Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move that—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask for quiet in the Chamber, please. A point of order is taken in silence.

STUART SMITH: I’d like to move that it be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Seeking leave for that purpose?

STUART SMITH: Seeking leave.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is declined. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to all members of this, the committee of the whole House. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. I’d like to thank everyone on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications particularly, and the Government more generally. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate and the discussion and the policy development so far, including the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, as they’re known, along with those who made submissions on the bill, including members of the fourth estate, of course.

As we know, the bill repeals section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. This is the provision that restricts advertising on broadcast TV on Sundays, Anzac Day mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and on both TV and radio on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

The laudable aim we start by recognising is, of course, to maintain a place for a diversity of less-commercial programming, and we understand that feels important. Nevertheless, in the modern era, of course, it’s important to recognise that there are many different ways and many different avenues—channels, so to speak—in which we consume media. There is a strong argument to be made for alignment across those different platforms and media types.

I’m pleased that the select committee recommended that the bill proceed with no amendments, and we, of course, will monitor the way this plays out across those particular days of interest to many New Zealanders and look forward to the discussion in the committee today.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As a matter of clarity, this is the debate on the title, so the question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to have the opportunity to step through this bill clause by clause, albeit a very small bill. It’s for a sector that faces some very large challenges.

I think in considering clause 1, and speaking to the title of the bill, it would be worth us getting a solid understanding in the committee of the environment our local media sector is operating in. This is relevant to both the advertising revenue available to our broadcasting, television, and radio sector, but also to the wider sector and the extreme challenges that they have faced over the last two years.

I want to start by acknowledging that on 28 February 2024, the Warner Bros. Discovery company proposed to close Newshub, one of only two linear television news broadcast services. On 7 March 2024, Television New Zealand (TVNZ) announced 68 job cuts, including some large flagship shows at our State broadcaster.

These two events were described by both our Prime Minister and the then Minister of Broadcasting as unsettling. They went on to say that neither had asked them for financial support, but they were keen to do what they could to support both of those companies—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt the member. Can he bring his questioning to the title?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Yes, absolutely.

Arena Williams: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Orders are quite clear on the title and commencement part of a committee stage that the debate is more wide-ranging. Given that there is no part under which to debate title and commencement, it seems appropriate to me that the title clause is the most wide-ranging of the debates. Now, if you’ll give us some guidance about another clause that you would prefer the more wide-ranging questions to the Minister about policy to be undertaken, I’m sure we can accommodate that. But I do invite you to allow at least one speech from our spokesperson on broadcasting around the wide-ranging issues that people following along at home will be interested in.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand. I just want to pull it back; they were getting quite historic. But I do understand your point. So, yes, but we are talking about the title.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Certainly. So to come back to the title, and to relate the points that I was covering around the depth and volume of the job cuts that we’ve seen across the media sector as a result of the challenges that our broadcast media sector in New Zealand is facing, I’ll move through those job losses a little faster.

We’re talking about large numbers of people. We’re talking about 68 people losing their job at TVNZ. We’re talking about more than 200 people losing their job at Newshub. We’re talking about ongoing job losses, again, at TVNZ; a further 50 jobs gone at the beginning of November in 2024. At the same time as those jobs are being lost—and it’s easy for us to talk about jobs and to forget that “jobs” is not just a word; “jobs” is people. Those are people who go home to their families no longer with an income or with a job in an industry that serves New Zealanders and serves democracy.

What this shows us is that this repeal, in and of itself, is a very, very small and limited bill that has a very, very minor impact on the broadcasting sector, on the broadcasting industry, on the ability for us to create new jobs or protect existing jobs in our broadcasting and media sector. So the title and the title clause feels like it doesn’t give adequate acknowledgment to the depth of the challenges and to the small scale of the financial return that a shift like this will bring for the sector.

The job losses—and I’m conscious of time—have continued across the sector. It’s important to note that the Minister who brought this bill forward and introduced it in December 2024—so we’re coming up to 12 months ago, and we are now only at the committee of the whole House stage—said that this would be part of immediate action for the sector. At the rate that it’s moving, and with the impact that it will have for the industry, it really is a very, very small ripple in the pond, as opposed to any kind of meaningful, immediate action that will provide the kind of support that the sector needs.

I did want to signal that at the top. Given the scale of the crisis faced by the sector and the challenges around drawing revenue for the sector, my question was: how much revenue does the Minister believe this will bring for the sector; and does the Minister think, given the very small revenue bought, that the title is an appropriate title for the bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The title’s an appropriate title for the bill because it describes what the bill does.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Following some of these questions on the suitability of the title, which is the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, I did want to flag the sort of broader policy intent of repealing advertising restrictions. I wonder if the Minister would put it in the Hansard and on the record: what percentage of the revenue that this bill will bring by repealing advertising restrictions, as per the title, will make up a percentage of the amount of total revenue?

The reason why I’m asking this is that if the title is being advertised to the public as “This will allow more advertising, which in and of itself will bring greater revenue.”, I’m interested to know therefore how much of this revenue will be in comparison to the total revenue that is being brought when it comes to advertisement—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. This is a clause by clause debate.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I hear that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): This is not by part. So the clause is the title and it’s quite narrow.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And as Arena Williams pointed out, this is also one of the areas where, according to the guidance that we’re given, we could ask broader questions. And if the title is going to be repealed—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, you’re not hearing me. This is a very narrow debate on a clause by clause debate. I refer the member to—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So does the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, I’m speaking. I’m referencing Speakers’ rulings 127/2. It is very different from a part by part debate. We are just confined to the title.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Fair enough. Does the Minister agree that this title adequately represents the amount of insignificant revenue that will be brought by repealing these advertising restrictions, and does the Minister believe that perhaps a different title, such as “(Insufficient Revenue Gathering)”, would be more appropriate as the name of the bill?

This relates to the earlier point I made in relationship to revenue gathering. I noted the comments from the Minister earlier in relation to—you know, this is a simple title that simply describes what the bill does. But for everyday people, it’s worthwhile noting that if you just read “(Repeal of Advertising Restrictions)”, you may be thinking that we had this, like, humongous level of advertising restrictions placed on our broadcasting sector, and the public may be led to believe that the amount of revenue, based on the title, may be really significant. So I did wonder whether the Minister thought about perhaps a different type of title being more adequate in describing what the bill actually does. Because the title, in my view, does not adequately describe what the bill actually does, which is gathering a very insignificant amount of revenue at a time when the broadcasting sector is really, really struggling.

Did the Minister seek any other options for titles for this bill? We talked a lot about using plain language in legislation to support members of the public engage with our legislative processes. So I did wonder whether he thought that a different use of language would have been more appropriate. Did he at any point seek advice on a different name for the bill, and, if not, why not?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The content of this very short bill is to repeal advertising restrictions. It’s appropriate, therefore, that its title is “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions”. Anything more or less than that would be remiss on the part of the Minister, and I’m pleased that he has gone for a very descriptive, straightforward title.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I understand you made it very clear at the start around the narrowness of the title. It does seem hard for us on the Opposition side to—I’ve only had one call, and only from our spokesperson; not from other members of the select committee; and also having only two from the Opposition side. I just really want you to consider that, in terms of there were at least four people I saw seeking a call. To shut it down so quickly didn’t seem fair on our side.

I’m sorry that you felt that way.

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I haven’t finished speaking yet. I did make it clear on purpose. Usually on a clause by clause, when you’re talking about title, there is latitude given for a summation because the title clause is usually debated at the end. So there is a consideration given to widening the scope. This is up at the front. So it narrows it considerably. Nobody spoke to an Amendment Paper. So I’ve made the call. There was very little room for manoeuvring. The Minister had made his point extremely clear that the narrow title reflected the bill, and there was clearly going to be no movement from that. So we are moving on now to—

Glen Bennett: Speaking to the point of order, I mean, the clarity I seek is you’re unsure of—there were two calls made. Yes, narrow. Yes, I understand it wasn’t clause by clause, but there were contributions that were sitting here waiting that we will never know what those questions were or what the contribution could have been into this specific debate. [Interruption] Point of order, Madam Chair. Just in terms of the order of the House, another point I’d like to make is making noise during the vote, I understand that is against the rules—the fact that the chief whip of the Government did that, I thought, was unhelpful. Taking points of order in silence is another part of that, which I’d ask you to consider, to make sure that they are heard in silence, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll take that point on board. Thank you.

Arena Williams: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We still have a range of questions to put to the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Failed Promise for Immediate Action” is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Advertising on Sundays and Public Holidays” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Melissa Lee Was Gone By Now”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “$6 Million Solution to a $100 Million Problem”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Get to Work Goldsmith”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Not-So-Immediate Action”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Merry Christmas”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Willie Jackson Solved This Problem Two Years Ago”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Repeal of Advertising Restrictions” with “Job Losses Aren’t Slowing Down”, is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.