Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications: I present a legislative statement on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I move, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill will remove advertising restrictions from section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Section 81 currently prohibits broadcast television advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and both television and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Section 81 is no longer aligned with the way in which audiences consume content and, in a challenging economic environment for New Zealand media companies, it is actively hindering broadcasters’ ability to earn revenue from advertising.

Since section 81 was first introduced in 1989, technology has changed significantly. These days, fewer people engage with content through those traditional formats. Instead, New Zealanders use more on-demand and streaming services like YouTube, and they are not subject to section 81 restrictions. In fact, New Zealand On Air data shows that in 2024, YouTube was the most popular platform in the country, reaching 44 percent of the population of New Zealand daily. By repealing section 81, the bill removes this disparity between different media platforms. In doing so, it would help modernise the Broadcasting Act and allow New Zealand media companies to realise additional advertising revenue.

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has finished its consideration on the bill and recommended to the House that it be passed without amendment. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their work and diligence on this piece of legislation.

During its select committee scrutiny, the bill received submissions from those who would financially benefit or otherwise be impacted by the repeal—including as a listener or viewer or radio and TV content provider—and those with an active interest in the media. The majority of submissions from our media broadcasters were supportive of the bill, saying that it will level the playing field for media advertising and provide a much-needed revenue injection into the sector. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made a submission to the committee to help the committee come to its full consideration of the bill.

We know that the media sector is going through a tough time and operating conditions are challenging at present. This, however, is not a challenge that is unique to New Zealand media companies. All around the world, they are facing the effects of reduced advertising revenue and are struggling to remain financially viable.

This Government is doing what it can to create a sustainable environment where the media can create an environment where they can continue to succeed. Part of that is having a strong, growing economy where media companies can effectively monetise their content and give advertising companies the confidence to invest. This bill is but one of the steps we are taking to modernise media regulation and to support the sector.

Recently, public consultation concluded on a suite of proposals for more extensive reform, and there will be further announcements about this soon. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker Where to start? Is this really what we call “immediate action”? To revisit what this bill does, this bill will repeal section 81 of the Broadcasting Act, which restricts broadcast television advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and both television and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

This is about levelling the playing field, right? But, really, 73 words make up this bill—73 words. That’s all the Minister has been able to give New Zealand’s media sector. Yes, the bill is about fairness in the digital age. We know that advertising on digital platforms is not restricted to certain days. Online platforms can enjoy unrestricted advertising throughout the year, 24/7, so this does level the playing field for our linear media broadcasters.

The Government estimates, of this bringing an additional $6 million per year to the media sector, are completely unrealistic. We know that it will not do that. But most importantly, this is not immediate action. This is something that was already part of a suite of changes that Labour, in Government, were going to bring through. It’s the only bill the Minister has gone with in the year since he became the Minister and claimed that he would take immediate action for our media sector.

Let’s have a look at what has happened since: on 2 July 2024, Paul Goldsmith—our broadcasting and media Minister—released a media statement claiming that the Government was taking immediate action to support the media sector—

Jenny Marcroft: Back to the bill

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Exactly. The call is “back to the bill”, and the bill is only 73 words: the only immediate action the Minister has taken. But while the Minister is doing next to nothing, writing 73 words, here’s what else has happened: on 5 July 2024, Newshub closed down and 200 jobs were lost; that’s 200 people that don’t have a job any more. On 7 November 2024, TVNZ announced plans to axe 50 jobs—

Jenny Marcroft: Back to the bill.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: You can heckle all you like, but we’re talking about hundreds of jobs gone in the media sector, and a Minister who, in response, can only generate a 73 word repeal to an outdated Broadcasting Act that will yield very little for our media sector.

On 13 November—and this is where it gets really interesting—RNZ reports that the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, the very piece of legislation that is set to balance the playing field, balance the ability for our local media sector to derive income from the content that they generate, is all of a sudden in limbo. Goldsmith, at that point, our Minister—

Jenny Marcroft: Who? What his name? Full name.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Minister Goldsmith says that he hasn’t given up on having the bill in place by the end of the year, that year being 2024. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s not 2024 any more.

On 14 November, New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME) announced plans to close 14 regional community newspapers before Christmas—another 30 jobs lost in our media sector. I don’t know if you’re keeping count, but it’s going up. In December, this bill—all 73 words—was introduced by the Minister. On 12 December, following lobbying from Google and Meta, the Minister announced that he was going to “basically postpone our arrangements a little bit”—“basically postpone our arrangements a little bit”—and at that point in time, NZME’s chief executive Michael Boggs says, “Another delay to progress on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is disappointing.” About a month later, NZME, the very organisation he heads, proposes a further reduction of 40 roles in the local media sector—40 more people who don’t have jobs.

