Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

We now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clause 4 and the repeal of “Section 81 (Advertising hours)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Thank you. I can’t believe how quickly this debate has gone. It’s been lightning speed this afternoon, moving through it. Hopefully, we have some time at this crucial point of clause 4 to really focus on some of the questions still remaining at this point of the process.

I am hoping for a number of calls on this clause because I do have a large number of questions. Many of them are on the basis of things that the Minister for Building and Construction has said or answers that the Minister has given or points that he’s referenced throughout his very generous answers, for which we’re very grateful as we’ve stepped through some of the meatier issues across clause 1, clause 2, and clause 3 of the bill as we’ve gone through it this afternoon.

This clause really deals with the repeal of section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The point I’m wanting to dig into a little here is subsection (3), which talks about every person committing an offence being liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000. That’s for someone who contravenes either subsection (1) or subsection (2).

Just to look at what those are, because I know with the number of days and potential opportunities we’ve discussed very robustly across the afternoon, it would be worth clarifying what is actually in the Act to ensure that the Minister can answer this as accurately as they are able. In subsection (1), it speaks to no broadcaster broadcasting advertising programmes on television during the hours between 6 a.m. and noon on a Sunday or on Anzac Day; then it goes on to say on Christmas Day or Good Friday or Easter Sunday.

Now, subsection 2—and bearing in mind this is the part that we are repealing—is: “Subject to subsection (4), no broadcaster shall broadcast advertising programmes on … radio”—the distinction there between television and radio is very important—“on (a) Christmas Day; or (b) Good Friday; or (c) Easter Sunday.” So to come back to the potential offence and the potential conviction, there is a fine not exceeding $100,000 for anyone who contravenes either of those sections.

So when you are repealing this part of the Broadcasting Act, the question here really is: are we at a risk here of losing a source of revenue for Government, because all money that comes into Government can be spent on other things? We might argue about what it gets spent on and how, but we probably don’t argue about the fact that that revenue comes in and can be quite useful.

So the question here is: does the Minister have a sense, since 1989, of the—

Hon James Meager: Do you know what happens? It gets absorbed in the cost of administering the system at significant and net detriments to the country.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —take a call if you like, sir—total revenue that’s been gathered through those penalties? Or even if that stretch of time—36 years—is too long to quantify, even in the last three years, six years, nine years? I don’t know why we’re counting in threes but across, potentially, the last three electoral terms, can the Minister clarify the level of revenue that has come in, and, therefore, if this part of the Act is repealed and that revenue can no longer be gathered? Can the Minister clarify the revenue that won’t be coming in as a result of the repeal of this part of the Broadcasting Act? I think it would be irresponsible of any Government, and any Government Minister, not to have a sense of the amount of money that will not be raised and that would not go into central government to be invested and spent wisely in other areas.

One of the questions there, particularly, is because we know that our broadcasting and media sector is really in need of support at the moment. So there is the potential for revenue from people who breach regulations to then be reinvested by way of potentially some sort of hypothecated fund structure back into the very sector that needs our support at the moment, but other than this very small amendment to the Broadcasting Act, the sector has seen nothing from the promised immediate action.

So, really, an answer from the Minister about what potential revenue central government is being denied by the potential repeal of section 81 of the Broadcasting Act would be great to have.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question. I think any foregone revenue in the form of penalties that won’t be able to be applied would be outweighed by the taxable activity being the payment for the advertising.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve come to the pointy end of this debate about what is the effect of the repeal and whether there are any amendments that the Minister might accept for this part.

As I’ve said, we’re going from a situation where there was no advertising allowed on Christmas, Easter, Anzac Day, and Sunday mornings, and there will now be unrestricted advertising at those times. What’s unusual about that is that those are still important days, as the Minister has said, but for linear media to now have no restrictions at those times is something that some people would consider unusual.

The first question I want to ask the Minister is: is it the case that after this repeal is through, it will be acceptable, and does the Minister think it is acceptable, to advertise gambling, alcohol, and tobacco products on a Sunday morning?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a further call on this part. I signalled that I would have several further questions for the Minister as we get to this final part of the bill, which I’ve inconveniently tucked down here, but there it is again, thank goodness for that.

One of the questions I had here, and we did speak through this at some length at an earlier point, but it was about the days that are affected by this repeal of section 81, and that was Christmas and Easter. One of the things that was interesting is that in that detailing, the bill doesn’t include Waitangi Day and it doesn’t include Matariki. So there are two other public holidays that the bill could have considered that would have been repealed. I guess the question there for the Minister is: would consideration have been given to retaining those two uniquely—and potentially Anzac Day is a uniquely New Zealand public holiday, as well. Would there have been further consideration given to keeping those public holidays there—so only amending the religious holidays, but leaving the specifically New Zealand holidays?

One of the other questions I’ve wondered about, when I’ve looked at the structure of this bill and what it does and what it allows, is whether we are leaders or followers. I ask that in the context of the fact that a lot of the time, the justification for the passing of this bill and for the existence of this bill is that there are two standards. There is a standard for online advertisers and online content that sits on digital platforms that can advertise almost whatever they want, whenever they want, on any day of the year for New Zealand audiences to see, and so this bill is about ensuring that linear broadcasters, both on television and radio, are able to enjoy the same rights and ability to share content in advertising as the digital platforms. But the question is: if the digital platforms hadn’t chosen to advertise on those days, hadn’t chosen to observe those holidays, would we have seen the need to follow? Are we chasing a space and an environment and a platform and an audience and eyeballs on days of the year that we would rather leave advertising and commercial free?

Similarly, what this Act never prohibited was the sponsorship of content. An event such as Coca-Cola Christmas in the Park could still be broadcast on Christmas Day and could still contain commercial content. So it was nibbling away at the edges and, potentially, has been nibbling away at the edges, and whilst we’re happy to see that kind of sponsored content sitting in broadcasting and media, I don’t think any of us would be comfortable with seeing that kind of sponsorship and underwrite and financing coming into this House and into the kind of policy and ideas that we bring forward and that we constructively work on together to turn into legislation and law.

Now, the other point that I wanted to raise—and I hope if I can’t fit it into this call that I may be afforded a further call on this final clause of the bill to be able to explore this more fully—is there are a number of businesses and there are a number of enterprises and trades and services that we would not expect, and often, by law, are not able to access or enjoy on specific public holidays. So by now granting those businesses, those enterprises the right to advertise on those public holidays, there are two questions here. One is: does this signal a liberalisation of things like liquor licensing? Does this signal a liberalisation of trading hours for a number of businesses across religious and observed holidays? If it doesn’t, does this bill, or the repeal, make it a possibility that those businesses will, in fact, be false advertising, or be guilty of false advertising, because they’ll be offering a good or a service on a day that they’re not open and that they’re not trading and that they’re not, by law in New Zealand, able to provide? It’s whether or not the Minister has considered that in this 73-word repeal bill.

But I would like to finish this contribution by acknowledging that we have had some fun today in some of our contributions. But at the heart of this bill is the immediate need to serve those people who continue to lose their jobs by the hundreds in our broadcasting media industry in New Zealand, and this Government has delivered only a 73-word bill in almost two years.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased take a call on this part of this bill that we are discussing here today in the Chamber. There are two things I want to speak to. I’ll start with the first one. Looking at the advertising revenue, which is the basis of this piece of legislation, and enabling a greater flow of that into our broadcasters, it’s important to note that radio, which has 2.7 million listeners every week tuning in with their pairs of ears, has a strong, stable audience. They’re doing pretty well in the media landscape in comparison to other media. They already advertise on a Sunday morning, but it’s television advertising that will be freed up here on the Sunday morning as well as on Anzac morning, and both TV and radio broadcasting advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. There is some advertising from radio on a couple of those days already.

I’m really interested to know about how much advertising is expected to be generated by freeing up these days. It would be great if the Minister could explain the advertising revenue expectations and how those assumptions were made. Is there any guarantee, in fact, that there’s any new money that will be generated into the industry because their advertising revenues have been diminished for multiple reasons? Will those that are advertising actually increase their budgets to the expected amount that this piece of legislation will enable and the numbers that have been forecast for it? Or will they simply cut the pie so that they stretch their advertising budgets over extra days and, in fact, actually not provide any further assistance financially for our various broadcasters that relate to this particular bill? Has the Minister considered any other levers to enable broadcasters to find other ways of generating new revenue? That’s the first theme—with a couple of questions in there.

Also, as I didn’t get the opportunity, in earlier debates, to talk about the importance of these sacred days, I do want to just traverse that briefly. Now, when the Broadcasting Act 1989 was drawn, we were a different society then. We generally went to church. We had those religious days put aside for that religious observance. It was meaningful to us. While not so many people might be attending a regular structured service any more, it doesn’t mean to say we’re not still religious and we’re not deeply spiritual. About half of the submitters on this bill opposed it as they came through the select committee process. I particularly note the likes of National Pacific Radio Trust. They felt that there was great disrespect not just towards our fallen soldiers but also towards Christianity as well. Perhaps the Minister in the chair could elucidate for us whether there were any other considerations that the Government made—like the Sweden model, where they do not allow any advertising around religious programming. Now, we know, on a Sunday morning, Praise Be is a religious programme. Was there any consideration that maybe that programme would not have any advertising around it to protect the observance of that spiritual consideration and importance for many people? Those are the questions I have. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the phrase “praise be” is most likely to come up when we finish this committee stage.

In terms of the questions asked by Ms Jenny Marcroft, and I acknowledge her expertise and experience in this space: it’s impossible to know exactly how much will be generated. The figure of $6 million per year is considered a conservative estimate, but, of course, we’ll see that in due course. As to other sources of Government funding, I suppose New Zealand First conferences could be live streamed—that could be entertaining, to watch those reruns appear. In terms of other sources or policy proposals, I suppose we’ll have to tune in to anything else the member may have.

In terms of the questions asked prior to that, first by Mr Reuben Davidson—he’s described Anzac Day as a uniquely New Zealand holiday. I think Australia might want a word, but, of course, he’s right to acknowledge that it is a particularly New Zealand holiday, maybe. In any case, the question of partial repeal, I understand, was considered, but it would be difficult to enforce. Even so, we then end up with that same difficulty about the inconsistencies between broadcast, linear products as compared with the online environment.

As for online advertisements, if they hadn’t been engaging commercially on these particular days, would we still be in a position of seeking to repeal the restrictions on TV and radio? It’s impossible to know—it’s a hypothetical question—but I don’t know if we can resolve the question of whether we would have followed or led, as the member has framed it.

As for whether this legislation heralds some general liberalisation in relation to, for example, alcohol law, I think it’s worth just seeing the legislation on its own terms and on its own face value.

As for whether there would be a question of false advertising if an ad were to flash up or to be heard saying that if you were to enter some premises that you could get a certain product or service on that day, I think the standard regime for advertising standards—with the authority having jurisdiction over any false or misleading or otherwise objectionable content—remains in place.

I think this does lead us, then, to the question posed by Arena Williams as well: whether it’s acceptable to advertise certain goods or services on these days that some people might take offence to. Taking the question of acceptability as a legal one, as opposed to a moral one, on which we can all form our own view, it seems to me that, again, there are existing regimes in terms of what might be regarded as offensive or appropriate material. If there’s additional sensitivity that consumers and viewers—consumers of commercial services, as well as consumers of the media content—might regard as being unhelpful or unwarranted on those particularly significant days, then that might be a question of judgment for the broadcaster and/or the advertiser.

Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Heamana. Ka kōrero Māori anō au. Tēnā koe, e te Minita. Tēnā koe, e whakahoki ana i ō mātou pātai i tēnei ahiahi, tēnā anō koe i ō kōrero katakata i tēnei ahiahi. He pātai anō āku e pā ana ki te ao pāpāho Māori. E mōhio ana mātou i te wā i mahi au i te pāpāho a Aotearoa, arā, TVNZ, i tū tētahi wāhanga e kīia nei ko Te Reo Tātaki. I raro i te Kāwanatanga a Nāhinara i whakakorengia Te Reo Tātaki. Ā, i tonoa ki waho ngā hōtaka. Nā reira kei te āhua māharahara ētahi o ngā umanga hanga hōtaka, arā, production companies.

He pai te whakaaro o tēnei pire, kia whai pūtea ngā kamupene nui, engari kei te haere te pūtea ki ngā kamupene nui, ehara ki ngā kamupene hanga hōtaka. Nā reira, me pēhea kei a koe he oranga mō rātou? Ki tua atu, i nukuhia ngā hōtaka Māori ki ngā ata o te Rātapu i raro i te whakaaro ehara taua wāhi o te maramataka pāpāho, arā, schedule, ehara taua wāhi o te rangi i te wāhi whai pūtea—non-commercial.

Nā reira, mēnā ka whai pūtea ngā umanga nui i tēnei rā, ka pēhea ngā hōtaka Māori? He pai ki a au te whakaaro a te mema o Aotearoa Tuatahi, arā a Jenny Marcroft. Kei te whakaaro koe ka rāhuitia ētahi o ngā hōtaka pērā i a Praise Be, pērā i a Marae, ērā atu kaupapa, aha rā nei. Ki te kore, me pēhea koe e ārai, e manaaki nei i ngā hōtaka Māori? Tēnā anō koe, e te Minita, i whakahoki mai, i whakautu i ō mātou pātai. He mihi hoki tēnei ki te hunga whakapākehā i ngā kōrero kia tarea te rere o tō tātou reo rangatira i roto i tō tātou Whare. Kia ora.

[Greetings, Madam Chair. I will speak Māori again. Greetings, Minister. I acknowledge you for responding to our questions this afternoon, and I also thank you for your humour this afternoon. I have some more questions relating to Māori media. We understand that at the time I was working for TVNZ, a branch was set up called Te Reo Tātaki. Under the National Government, Te Reo Tātaki was abolished. Programmes were outsourced, so some production companies are concerned.

This bill has good intentions—that big companies will get a lot of funding—but the funding is going to big companies, not production companies. So do you have a solution for them? Aside from that, Māori programmes were shifted to Sunday mornings based on the view that that part of the broadcasting schedule, that part of the day, is non-commercial.

So if large businesses are getting funding today, what happens to Māori programmes? I concur with the view of the NZ First member, Jenny Marcroft; you are of the view that some of the programmes like Praise Be and Marae and those types of programmes be restricted. If not, how will you block and look after Māori programmes? Thank you again, Minister, for responding and answering our questions. I also acknowledge those translating the speeches and enabling our Māori language to resound within our House. Thank you.]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I have one area of questioning. For many New Zealanders, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas, and Anzac Day are deeply significant days. They will separate off the Sundays, which I think we’ll probably live with. Those four days are really, really significant days for New Zealanders.

There is another bill which is being considered by a select committee at the moment, and that is the Online Casino Gambling Bill. Now, the online gambling bill includes the involving of advertising. My question to you, Minister, is: has there been any consideration to how having advertising for online gambling is going to go down in many New Zealand households, if they are faced with that on those deeply significant, spiritual days of Anzac Day, Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter? I suggest to you it probably will not be very well. I would like your comment on that and whether that has actually been thought about at all in the compilation of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The proposed legislation that the member references is not legislation. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on what the ultimate shape of that might be as it relates to this. The comments that I’ve been making in the committee previously have acknowledged the special significance of various days, and I would encourage, as far as is appropriate for a Government member to do so, advertisers and broadcasters to think carefully about content that might be viewed as appropriate by their respective audiences.

In relation to the thoughtful questions posed by Cushla Tangaere-Manuel—thank you for sharing your experience with us—in terms of the flow of revenue internally or as between content creators and the platforms themselves, I think that’s an internal matter for those media companies. I would only comment that in terms of this bill, by lifting the restrictions, it will enable for more revenue to be generated and, therefore, a larger pie that can then be sliced and distributed as they see fit and as legally required, as the case may be.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on something that one of the previous speakers—Reuben Davidson—mentioned in terms of the idea that this bill is intending to address a double standard between linear platforms and online platforms. I’m particularly looking at, in the department report, paragraph 48, around the fact that you do get these online and on-demand services that do allow advertising.

However, my question to the Minister is—first of all, first question: is the Minister aware that YouTube, for example, as an online platform, doesn’t allow advertisements on these days, therefore you get YouTube—

Hon Member: That’s not true.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Anyone who watches YouTube on Christmas Day will know that YouTube doesn’t have advertisements on Christmas Day. If the idea is to provide a certain consistency between online platforms and linear platforms, that already exists in the current environment? The first question is: is the Minister aware that YouTube doesn’t have advertisements on certain days, similar to linear platforms?

The follow-up question is: if, indeed, it is to provide consistency and now we are allowing it, is it also the situation that we are now then allowing online platforms that traditionally didn’t have advertisements on those days to now have advertisements on those days? Has the Minister, or, in this case, potentially, the Department of Internal Affairs or any other areas, consulted or had conversations with those online platforms such as YouTube, as well, on that?

For those on the other side of the House who are saying that is not true, please provide a counterargument. [Interruption] I mean, I’m saying that this is my experience—that, on Christmas Day, there are no advertisements on YouTube. Tell me how you have seen advertisements on—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member doesn’t need to answer to those people; just ask questions to the Minister.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Anyway, those are my questions to the Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his questions. My understanding is that some YouTube users choose not to monetise their content on certain days, including—that must be the experience the member’s had, so I respect that and understand that. I certainly respect and understand that that’s a choice that those content creators and uploaders may wish to take. To be clear, we’re not mandating or requiring that people should advertise on those days, and that goes for the linear broadcasters, too, for that matter. But it will be a matter of choice for all the reasons that we’ve been discussing this afternoon.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m going to get really tight now because it’s a very narrow, small bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On this clause—clause 4—which repeals section 81, I have asked the Minister in the chair, and he has provided, helpfully, some background on what he says legal goods and services are, when he was referring to alcohol, tobacco products, and gambling, and he gave us some advice that he wouldn’t expect that to be at all prohibited on Sunday mornings.

But I want to pose to him—really cutting to the chase of this, because I hear you, Madam Chair; I won’t take him through all of the things that might be sensible middle grounds for this repeal, because the Minister did say that there was some consideration of whether this needed to be a full repeal from zero advertising with fines to then no restriction on what could be advertised or to who or in what way on those dates, because, obviously, there’s a big range of options in the middle there. You could have restricted who might be advertised to, like children. You could have restricted the hours of advertising and carved out specific times. You could have also changed the nature of what could be advertised.

But what I want to ask through you, Madam Chair, to the Minister is: would it not be appropriate, then—if the primary legislation is not the place to do it—to be a bit more explicit about what the Advertising Standards Authority needs to do for those days? He has said that it’s a moral judgment—that is, the business of the Advertising Standards Authority. But they don’t have specific powers around these days because they have never needed them, because there hasn’t been the need for the Advertising Standards Authority before to think about, say, advertising to veterans or about veterans on Anzac Day. They haven’t had to consider advertising to Christian families and the followers of the church on Easter. They haven’t had to think about whether it is appropriate to buy an advertising slot where you’re not selling something but it is, in its nature, something like an advertorial on a Sunday morning for a church, or for another sort of organisation, like the Destiny Church, to buy time in linear media on a Sunday morning. There are no restrictions on that, even though there is well-established case law on what might be considered something of an advertorial, something of editorial content about how you might flag that up as something you have bought and not something that a broadcaster has deemed to be the right type of content for that slot and something that most New Zealanders would want to see in that slot.

There hasn’t been established case law, for instance, on Christmas morning, about showing movies which depict Christ in any way—negatively or positively—because that has not been something that people have been able to buy before. But are there people who want to buy that content slot? Yes, there are people who want to show content in those times, on specific days, which are contrary to the views of most New Zealanders.

We have very well-developed case law, for instance, on what is acceptable speech on Anzac Day and what is acceptable to do at an Anzac Day celebration, remembrance day, or parade. There are things which we say are not acceptable, like students presenting wreaths and then turning their backs to protest war. That’s not acceptable because we say those things are protected and those things are things that we as all New Zealanders should treat as remembrance and honourable times. Is it now acceptable to book an ad slot and run an ad, which is not, in fact, trying to advertise any given product, but because you have paid for it, you can make your political views expressed about what Anzac Day should be and what war should be?

We need to be clear that if the Minister’s not willing to entertain any other sorts of changes to this primary legislation—his Government colleagues in the New Zealand First Party have put to him very sensible suggestions—then will he not at least accept one of my amendments—there are only two—that would make it clear that the Advertising Standards Authority needs some extra powers here to consider those specific days and what might be appropriate. A third option would be, I think, the option that he has said, which is that broadcasters need to satisfy themselves what is appropriate. If that is his policy, then the legislation should say that, and I would suggest to him that an appropriate amendment to the body of clause 4 would be insertion, before the full stop, of “and replace it with new clause 81E”, which reads: “broadcasters shall only air advertising programmes on television during the hours between 6 a.m. and noon on Sunday, Anzac Day, and Christmas that are deemed appropriate by them for those days.” That would at least create some sort of reasonable obligation that most New Zealanders would expect, and he himself has alluded to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really briefly, if I can respond to those important points, the Advertising Standards Authority will continue to have a mandate to uphold standards of decency and social responsibility, and to consider questions of offensiveness. I think that they would do that in the context of all the circumstances, including—as they currently do—the time of day but also the particular day of the year and its special significance. I think these are serious matters, but I also think that we must be able to trust our institutions to be able to make reasonable judgment calls in the fullness of the context in which they occur. For that reason, we think it’s best not to be too prescriptive or to try to over-engineer the solution.

That might seem tempting, devoid of context, to particular members of the House with particular perspectives, bearing in mind the broad range of views of New Zealanders on various different matters, and in the case of Anzac Day, it seems to me that the legal precedent is actually strongly in favour of freedom of expression, under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was the Morse case, which the member Arena Williams may have studied at law school—as did I—where burning the flag on Anzac Day was not legally prohibited precisely because we value that freedom of expression, notwithstanding the fact that that might be and, in fact, it deliberately was, designed to calculate the offence and the outrage of some.

So I think, taking into account that broader context, we’ve landed in the right place, which is to be enabling. But it is also to say—not as a matter of law, but of encouragement—that people will make appropriate choices and will be judged accordingly.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

All of Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to the title of clause 4 are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81A, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81B, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81C, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81D, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81E, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81F, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81G, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81H, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81I to prohibit the broadcasting of offensive programmes on certain days, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81I to prohibit misleading programmes on certain days, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81J to prohibit advertising targeting children on certain days, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81J to prohibit advertising targeting vulnerable people on certain days, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81J to prohibit advertising of financial products on certain days, be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81K is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81L, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81M, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81N, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81P, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 81Q, be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to replace clause 4 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.