Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a privilege to take a further call and, as we step into clause 3, to be able to fully examine the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 words that comprise that clause. That’s part of the issue with that clause. The entire repeal that we’re dealing with here has 73 new words. But also what it does is it repeals an Act from 1989, which is only 36 years ago—

Tom Rutherford: Doesn’t repeal it; it amends it.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —you’re welcome take a call, sir—before the member who corrected me was probably even born. But that just gives you an idea of how old the bill is and how much has changed since. So I think it’s worth looking at the fact that—

Tom Rutherford: Things that are old still have value. Look at Grant.

Grant McCallum: Hey!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It’s a rare occasion when one of the jibes from the other side is actually funny. It’s worth looking at some of the other tools that are in the toolbox here, because what we’re dealing with is an Act that is very old. I think, as we look at how we word the amendment, we really ought to look at some of those other ideas that are in the mix there and that are opportunities for the Minister to take the immediate action promised for the industry to actually help with some of the very real and very immediate challenges they face.

One of those is the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which is a great piece of legislation that was sitting there ready to go and was, for a time, worked on by the Minister and by a select committee, but, unfortunately, progress has slowed significantly or, potentially, entirely on the important work happening there, which means that we are relying on this Act—the Broadcasting Act 1989—which is the Act referred to in this third part.

The other ideas that are available for the Minister at any time—and he’s got my number; he’s welcome to call me and talk about how we can move these at pace into law for the protection and enhancement of local media—one of those is a member’s bill, which is a levy for streamers. So what that would actually do is ensure that our international streaming platforms, who provide some amazing content and draw a lot of eyeballs locally and gather a lot of revenue locally, are compelled to pay a small percentage of their profits of their income back into the New Zealand market so that that can be invested in local content—the kind of local content that would be governed by the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. So I think that would be a very simple step that the Minister could take. I’ve already drafted the bill for him. All he needs to do is have a chat and we can make that happen.

The other one which I have in the biscuit tin at the moment is the Online Safety Bill. That one’s a really good bill, because we know so many people are getting their media content from online platforms now. What this bill does is it makes sure that those online spaces are safe for everybody. We know we have a number of vulnerable communities and that, ultimately, we’re all vulnerable in those online spaces and platforms. That bill would make sure that those spaces are much safer for everybody.

Those are some of the tools sitting there in the toolbox or in the biscuit tin or at the end of the phone that, should the Minister want to at any stage take the immediate action he’s promised—that immediate action could be as simple as a cup of tea, and we could get those agreed to and in the House here. We could all continue to work as constructively together as we have today on moving the solutions forward, the sharing of ideas, and the sharing of amendments.

Now, the amendment that I wanted to share here is on clause 3, “Principal Act”, which says: “This Act amends the Broadcasting Act 1989.” The flaw here is that there is then a full stop, and I think that that should really go on to say “by” and then explain exactly what it is intending to do in that clause. I think there’s a real missed opportunity here, and perhaps the Minister was trying to really work within an under-100 word limit for the repeal, but he does have 17 spare words to play with. You could fit that in. Is there any reason the Minister has chosen not to do that at this point of the bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the chance to take a call on this. We’re talking about the principal Act, which amends the Broadcasting Act 1989. The form of that amendment, of course, is the repeal of section 81, which we will discuss at length in the next section.

For us to understand the consequence of the amendment, it’s important to understand the purpose for there being an amendment. The purpose of that amendment is, of course, to take away those restrictions that exist on advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Anzac morning.

Before the debate was, I think, somewhat hurriedly shut down on the title, I was going to suggest—because there has been some humour expressed around religious holidays, around the Minister for Building and Construction himself referring to “rising again”. A comment that was made in the first debate on this bill was: “Is there nothing sacred? Are there no days and no hours in our days when it is not appropriate for us to have no advertising?”

Grant McCallum: Your birthday?

STEVE ABEL: Thank you. I would be happy to not have advertising on my birthday, Mr McCallum.

We may make light of the significance of these religious days—those members who are not Christian, for example. But in the case of Good Friday and Easter Sunday, these are among the holiest days for people of the Christian faith. These are days when the absence of commercial intrusion is something that we should think it is appropriate to preserve.

Christmas Day: a day when many of us should be spending time with our families, not being sold more commercial rubbish that we’ve already spent most of the last three or four weeks acquiring, as we are imposed upon to do by our cultural expectations, and Anzac Day—Anzac Day—that day when we commemorate those people who died in some pretty bloody, miserable wars. This, specifically, would lift the restriction between 6.00 a.m. and midday on Anzac Day. The start of that is when many people would be at dawn ceremonies.

So my suggestion for the bill—and I realise we’ve passed that debate, but it gives some sense of the Green Party view on this bill—is that it should be called the “Broadcasting (Nothing is Sacred) Amendment Bill” or “Advertising Everywhere Amendment Bill”.

We propose that this principal Act that amends the Broadcasting Act 1989 should be deleted by way of making the determination that there should be no amendment to the Broadcasting Act 1989, because the bit that’s going to be amended is section 81, which is appropriate and fitting. It keeps in place a restriction on advertising on those very few remaining days in which we are not intruded upon by commercial enterprises trying to sell us stuff, most of which we don’t need. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just responding to the questions posed by the last two members, I’m sympathetic to the point that Mr Abel makes, in general terms, about whether we preserve something as sacred. I suppose, as legislators for all of New Zealand, we do need to consider if there are anomalies such that we’re recognising some days as being specially significant such that advertising is restricted and not others. You know, we’ve canvassed briefly the fact that there are days of significance that are beyond those recorded in this, and I’m pleased that the member rightly mentions Anzac Day has been one of the important days to many New Zealanders—I hope all New Zealanders, in fact.

But, of course, it’s the case that unless we were to regard as sacred, from the point of view of restricting advertising, every single day that is important to some New Zealander or other, we will simply not have any advertising at all. It might be that the member would be pleased to have that—I wouldn’t be displeased myself, speaking personally—but I think it’s not realistic to expect our media to operate under those restrictions, including in the context of the point that I made earlier, which is that there are other places that advertising is able to continue other than these traditional broadcast media, in which there aren’t restrictions. So it’s a matter of fairness and consistency across the board. I would certainly, you know, endorse Mr Abel’s comment that we have more useful ways of spending such special days than watching advertising, but my personal views on that don’t come into the matter in terms of a matter of public policy, for the reasons I’ve said.

As for Mr Reuben Davidson’s point, he’s outlined a number of policy proposals that he’s keen for the Minister to consider. I’m sure that the Minister of Broadcasting will give those the attention they deserve, but I don’t think, within the scope of this bill, it would be possible to adopt them, so I’m sure that he’s not proposing that it actually be the case.

In terms of whether there’s a missed opportunity in the brevity of clause 3, it’s always the case that the principal Act clause simply states that this Act amends the name of parent legislation, so to speak. So I don’t intend to entertain, on behalf of Government, or entertain at all really, any changes to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to take a call on clause 3. It’s helpful that the Minister has, in this debate, recognised, I guess, the principles at play here, and though Labour is supporting this, we have a number of questions around those days which are important to New Zealanders. They are also important to our history and traditions that are recognised in law, in a dwindling number of our laws, and this is one of them.

These are my questions about clause 3. Is it not important for the Minister to recognise that in this clause, we are calling the bill “Advertising Restrictions” and then we’re saying in clause 3 that what’s being amended is the Broadcasting Act, with no explanation there, and then in the next clause, it’s simply a repeal. Does it not look to your average reader or user of the legislation that what is being repealed here is advertising restrictions when, in fact, what is being repealed is the advertising restrictions on Sundays, Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas because those days are no longer days that this House considers to be important enough to have specific restrictions at those times?

There is something a little bit misleading about the simple word “amends” there—maybe it’s not misleading; maybe a faithful characterisation of that would be a very bald way of stating here what is a pretty charged-up debate, really, about the principles and values that are at play in a change like this. I’m not taking either side of that debate; I’m simply saying that this is a very different context to what it was in 1993, when many in this House would have demanded a conscience vote on this issue. I understand there is one party in this House taking a conscience issue for exactly this reason, and so it is useful for us to at least traverse in the committee stage what the values are and why we think they are no longer part of a lengthy and fraught debate in this House.

To clause 3, and I have a number of amendments that the Minister might consider. Though it is unusual for this clause to include an explanation about further changing the word “amends”—because, if the bill was to say something like it “removes” restrictions on advertising during Sundays, Anzac Day, and Christmas, instead of the word “amends”, that would be clear about what was being changed in the Broadcasting Act. When we think about the various restrictions about advertising in that Act, there are many; most are given effect to by secondary legislation or by codes. There are the Advertising Standards Authority codes, for example, which lay out a number of grounds about the kind of advertising and when it is restricted and to whom, and those are important considerations.

At the primary legislation level, there were, for a long time, prohibited grounds to advertise on a Sunday morning, when people would presumably be at church or observing their faith in their homes, and now there are none. So let’s just be clear what we’re saying here. Now there aren’t restrictions about whether you can, say, advertise alcohol; you can advertise gambling; you can advertise to children; or you can advertise debt products to vulnerable, and so only the normal restrictions at secondary legislation apply. We’ve gone from a situation where we thought that any advertising on a Sunday morning was not fine to a situation where all of that advertising on a Sunday morning is fine.

It would be very useful if we said that quite clearly in clause 3 with an amendment like “amend clause 3 by deleting the word ‘amends’ and replacing it with ‘dismantles longstanding limits on Christian holiday advertising in’ ” or “amend clause 3 by deleting the word ‘amends’ and replacing it with ‘opens the door to commercial breaks on sacred days in’ ”. Those amendments are not frivolous amendments; they are amendments which say clearly what this legislation is doing, and the Labour Party is supporting it.

We are supporting that because we have made a judgment call about what the values at play here are and what the principles are, but we are clear about that. It’s not fair to draft legislation which takes away the recognition of important days to a number of people and to what are, frankly, days that are semi-constitutional in nature that everyone understands and that are a framework of New Zealand’s legal system because they are well-understood phrases in our law—that they would be taken away with absolutely no mention in the primary amendment bill is what is in fact happening here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s not appropriate for that type of provision to go into the explanations the member is seeking. If she wants a statement on the general policy, there is a general policy statement. If she wants a note as to explanation, there’s an explanatory note.

I take her point about thrashing out the issues and the underlying philosophical points. I note that she and I could just about reach out and touch the Gallipoli wreath here, so in relation to Anzac Day, for example, New Zealanders have choices as to whether they sit down and watch linear broadcast television that morning, or they might, for example, attend Anzac Day services. It’s not the same thing as to say that there is no significance to these dates and, therefore, that’s the reason we’re removing it. It’s a matter of fairness, it’s a matter of consistency, and it’s a matter of updating our legislation for all the reasons that have been discussed today but also in the select committee.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

We are almost there—

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Point of order—Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

Reo Māori. Tēnā koe, e te Māngai o te Whare. He maha ngā tāima kua tū au ki te whai wāhi ki te kōrero. Kei te mōhio mātou katoa ko tētahi āhuatanga motuhake o te ao pāpāho o roto o Aotearoa nei ko te reo Māori me ngā tikanga Māori. Kāore anō tētahi o roto o te Whare nei e whai wāhi ki te tuku pātai ki te Minita e pā ana ki ngā whakaaro Māori. Nā reira, ko taku pātai atu ki a koe, kia whai wāhi awau ki te tuku pātai ki te Minita?

[I will speak Māori. Greetings, Madam Speaker. I’ve stood many times to speak. We all know that one distinctive aspect of the media sphere here in New Zealand is the Māori language and customs. No one in the House has yet had the opportunity to question the Minister about Māori perspectives. Therefore, my question to you is: can I question the Minister?]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll have to ask you to say that again because the earpieces aren’t working, sorry.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just raising the fact that several times I’ve stood to seek a call, because we all know that part of the uniqueness of broadcasting in New Zealand is the Māori language—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, the point of order is?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: The point of order is that no one who’s spoken yet has had the opportunity to seek a call specifically regarding considerations of the Māori language and Māori world view with regard to this bill.

So seek a call.

Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Heamana. Ka kōrero Māori au. Tēnā tātou. Tēnei hoki te mihi atu ki a koe, e te Minita, e kōrero mō tō aranga ake anō, nā te mea tērā pea ā tērā kōwhiringa pōti kāre tō pāti e ara anō. Heoi anō rā, kua kōrero mātou mō te tau i puta mai tēnei pire, arā, 1989. Ko au tētahi i ora i aua tau, nā reira kei te maumahara tonu awau i te wā kāre ēnei mea, ēnei rawa i hangaia, mēnā i pīrangi koe ki te mātakitaki pouaka whakaata me noho tō whero i mua i te pouaka kia mātakitaki koe i tāu e hiahia ai. Ā, ko ngā pānui hokohoko tētahi āhuatanga o taua wā. Heoi anō rā, ko taku waimarie hoki ki te mahi i roto i te ao pāpāho. I mahi au i runga i te hōtaka e kīia nei a Marae, nā reira kei te tino mōhio au ki te wāriu o ngā hōtaka Māori.

Heoi anō rā, e te Minita hoki, i a koutou e rapangia i ngā whakaaro kia tīnihia tēnei kaupapa, arā, te pire e pā ana ki ngā pānui hokohoko i roto o te ao pāpāho, i pēhea koutou, i kōrero tahi koutou me ngā hunga pāpāho Māori? Koirā taku pātai tuatahi, i kōrero tahi koutou me ngā hunga pāpāho Māori? Ā, ki tua atu i tērā, kua rongo mātou i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā rangi tapu. Ko au anō tērā, i tipu ake au i roto i te Hāhi Mihingare, nā reira kei te mārama pai au ki ngā āwangawanga a te hunga e haere ana ki te hāhi. Nā reira, ko tētahi atu pātai kua kōrero tahi te Minita, te komiti whakahaere rānei, ki ngā hāhi? Kua kōrero, i whai wāhi ngā hāhi ki te kōrero tahi ki te Minita, ki te kōmiti kōwhiria rānei? Pērā i te Hāhi Mihingare, pēnā i te Hāhi Katorika, ngā hāhi katoa?

[Greetings, Madam Chair. I will speak Māori. Greetings to all. I also acknowledge you, Minister. You speak about your re-election, because perhaps your party will not be re-elected in the next election. However, we have spoken about the year this bill was introduced—that is, 1989. I was around at that time, so I still remember the time when these things weren’t made; if you wanted to watch television you had to sit in front of the TV to watch what you wanted. Advertisements were also a feature of that time. And I was fortunate to work in the media sphere; I worked on the programme called Marae, so I am very aware about the value of Māori programming.

However, Minister, as you were seeking opinions to change this issue—that is, the bill relating to advertising in the media—did you talk to Māori broadcasters? That is my first question. In addition to that, we’ve heard the discussion about holy days. I also grew up in the Anglican Church, so I am well aware of the concerns of churchgoers. So another question is: has the Minister or the select committee spoken with the churches? Did the churches have the opportunity to speak to the Minister or the select committee, such as the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church—all religions?]

Hon James Meager: Talking to churches has nothing to do with the principal Act—

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: E kī, e kī, kei te kī mai tērā taha o te whānau kāre te hāhi e whai wāhi ki tēnei kaupapa. Ka pāpāho ēnei pānui hokohoko, tērā pea ka pānui rātou i ngā pānui hokohoko mō te waipiro i runga i ngā rangi tapu. Koirā te take e whai wāhi tēnei kaupapa ki ngā hāhi. Kia tika rā koe! Heoi anō rā, ka haere tonu.

[Is that right? The other side of the family is saying that religion has no place in this issue. These advertisements are broadcast—perhaps they will broadcast advertisements for alcohol on the Sabbath days. That is the reason this is important to the churches—you’re having me on! However, I will proceed.]

Hon James Meager: He aha te reo Māori for clause 3?

[What is the Māori language for clause 3?]

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: He aha? He aha? Kāre he kōrero o te Minita i tēnei wā. Turituri tō waha, e hoa.

[What’s that? What’s that? The Minister has nothing to say at this time. Be quiet, my friend.]

Heoi anō rā, ka haere tonu ki tētahi atu rangi whakahirahira rawa atu, ehara mō te hunga Māori anake, mō Aotearoa whānui, arā te rangi whakamaumahara i ō mātou hōia. I tēnei rā i roto o Tikitiki kī ana te whare i te tangata. Ka hoki mai ngā whanaunga ki te wā kāinga ki te maumahara i a rātou kua wehe atu. Rātou i haere ki te whawhai mō mātou katoa o roto o tēnei whare, otirā mō Aotearoa whānui. Waimarie mātou e tae ana ā-tinana rā, engari ko ētahi kua korouatia, kua kuiatia. Ko tā rātou he noho ki te kāinga mātakitaki ai. Kāore rātou e pīrangi ki te mātaki i ngā pānui hokohoko. Kei te pīrangi rātou ki te mātakitaki i te karakia e haere ana me ngā kōrero o rātou kua wehe atu. Heoi anō rā, ko te pātai, i kōrero koutou ki te hunga e kīia nei ko te RSA—Returned Services Association—i kōrero rānei koutou ki ngā hōia? Ngā hōia e ora tonu ana, ngā hōia e whawhai tonu ana mō mātou katoa?

Nā reira, ahakoa te whakahīhī o ētahi o tērā whare, kāre rātou e pīrangi ki te whakarongo i ngā āwangawanga a te hunga Māori, i ngā āwangawanga a ngā hāhi, me te āwangawanga o ngā hōia me ngā whānau e manaaki nei i ngā hōia. Koirā aku pātai. Tēnei te mihi atu ki te Minita i whakarongo mai.

[So much for that; I will continue on to another very important day, not just for Māori but for all of New Zealand, and that is the day that we remember our soldiers. On this day in Tikitiki, the houses are full of people. Relatives return home to remember those who have passed, those who went to fight for us all in this House, and indeed for all of New Zealand. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to be there in person; however, some of the elderly are not able. They watch from home. They don’t want to watch advertisements. They want to watch the prayers and stories about those who have passed. And so, the question is: did you talk to the RSA—Returned Services Association—or to the soldiers, soldiers that are still living and soldiers who are still fighting for us?

So despite the contempt of some of the House, they don’t want to listen to the concerns of Māori, the concerns of the churches, the concerns of the soldiers and families who take care of the soldiers. Those are my questions. I acknowledge the Minister for listening.]

Before I take this next call, can I just say the details in the member’s contribution were probably best dealt with in clause 4; however, given the difficulties we were having, I let the member continue. Did the Minister want to address that question?

Yeah, Madam Chair—thank you. Just to address briefly the points helpfully raised by the member, starting with the final one: the Minister for Broadcasting interacted with a wide range of stakeholders, and I can answer the question on my own behalf, wearing a different hat, so to speak, as Minister for Veterans. I was and remain interested in the views of ex - service personnel in terms of the restrictions being lifted from Anzac Day. However, there’s a diversity of views among the veteran population—I see my colleague and friend Dr Vanessa Weenink nodding, and she’s one herself, of course. It’s impossible to characterise the general view, except to say that the issues that we’ve been canvassing as a committee, now for some time, in terms of the modern technological advances and so on, are broadly distributed within that veteran community as well.

As for those within the Māori world and also various Christian denominations, there was a thorough select committee process at which various views were canvassed. I understand from the report that there was consultation with Whakaata Māori, Te Māngai Pāho, and Te Puni Kōkiri, among others, who pointed out a number of different things but didn’t indicate that there was any inconsistency with the Treaty of Waitangi—or Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Also, the point was highlighted that Māori audiences, overall, represent a younger demographic than other viewers, and, increasingly, there’s an age dimension in the direction of younger New Zealanders accessing content online, in a non-linear broadcast sense, where, of course, advertising is more relevant and where the restrictions have hitherto applied.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Arena Williams’ 25 tabled amendments to clause 3 are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.