All of a sudden, on 21 May 2025, this Government scraps their work on the digital services tax, an effective handout of $479 million per year over the next four years to the very tech companies that are profiting from New Zealand media content. On 22 May of this year, Minister Goldsmith announced $18 million in cuts for RNZ over the next three years. So the local media sector not only is only getting a 73-word bill that does very little but it’s also having millions of dollars cut from its budget by this Government.

Now, if this is really what you call “immediate action”—I just find it hard to believe. It’s like the building is on fire and all the Minister can offer is a drip—a drip, nothing more than a drip—to address the fire in the media sector. Hundreds of people losing their jobs across the last year, the promise of immediate action, and nothing delivered. So on the anniversary of that bold media release promising immediate action, I sent our Minister for Media and Communications a cake—a cake celebrating immediate action. The Minister received that cake; he takes the cake, is the word on the street in the media sector, because throughout this whole time, there has been a Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, a piece of legislation sitting there that the Minister could have picked up and run with, but he’s flip-flopped, he’s weaselled around it, and he hasn’t picked up that bill, instead painstakingly typing out the 73-word repeal that we are talking about today.

Now, the Minister thanked me for the cake. The media sector has nothing to thank the Minister for, because this is it—this is the bill: 73 words. At the same time as the very platforms that profit from the local media content, that the Minister is taking millions of dollars away from in funding, receive $500 million of tax relief from this same Government. The question really here has to be: what is standing in the way of the Minister doing more? Who is the Minister afraid of? Which of the coalition partners is blocking the path of more progress for our media sector at a time when it really needs it?

Is it the ACT Party standing in the way—the ACT Party who celebrated the cutting of funding to RNZ? Is it New Zealand First, whose leader, on RNZ, when he didn’t like interview questions on Morning Report, suggested that he would cut their funding? Or is it the big tech companies that the Minister has met with, who all of a sudden are not faced with $500 million in taxes that they ought to be paying for the content that they use, and for the audience that they take by using content that they’re not paying for? Who is the Minister afraid of? What is stopping him from delivering more than 73 words to simply repeal a part of the Broadcasting Act? If you promise immediate action, you need to deliver it. The only immediate action we have seen is hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders losing their jobs in the media sector, and a Government and a Minister who are not prepared to do anything about it.

So whilst we support this bill, we do not support the complete inaction from the Minister. We ask the Minister to support the media sector, because that is something, so far, he has proven he is unable to do.

Just before I take the next call, can I remind members to focus on what is in the bill, not what is not in the bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It is said that through this new legislation, a $6 million lifeline will be thrown to local broadcasters to repeal all advertising restrictions on Sundays and public holidays. So let’s think about that. That’s all Sundays, public holidays, including Anzac Day, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Gone will be the little bit of peace and quiet that we have from the hectic modern world, which is what Gareth Hughes shared in 2015 when National last tried this.

When I think about Sundays, I enjoy my coffee with a bit of Praise Be and Q+A, and I think about our mokopuna who enjoy What Now or Home and Away without the noise of the Warehouse, or Briscoes, or Maccas being advertised to them. Many in the House might forget that What Now still exists, but our mokopuna still watch it, despite everyone saying that viewing trends have changed. There are still those of our mokopuna, with their Nutri-Grain, sitting at the coffee table watching morning TV on Sunday.

The Green Party has significant concerns around the exposure of tamariki mokopuna to ongoing commercial advertising. Why do we have to do that? Why, on a Christmas Day, when we’re enjoying time with our whānau, do we have to see adverts for Instant Finance, Briscoes, The Warehouse, or My Little Pony? Because that’s the thing—you’re offering, in this legislation, a mere $6 million as a lifeline. The Government is offering a mere $6 million as a supposed lifeline to the broadcasting industry, when the Government has cut nearly $10 million from Whakaata Māori, cut nearly $18 million—that’s the forecast—from Radio New Zealand, and when TVNZ is looking for some $30 million in additional revenue.

The $6 million projected to be new revenue for commercial advertising on these sanctified days, our Rātapu and our public holidays like Anzac Day, will only generate a mere $6 million. Let’s not joke around and think that this is the lifeline that’s needed—no, no, no. This Government has absolutely turned its back on public broadcasting, because they’ve favoured $2.9 billion of tax cuts to landlords instead of our public broadcasters.

Let’s not counterfeit and argue that somehow $6 million of commercial revenue through a bit of broadcasting on Anzac Day is going to do anything to deal with the larger issues in terms of public broadcasting and what the Government is not doing to support a sustainable local public supply of broadcasting and the fourth estate’s independence. Oh, yes, let’s talk about a clear direction on that. Let’s talk about protecting the fourth estate. Let’s look at coordination and sustainable funding for public broadcasting. But, no, no, it’s only $6 million that we will see that will take away the quiet opportunity for us to watch Tagata Pasifika or Marae or Home and Away on a Sunday, because now we’re going to be filled with Briscoes, Instant Finance, Maccas, Burger King, and Pizza Hut, because the advertising is going to come thick and fast. Let’s look at what we will be exposing our tamariki mokopuna to as well.

The fundamentals of what’s happening here is that it’s a mere tinkering around the edges, and that’s what we’re seeing—the fact that the Government is merely opening up a window for funding a small section of additional revenue on a Sunday and public holidays, yet we know that the industry is being cut and jobs are being lost. Tonnes of jobs are being lost. The Green Party does not support this legislation. We have grave concerns around the commercialisation of advertising targeting our tamariki mokopuna, and we are arguing that, actually, it’s about sustainable, long-term funding for public broadcasting, which includes Whakaata Māori and iwi Māori radio, and the Government has failed to do that.

This legislation does not address the wider issues that we are facing. Yes, you might argue that viewer trends have changed and the way that people are consuming their TV is different, but at the end of the day, many of us do watch Sunday TV and enjoy a bit of Jack Tame Q+A or Marae or Waka Huia, and those with mokopuna might watch What Now or Home and Away or Britain’s Got Talent, or whatever is going on on a Sunday morning.

To consider what the public broadcasting opportunity here is, it’s for us as a House to really consider what we do to support sustainable public broadcasting, and that’s not being addressed in this legislation. We are unclear on what the profit will be to broadcasting. We’re really sceptical around the use of commercial advertising that will now target our tamariki mokopuna. Why clog up a quiet Sunday or public holiday—Christmas, Anzac Day, and Easter holiday weekend—when you can spend time with whānau and just sit in front of the TV and maybe have a coffee?

While some in the television industry might say, “If we don’t have access to this revenue, this $6 million, it makes it hard for us.”, the bigger question is: where is the dollar in the first place? It’s the priorities of this Government that have shown that tax cuts for landlords is a bigger figure, a bigger priority, to the Government than the broadcasting industry. So we’re now going to open up for our Rātapu viewing, taking away the tapu of the Sunday, and opening it up for commercial advertising. The Green Party doesn’t support this legislation. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. This bill makes a very simple change, but a very important change, to the Broadcasting Act 1989. We know, as it says, “Act 1989”—we can see that it’s outdated in some aspects, and one of the aspects that is outdated is section 81. So this bill is to repeal section 81. It doesn’t do anything that we have heard from the previous speaker. It doesn’t give any funding to any media outlet. What it does is it gives the opportunity to traditional linear TV and radio broadcast to go out and compete with other platforms to generate the revenue that they can through advertising.

On this side, we don’t mind sitting with our cup of coffee in front of TV or radio, listening to radio or watching TV when there are some ads being played, because we know that that’s how they are going to generate revenue. On this side, we also believe that taxpayers should not be funding any businesses—because media companies are like businesses, any other businesses, and so we should not be funding these media outlets through taxpayers’ money, and then taxpayers’ money should not be bailing out any struggling media companies. It’s up to them to go out, create value—create value for their customers, for the audience, to attract advertising.

We want to make sure, because of the advancement of technology that we have seen—there are so many different types of platforms available now for people to watch news, to watch programmes, and section 81 doesn’t apply to those platforms. We want to see that it becomes fair for traditional linear TV and radio as well, so that they can also generate revenue through advertising. Yes, the estimated value is around $6 million, but it’s up to them. They can go out, compete, create value, generate as much as they like in revenue through advertising.

It’s very important, also, to note that this is about modernising our Act—this is about modernising our Act. It’s not about anything else that we have heard from the previous speaker.

Now, as the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I want to thank everybody who was involved in the consideration of this bill. I also want to thank all submitters. We received 41 submissions and we heard from six submitters, which—I would say 41 submissions on this bill is a very good number. As it happens, we had a range of views from submitters. Some submitters thought that the restriction should be extended to all platforms, which we know is not going to be feasible. Some thought that maybe it should be a partial restriction. But we have to also take into consideration the cost of that, and that’s why we have decided that it should be a full repeal of section 81. It makes sense. As I said, media companies are like businesses—any other businesses that we have—and taxpayers should not be bailing out any struggling companies. It’s up to them to go out and generate revenue, and they will generate revenue if they are able to attract audience. We support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an unusual thing, it’s an unusual feeling, to actually be in agreement or in alignment with the Green Party. But, on this particular issue, New Zealand First stands on a conservative platform, and, therefore, in terms of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, we do not support this piece of legislation and the removal of section 81, because it currently restricts broadcast TV advertising on Sunday and Anzac morning and both TV and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. These days, we believe, are special days.

New Zealand had a very strong Christian foundation at the time that a boundary was drawn, carving out these days as meaningful for religious observance and as meaningful to acknowledge those who served our country in wars overseas. Many Kiwis, though, may no longer be particularly religious in terms of their participation in formal services of worship and celebration, but this does not mean that they are not spiritual and that we should see every day as the same. The boundaries that we draw around our working lives and our special celebrations, we believe these are extremely important and we should uphold these. We would be all the poorer without them.

The submissions on the bill were fairly evenly split for and opposed. I’ll speak to some of those that were opposed to this piece of legislation. They basically said there was frustration currently at an overabundance of advertising already; immense spiritual and cultural significance for Pasifika communities, and that’s why they oppose this piece of legislation—that’s the National Pacific Media Trust; the disrespect this bill has towards our fallen soldiers and Christianity. Those were some of the themes coming through that oppose this piece of legislation. One of the submissions which I particularly enjoyed reading was from Tom Frewen, who has a deep understanding of the media sector. What he said was that any extra revenue generated by allowing advertising on these particular days goes directly to the television broadcasters, directly to the radio stations, and not the programme makers, particularly when we’re talking about TV content, the ongoing production and distribution of local content. The repeal of section 81 restrictions will, in fact, have the opposite effect. They will not receive any extra money for content making.

Sunday mornings have become the time for screening special-interest programmes, and my colleague Hūhana Lyndon outlined a number of those special programmes that attract minority audience of little value to advertisers, although don’t tell Jack Tame that. Sunday mornings, as we heard in a quote from Tom Frewen, “This is now a home for important series such as Tagata Pasifika, Attitude ([that’s]for people with disabilities), Q+A (political current affairs),”—if you didn’t know that—“Praise Be ([our religious programme]), Neighbourhood ([for] community diversity) and What Now ([for] children).” Those are really important programmes, and if there was commercialisation pumped in around those programmes, the value of those time slots would change, and those programmes might be pushed out to where there’s absolutely no audience or might be gone altogether. Take a look at Sunday. The important role of television in connecting to marginalised niche or other non-commercial audience should not be overlooked. Sunday morning has become a place to do that.

It’s thought around $6 million, or maybe a little bit more, will be generated by freeing up advertising on these special days. Now, this is based on assumption. This is based on what the industry had said. They may charge out at a rate card rate for those particular advertising slots. But what is not known is whether this is new money coming in from advertisers, or will they just cut their advertising pie to spread it out across those days and so not actually generate any new revenue going to the advertisers? There is no guarantee of new money coming in. Advertising budgets will be spread over additional days. That is what I believe will happen, because advertising budgets are already constrained. They’re not going to necessarily find brand new money to add into these extra days.

I’d just like to address, finally, comments made by the Labour member Reuben Davidson criticising the Minister. Well, it’s not my job to defend the Minister. He can do that himself. However, what I would like to point out in terms of what Labour did when they were in Government, spending a whole lot of money on a failed merger of RNZ and TVNZ—$20 million. It was going to be more than $300 million to merge those two entities. But, at the very last minute, just weeks before the legislation got passed through, what did they do? Their leader, the Prime Minister of the time, Chris Hipkins, pulled a big handbrake on it. What a waste of $20 million! That is your legacy in terms of supporting the media industry—not to mention the $55 million that was pumped into the media, which really broke the trust of our media entities. Public have really pushed back. They do not trust media. They do not trust news. All you have to do is look at every survey which shows that. In fact, they are avoiding the news like the plague. That $55 million for the Public Interest Journalism Fund did not help that, so, Labour, take a look in the mirror. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Mōrena. Thank you. So it’s second reading round. I’m going to take a short call, probably to match the size of the bill.

Jenny Marcroft: How many words?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Seventy-something, I think—anyway. I think 2.5 pages if you print it one-sided, but anyway. There were a couple of comments that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs made this morning, and I just want to speak to those.

One of them was the playing field. What I want to say to that is it must be a very tiny playing field when you’re talking about a 73-word bill. Why would we bother, you know? What’s the motive behind that? Well, we know what that is—and I think that’s been expressed and probably in the third reading we’ll express it even more. What is does match, I think, in terms of levelling the playing field and the tiny field that it reflects, is it’s more like the size of a Facebook and Instagram caption. You’ll probably find more in that than you might in the bill.

The other word that was used, and then contradicted by the ACT Party this morning, was—the Minister did use the word “modernise”. It was stated. I want to say to that if modernising means cramming, bombarding, pushing, forcing all of that propaganda and all of that advertising every single day, that can’t be modernising. That’s just making—a bombardment every day worsens it. Surely, why wouldn’t you just leave a good idea alone? Leave that idea. Leave the Sundays alone. Leave those special days alone. Those days have a history. They have a good history and they’re a good idea.

Again, I don’t want to go too long, because I want to match the size of the bill. I’ll just say leave it alone. In fact, keep it sacrosanct. In fact, support it. To suggest that $6 million is going to do terribly much I think is, again, the same size as the bill—not a lot of size to it, nor a real recognition of the missing bits that really need support in the advertising world.

Leave Sunday alone for me, because that day we do—we’re not particularly religious, but we are deeply spiritual, and we read things on a Sunday like the Pedagogy of the Oppressed and such, like really good, ordinary reading that would open the minds of people and things like that. Just leave the Sundays alone, damn it, and let the minds of our mokopuna, our tūpuna—leave them alone and stop this bad idea, Minister. Anyway, ka nui tēnā. Obviously, clearly by my discussion we will not be supporting this bad idea. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Gosh, five minutes is not enough for me to talk about this bill. We’ll start with the fact that the Green Party does not support this bill. Let’s talk about and address the problem statement of this bill, which is what we’re seeing is a chronic underfunding of our public media. They’re hoping the repeal of section 81 of the Broadcasting Act is going to plug that gap.

Well, it certainly isn’t, because as we see in the departmental report, there is a hypothetical $6 million in revenue—hypothetical. They actually don’t know. It could be nothing. As we heard from the previous speaker, Jenny Marcroft, there is no telling if this is just going to be spread over the other days or in terms of the advertising revenue that it’s just going to be balanced out. In fact, by doing this, we may not get any revenue or the broadcasting sector may not get any revenue, and that is stated in paragraph 21 of the departmental report.

At the same time, what we are seeing, instead of funding our public media sector, is $2.9 billion for landlords. That is almost 500 times this hypothetical revenue that might be gained for repealing section 81, not to mention other wasteful spending that we see from the Government, such as additional blue and yellow tape, like the Ministry for Regulation, with a budget tag of $20 million and not very much to show for it, that overlaps severely with some work that the Parliament is already doing. So that’s one of the problems that we are seeing.

I think the bigger question that people should be asking when they are looking at bills like this, which has the broader ramification of a Government that wants to see further privatisation of the media sector—because the public sector will actually put their policies and their leaders on line and on the hook and justify to the New Zealand public the decisions that they are making and also the positions that they are taking. It’s what media should be doing and it’s what good public media should be doing. Again, this is the Government trying to also address an interesting exothermic conundrum where what happens when you have hot air and snowflakes at the same time. So that’s one part of the problem that we’re trying to deal with.

The other part, talking about consistency and modernisation—this is something that the Minister himself has talked about. Yes, we do see a change in our media landscape. Yes, the departmental report does mention that streaming services and also TV on demand are not subjected to section 81, and also certain areas on the radio as well are not subjected to that. Interestingly, the Minister used the example of YouTube, and I would actually ask the House and also just members here in general to observe that, in fact, YouTube does not have advertisements on Christmas Day and also does not have advertisements on Easter holidays, because YouTube, as an American company, also understands the importance of those days. Yet, even though it’s been quoted by the Minister, the irony is that we are repealing this so that we can have advertisements on those days as opposed to bringing up the standards altogether and encompassing them. According to the departmental report—again, paragraph 60—that seems to be too challenging to do.

What we do see is a cop-out. Rather than bringing everything up—and we have heard from the previous speakers about the importance of those days as well as the importance for our children not to be subjected to advertisements and also the marginalised communities. We’re not seeing the Government taking an accountability approach to this. So the Green Party will not support this bill, and we also encourage others to not support it, like the Greens and New Zealand First.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it’s a pleasure to be able to speak on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill in its second reading. We went through an excellent set of hearings from submitters, from those who are impacted by this bill. I thank those who’ve made submissions and also the rest of the committee who took this through in a diligent manner. It is a small bill, but it does make some changes that will mean that it increases the competitiveness across the system slightly. Even a small amount of money for broadcasters in this day and age is worthwhile, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you. The Labour Party is supporting this legislation, but you will have heard Reuben Davidson talk about it as a drip rather than what we need to support this sector. I know that there’s been lots of beautiful analogies today—snowflakes; I think my favourite is the snowflakes in hot air—but my own analogy is we’re just fiddling while Rome burns. We have a situation here where we know that an important part of our democracy is our fourth estate and, in this situation, our response is woefully inadequate.

We are bringing a piece of legislation to the House, today, which repeals a section where the total cost or benefit to the media sector is $6 million, and that just isn’t very much money at all. As my friend Reuben Davidson pointed out, the job losses are huge in this area, but I want to contribute to this debate my concern that what we have here is an utter erosion of our democracy. We have an absolute need to look at this problem in a wider way than we do today. While we support this legislation—because it is a drip, and we hope that there may be some more water added to the bucket in the next little while, which is what the Government is supposed to do. It’s supposed to lead in this area. It’s supposed to support things and recognise the crisis that we have and address it.

We have heard people throw stones at the Labour Party and what it didn’t do. Well, I have news for the Government: it is supposed to lead. Recently, what we’ve heard is a lot of criticism of Labour from the Government when I’m not sure that the Government realises what its job is right now: it is to lead, and it needs to be brave. Government has a role, and we all recognise that. That’s why we’re in this House, that’s why we’ve given up our other jobs and we’re in this House. It has to lead. It has to be bright and smart and lead.

What I see here is a complete lack of leadership, because we’ve got a tiny bill—a tiny drip—when we should be getting more. I just want to go back to one of those other analogies that Reuben Davidson talked about. I understand he gave a cake to the Minister, because there had been big promises of fixing this area and that hadn’t been done, and he was celebrating that fact. I wondered if that cake was a sponge cake, because in this situation it seems like it is full of air and very little substance. I hope it was a sponge cake and I hope the analogy was understood.

If this Government wants to build something better in the sector, then, absolutely, we will be supporting it. We’re taking a different position from our friends in the Greens and New Zealand First on this one. We do recognise what they’re saying. We recognise that this is an erosion of something that is peace and quiet for people; it’s non-commercial.

Hon Member: Tinkering.

HELEN WHITE: Absolutely. In a perfect world, I would love to be able to support that position, but we’ve taken a pragmatic decision, because we can see people are desperate in this sector, and this is something—this is something. This is a drip. So we’re supporting the drip here. We’re trying to make sure that we support any action, but it is so little action that it is of alarming concern. We have a population that relies on our media, and we are allowing it to be gutted. There was an attempt by Labour to try and address these issues, and we are no longer in Government, so we cannot be the people who fix this this time, and time is of the essence.

This is a crisis, this erodes democracy, this changes the way that things work in this country for ever. It couldn’t be a more important time to act. We have changes in the media that are super significant, and yet we are not seeing that plan. We’re a bit desperate, on this side of the House, to see change take place. We know that the voters chose this Government to do that.

My challenge to this Government is: add to this drip. We’re giving you our support for it. Add to this drip. Make sure that you’re adding some substance to the cake. Make sure you are not fiddling while Rome burns.

What I am concerned about is that it’s not the only area that I’m seeing this in. I am seeing this happen across portfolios because of an ideology that says, “It’s the market; we’ll just step back.” Well, it can’t just be the market, because we’ve got the market, people, and look where we’re at. We’ve got a market in a changing world, and we are failing our people in this country.

When we have something as important at stake as our democracy—and we do. We have social media coming out with garbage. People are believing it over what should be our trusted media. When we gut hundreds of jobs, we are gutting not only the jobs but the knowledge, the commitment to broadcasting standards. Those people disappear. They also change, they morph. If you leave it to the market, what you get is a bunch of people who are just looking for click bait. They are no longer going to be as qualified. They are no longer going to be as committed to values. Some of the brightest people I have ever met are journalists. They are often highly knowledgeable, and we have been basically ignoring the need to support that depth in our community.

We call it the fourth estate for a reason. It is incredibly important as a pillar of democracy and it is no accident that we have seen democracies eroded in other countries as our fourth estate has been eroded, has been undermined. These are bright people. We need to support them. They aren’t alone. There are other areas that are under attack too. There are people like our scientists who absolutely need the same kind of leadership from Government. I’m not saying they’re the only crisis, the only fire in town. We have a few fires in our Rome, but this is a very important one. It is a plank of our democracy, and where are we? We are at a point of crisis.

We have decided to add our voice to supporting this bill but not because we think it is going to address much at all—because it is a start. There is a difference, and there is a reason why I am not in a party with the values or the way that the Greens and New Zealand First are in—there is a difference. I belong to a party that I consider pretty pragmatic and that is prepared to do this kind of thing—and I hear the laughs from the National Party. I’m just wondering whether, in fact, they are actually able to take into account that value in having a pragmatic Opposition that is mature and is prepared to support them in this bill, or whether they’d like us to join a more extreme position.

That’s what they ask for when they laugh, when I say I’m supporting this bill and I’m actually talking about the bill in a way that is nuanced. That’s what they invite. They invite people to move to an extreme position, because that’s what that arrogance gets to. It gets to people getting desperate and moving away, so I hope that the member of the Government who’s laughing at the present time thinks about that. That arrogance also gets you unelected pretty damn fast. That kind of smugness gets you unelected.

It is the Government’s job to come up with better ways to help the broadcasters in our society and it needs to start to take that job seriously instead of relying on the old drivel of “We’ll leave it to the market.” and abandonment of this sector. Otherwise, there’ll be a change of Government next time. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you. Before I take the next call, I just want to remind members to focus on what’s in the bill. It is a narrow bill and it does repeal section 81 of the Broadcasting Act. I know that members have been talking about that, but just as a reminder as we move forward.

Excellent. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that guidance. We have heard a lot of hot air around this bill, but I stand to support the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. Yes, it is a very small bill. Since the Broadcasting Act 1989 came in, technology and audience consumption habits have changed. The advent of internet smartphones and the emergence of on-demand and streaming services has meant that fewer people are engaging with content through traditional, linear forms. This amendment will actually make sure it’s a level playing field so media companies can actually also compete with those streaming services.

Also, if we look at society, when this bill was enacted, we didn’t even have Sunday trading. Things have moved on. This is a pragmatic bill. It fixes up a problem. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker It’s a pleasure to take a call on this particular bill, which focuses on one relatively small section of the Broadcasting Act. I have just been reading this particular section—I know your direction, Mr Speaker, is to focus on this particular Act.

I think what it’s important to remember here is the perilous time that we’re in, in relation to trust not only in Government but also in the news media. One of the reasons for that is the fact that they have had a lot of trouble maintaining the provision that they have with the amount of money that they have. This bill provides a small amount of money to the news media to be able to do that fundamentally important work that is important to democracy. Like other speakers, I recognise that there are different views in the House in relation to this. This is because some of the days that we’re talking about have special religious significance to some people in this House, and I think that’s a valid perspective, and that’s a valid point of view. On our side of the House, on this particular bill, in the Labour Party, we have decided to support this bill because of the very, very important situation and the need that we have for support of our news media in this country. I think that’s the first point. Firstly, the reason we support it is because of the importance of our independent media and the important democratic role that it plays.

The second point, really, is that, since this particular section 81 was passed, times have changed, and the way that we consume media has changed. I think everyone in the House, no matter how they’re supporting voting on this bill today, would recognise that. I watch many of the programmes that were mentioned in the House—I watch Q&A on a Sunday. I watch it on my iPad, and I do get advertising that pops up on that. I hadn’t appreciated that, if I’d turned on my television, maybe I would have had an ad-free experience. I think, probably, that’s the experience of many people in New Zealand. This bill does modernise and keep up with the times, really, in terms of our consumption of media.

The other point that I wanted to note that I haven’t heard—but may have been mentioned in some of the initial speeches—was just to focus on the fact that, currently in our legislation, if there’s a broadcast that is broadcast primarily for audiences outside of New Zealand, the provisions of section 81 actually don’t apply anyway. It’s totally possible to be watching television or listening to radio and, if the purpose of that broadcast is actually to be wider than New Zealand, there would be advertising. I think that’s probably slightly a loophole and probably—in terms of the way that we consume media in New Zealand—actually something that we need to be thinking about closing. I think that’s a positive aspect of this bill—that it levels the playing field in terms of the people who are broadcasting from overseas and our New Zealand distributors as well. Those are the clear points here.

