, not 31.

Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It will be so corrected. I will re-declare that. Therefore, the vote result is Ayes 104, Noes 12.