Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill

Thank you very much—my apologies for being a little bit previous there. So, Minister, thank you very much for joining us today. I’ve just got a few questions I’d like to run through, and given what we saw in the previous committee of the whole House, if there is a need to consult with officials, we’ll take a few orders for long blacks and flat whites and pause for a bit. So new section 149B, particularly subsections (4) and (5), outlines the levy being proposed and that it may be a uniform or a differential basis. So I’m interested around how the fee will be devised, what an anticipated flat fee is likely to be, and what you have received from video on-demand providers about preparedness, shall we say—we know legally they’re going to have to, but preparedness to pay the levy—and are they particularly more supportive of a uniform or differential levy basis?

One moment, caller.

💬 Brett Hudson: That’s all right. Hands up for flat whites?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Does the member have any further contribution, or—

💬 Brett Hudson: I do, but that just adds to the congestion of questions.

I thank the member—sorry. Thank you very much. I thank the member for his patience. So what has happened is around the annual fee, there’s been a recommendation that the annual fee is based on a measure of the provider’s market presence in New Zealand, which would be based off the provider’s number of subscribers and active users. The Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) also recommended that this information be compelled from providers and to amend the bill via Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to require this—and that SOP’s on the Table. The CRIS reflects initial analysis following consultation on options to ensure that the proposed commercial video on-demand activities are appropriately funded. However, the thinking has moved on from that analysis that was originally set out. Officials will be doing further work as part of amending regulations to ensure that the new labelling regime is appropriately funded. This will be in close consultation with providers and with the Classification Office. Amending the bill to allow for the setting of a levy will allow officials to explore all appropriate funding options to help futureproof the new labelling regime.

The SOP allows for officials to consider a menu of options, not a specific option in itself, because I think what—well, if I was to paraphrase all of that, what I would say is that the officials have been working incredibly closely with the sector here. We don’t want this to be a barrier, at the same time as we protect children and give parents tools to be able to make sure they know what their children are watching.

So I think, following on from that, really—and particularly new section 149D, inserted by clause 19 in Supplementary Order Paper 554—is the risk. I do take the Minister’s point about trying to find a balance, that the requirements may compromise the availability of overseas content, particularly on multinational platforms—not just the Netflixes, but that’s the most commonly referred to, at least, platform in this country at the moment. I mean, we did see when Netflix first arrived that for commercial licensing reasons in that case, there was quite a curated collection in New Zealand. We wouldn’t want to see a regime that either took us back to that tightly curated environment or which just led to more titles and matters of interest—perfectly reasonable to view—that weren’t made available, to New Zealanders’ concern, which indeed would then lead to them seeking to use technological workarounds to get around the measures that would otherwise prevent them viewing it.

I thank the member for his question. I think, from memory, there were around three of the submitters that did actually raise this in their submissions—that it might lead to them restricting some of the content that they might bring to New Zealand if the regime was too onerous. What I think has been, you know, admirable work by the officials and by the chief censor in the Classification Office is that there’s been real collegiality across the providers of video on demand and the officials and the Classification Office to come up with a structure that we all agree will be better to protect our children but, at the same time, not so burdensome that it will stop them bringing content to New Zealand.

So all I can say is that it was raised as a concern. At this stage, those who are the providers of video on demand are working so constructively with officials around this to make sure that there is a system whereby either the Classification Office can make sure they have the appropriate classification or there is an approved self-classification system that would be faster and less onerous and less costly for those providers. We’re not predicting that that will therefore mean that there will be content unavailable to New Zealanders.

So a question on information transparency, particularly in clause 14 of Supplementary Order Paper 554, amending new section 77(ac): the chief censor to monitor the operation and the results of the use of those approved self-rating systems. Is it intended, or is it stated, that that information will be proactively released publicly for purposes of transparency, and, if not, what would be the reason?

Just to address the member’s question—and the officials are just going away now to double-check on that, because, actually, it’s not an issue that’s been raised previously. Can I ask the member to clarify: does he mean that he wants transparency for the sector, or is he asking for transparency across New Zealand—

💬 Brett Hudson: To the public.

To the New Zealand public?

💬 Brett Hudson: Which would include the sector.

Right. Obviously, yeah. OK. One moment, please.

Thank you. My understanding is that a database is required and it is required to be in the public domain, so, therefore, the public as well as the sector, obviously, will be aware of all of the issues.

Just a small point of clarification on that: will it be available if requested, such as under the Official Information Act, or will it be available for the public to be able to search on or look at?

Publicly available—be able to be searched.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 554 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading