Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on this bill. I hope you’ll allow me, Madam Chair, to take the committee through my amendments to this part, clause 2, because the House Office are in the process of processing my amendments to this and haven’t yet been able to put them on the Table.

The reason for a number of amendments, particularly to the time of Royal assent, is that this is a bill that is important to the Government’s programme for the broadcasting industry. It is one that relates quite closely to funding for certain programmes and certain actors within it, so the timing is important—we believe this should happen before Christmas. But it is actually a bill that amends a number of specific dates, and I will have more questions for the Minister in the chair on the specific dates—particularly Christmas Day and Easter dates. This is a very different debate to what was the context of those amendments in 1993 to the Broadcasting Act. Those amendments were giving effect to those special dates of Christmas and Easter because they were seen as days where advertising was inappropriate, so I’ll be asking him whether there are other safeguards that are appropriate for the sorts of advertising that is shown on those dates.

But if you’ll allow me to take the committee through what I am proposing here for the date of Royal assent, I don’t think the day after Royal assent is the most appropriate date. I think it would be appropriate to choose one of the important days also in the range of Christian holidays to assent to this bill and for it to commence, given that, in the context of the 1993 changes, there was special consideration given for those days. Choosing from a range of 25 amendments I have proposed around the days between now and Christmas that would appropriately recognise those traditions that were being recognised in the changes in 1993 and 2002, I think, would be the most appropriate.

I’m going to very quickly sign these amendments for the Minister so that he can have a look at them to consider whether it would be appropriate for this bill to come into effect on one of those days. For instance, just to give him a taste, I have “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal assent’ and replace it with ‘on Gaudete Sunday 2025.’ ” Or, if it is his preference, “in clause 2, delete the words ‘after Royal Assent’ and replace it with ‘on All Saints’ Day 2025’.” Those would both be appropriate days and would recognise the tradition that we are wiping away with this amendment.

Labour does support this bill and will be voting for this part, but it’s important that we recognise the tradition that is being wiped away here. It is useful for everyone in this Chamber to appreciate why those days were singled out for advertising restrictions. Given that this bill is called a repeal of advertising restrictions bill—but it does, in fact, take away only the advertising restrictions that were on those Christian holidays and Anzac Day and does not repeal any other advertising restrictions that are still in law—it’s quite useful for us to understand not only what we are doing here but the historical context that we are, effectively, erasing here by taking away those two particular dates.

That is why I have made some other suggestions like: “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal assent’ and replace it with ‘on the Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle 2025.’ ” I would suggest to the Minister that he could also consider: “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal assent’ and replace it with ‘on the Feast of St John of the Cross 2025.’ ” It would also be useful for the Minister to consider my amendment: “in clause 2, delete the words ‘on the day after Royal Assent’ and replace it with ‘on the Feast of St Lucy 2025’.” I’ve also suggested “the Feast Day of St Nicholas 2025.” The Minister might like to enlighten the House about which of those are his favoured saints.

I have also made some amendments suggesting various Sundays in Advent. Though this is not my area of expertise—I was raised both Anglican and in Te Hahi Ringatū, which does not have special celebrations of many of these feast days—I also did celebrate, in my youth, the Mondays and Sundays of Advent, so I have suggested each of the Mondays and Sundays of Advent. The Minister might like to clarify for the committee which of the Sundays in Advent is his favourite.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I commend the member Arena Williams for her thoroughness. It’s clear, however, that—from the Government point of view, and as members Opposite have actually pointed out—this is a well-signalled move. It’s important to bring it in as soon as reasonably possible. We’re not talking about doing this on Christmas Eve or on Maundy Thursday or on 24 April; there is sufficient time for arrangements to be made such that advertising will be restricted in the way that the bill sets out.

I note that there are other dates of significance in the Christian calendar, but also of various other cultural and ethnic significance to New Zealanders throughout the year. But to the extent that those already allow advertising, there is no need for the restrictions on those to be repealed by this bill. So I commend her breadth of knowledge, but I don’t think it’s particularly helpful. Certainly, the Government won’t be entertaining any changes to that which was put forward, namely, to bring into the bill as soon as reasonably possible—namely, the day after Royal assent.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a further call on this bill and particularly to take a call at this point where we’re talking about clause 2 and about the date of Royal assent as the potential time frame for the bill to come into effect. We know what the impacts of that will be. I would like to thank my colleague, St Arena, for taking us through a number of potential religious holidays that could be observed—or through the action of a bill such as this, no longer observed—by the removal of the restrictions or the repeal of the part of the Broadcasting Act.

The answer I would like to hear from the Minister is around the potential timing of the assent of the bill. Given the slow speed with which the bill has moved through the House so far, and given the religious holidays and public holidays that are observed by the existing Broadcasting Act in the section proposed to be repealed, those public holidays—and there are a number not observed in the Act, many of which were detailed by my fellow MP here, but the ones that are covered in the Act—cluster; they all seem to happen within a single quarter of the year.

For a Government that’s very focused on specific quarters and targets, for example, we see that we would have Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Monday all fall, more or less, into a single quarter of the end of 2025 and the commencement of 2026.

So if the assent was to miss the ability to be implemented prior to that quarter, in the next 12 months from now, then the net benefit of the projected, very optimistic, $6 million that this change claims to return to the industry would in fact be significantly eroded because four of the five potential public holidays would be missed altogether.

So the question really is around whether the Minister has given that any consideration, whether the Minister has a sense of what the specific revenue value of each of those days is, whether there’s much of a variance there, and the impact that Royal assent would have on that so that the bold claim of a $6 million return in new revenue to the industry can actually be calculated far more accurately, based on what we can anticipate seeing being returned through new ad spend on broadcast radio and linear television broadcasts, on the basis of Royal assent falling at a specific point over the next 12 months, which is certainly when I think everybody would like to see this bill coming into effect.

So it’s really a question around the potential for the Minister to be able to move the balance of this bill in its final stages through the House so that the revenue can be returned to the industry that, as I outlined in my initial speech, desperately needs income now to support the people who keep it working. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll make a very brief contribution on this clause. I think, perhaps, while various members might be invoking saints and speaking about religious days, it’s really important that, perhaps, we should have commenced our procedures this afternoon with a prayer to Saint Claire of Assisi, the patron saint of television broadcasting.

I’d just like to highlight a point from our broadcasters who this bill will affect—is that as soon as possible for this bill to be put through the House, giving them time so that, if possible, they are able to get advertising booked in time for this Christmas? That is what they are hoping for. So I just wanted to pass that on for the Minister in the chair. Something they wish is that there is not a long and protracted period of time in the House today and for the third reading—that we just get this bill done.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to listen to the different arguments coming from the committee. It is always a part of the committee stage to thrash it out and try to understand and make it better if it needs to be made better, or if it’s a lemon, it will always be a lemon.

The Minister talked about Maundy Thursday, which is a significant day. I think that we need to consider the facts of that day and where it fits—in terms of the Royal assent—and what it could be. For those who don’t know, it is the Thursday that leads into Easter. It has several names. Maundy Thursday can also be Holy Thursday. It is something that we respect and we consider. Would that be a significant date? As we know, in the Christian calendar—if we look at when the Act comes into force—at Easter time, it is a significant time of the rebirth and of new things coming. Maybe that’s something to consider.

The Minister did talk about Maundy Thursday. It could also be known as Holy Thursday or also known as the Thursday of Mysteries. I thought that may be quite relevant to consider, in this Part 2 of the commencement, that, maybe, the Act would have Royal assent on the Day of Mystery.

For those who do attend church occasionally during Easter or for those who don’t, let me explain: on Maundy Thursday or the Thursday of Mysteries, on that evening, is an event called the service of the shadows, when the church candles are slowly extinguished and it turns into darkness. I thought it would be quite appropriate for this bill, that, maybe, the day of Royal assent is Maundy Thursday. As the lights fade and the mystery and the darkness comes, it’s the darkness of the future of the broadcasting industry and what it looks like.

I ask the Minister to consider the fact that maybe Maundy Thursday would be the day of Royal assent because it is mysterious and the darkness of the future of broadcasting is upon us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the risk of encouraging the member Glen Bennett along the Easter theme, I do rise again—to simply point out that today is the day of mystery, because I don’t understand what the member’s talking about. He’s contradicting his own colleague around the fact that his colleague is talking about bringing in this as soon as possible to ensure that we include the weight of Christmas in those first quarter occasions. Nevertheless, if we were to delay until some other date, as significant as it may be, then that would defeat the purpose. So, I think, for all these reasons, as I started by saying, the sooner that we can bring this into effect, acknowledging the point made by Jenny Marcroft—the day after Royal assent is literally the fastest that we can do that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the Monday prior to the first sitting of the House of Representatives in 2026”, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “Three weeks and one day after Royal Assent” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On a date appointed by the Minister for Media and Communications”, is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the day after publication in the Gazette”, is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “Three months following Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the first sitting day of the House of Representatives following Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On the first anniversary of the date on which it receives Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “90 days after Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “14 days prior to the next Christmas public holiday following Royal Assent”, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “on the day after Royal Assent” with “On New Year’s Day 2026”, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “On the day after Royal assent” with “on a date appointed by the Governor General by Order in Council”, be agreed to.

The question is that clause 2 stand part. All those in favour, please say “Aye”; to the contrary, “No”.

Celia Wade-Brown: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Ayes have it.

Clause 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to—

Celia Wade-Brown: Party vote, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ve already finished the vote; I’ve moved on. We now come to clause 3. Clause 3 is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Celia Wade-Brown: Point of order. I said “no” and then “party vote” immediately. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you call the vote. I would like to make a request to record our vote against that part, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You’re seeking leave for that?

Celia Wade-Brown: Yes, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Does there seems to be any objection? There does.

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’ll move on to clause 3. This is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.