Is this enough—is this enough?—to support our news media and to make sure that that essential fourth estate is able to keep holding us in this House, the people with power in New Zealand, to account? No, this isn’t enough. It’s a small amount—that we think is worth supporting, even though it’s small, but we also think that more needs to be done. I think you’ve clearly heard that through the advocacy of our spokesperson in this area, Reuben Davidson. He is passionate about supporting New Zealand journalists. He’s passionate about supporting New Zealand journalism. We here recognise that although sometimes journalists will make our lives more difficult through reporting on things that we do in ways that we don’t necessarily appreciate, the fact of them being there and doing that role is essential to our democracy.

My father was a journalist, growing up. I have an immense amount of respect for the vast majority of journalists in New Zealand. I think they do a fantastic job, and I think they are often overtly criticised for not doing that when, actually, what they do want to do is just report and do their best to do their job. It might not always be what we as politicians want to hear, but it’s essential to a country that is democratic. News media is absolutely essential, and they do need more support, and we do need to rely on them if we do want to continue with our strong democracy that we have had for a long time. We support this bill, and we urge the Government to go further.

I stand to support the bill, obviously, but I want to raise a new point, which is that this bill will allow advertisements on TVs on Sundays—that is, 52 Sundays in a year. That is an extra 14.2 percent of possible revenue and opportunity for TVs to have ads. That’s where the National Government is supporting, because we are allowing businesses to have that freedom, to have the opportunity to grow new revenue that they’ve always been restricted on. That is a very, very important field. To be honest, this bill, when it was first enacted in 1989, that was before the internet, before cellphones, before all of these portable digital devices that we actually all use on a Sunday. So fast forward 36 years later, I think it’s time now to be modernised. Therefore, I support the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kei te tū au ki te kōrero mō tēnei pire e pā ana ki ngā pānui hokohoko i runga i ngā rā tapu. Ahakoa kei te tautoko mātou i tēnei pire, he nui aku whakatūpatotanga hei whakaarotanga mā mātou o tēnei Pāremata.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on this bill regarding advertising on our sacred days. Despite our support for this bill, I have several cautions for the consideration of us of this Parliament.]

I rise to support the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. While I support it, I come with some cautionary whakaaro for us to consider as a Parliament. Back in my day, if you wanted to watch a programme—say, Sons and Daughters—you had to be sitting down at 5.30 p.m. Ads were a time to make a cup of tea and maybe quickly go and hang out the washing. Nowadays, it comes to you, whether you like it or not. You can be scrolling, and advertisements, while you’re watching on-demand, just pop up on your devices.

The reason, as I’ve stated, that we are supporting this bill is to try and level the playing field for a struggling broadcasting sector. Six million dollars—does it go far enough? Absolutely not. That wouldn’t even be enough to support programming on one channel of television here in New Zealand. It is a drop in the ocean or, as Reuben Davidson so aptly put it, a drip on the fire. If it’ll bring some reprieve to our struggling broadcasting sector, then it is something we will support. But what really needs to be happening is more support from the Government for this sector.

Heoi anō rā, ka hoki au ki ngā rā tapu. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā hōia o roto o Aotearoa whānui, heoi anō i roto o Ikaroa Rāwhiti, ngā uri o C Company and D Company.

[However, I return to our sacred days. I hereby acknowledge the soldiers New Zealand - wide, and indeed within the Ikaroa Rāwhiti, the descendants of C Company and D Company.]

In the Waiapū Valley, Anzac Day is the biggest calendar event of the year. People make the pilgrimage home to our Returned and Services Association (RSA), as they do at RSAs across Aotearoa, to remember our fallen soldiers. These are the cautionary tales I think we need to consider, remembering the sanctity of these days and what they mean to so many whānau across the country. While we support this, there must be some consideration about the dignity and the standard of advertising that happens in these slots.

I personally have enjoyed a career in broadcasting, and the discussion here today is about dollars and cents. What it should be about is people and stories. What good-quality funding does for our broadcasting agencies is it allows people to hear their stories and see their faces. Good-quality broadcasting allows us to preserve whakapapa, celebrate our people, and report current affairs as they affect whānau. That’s why we need to take this legislation far further and we need a commitment from the Government to increase funding for the preservation of our stories. Good-quality broadcasting allows us to hear, for example, our reo Māori in real contexts.

We’ve talked about people who have lost jobs. This bill doesn’t go far enough in terms of financial support for the industry. What is it funding? There’s no commitment, and there’s certainly no commitment to preserving pāpāho Māori, Māori broadcasting. Not only is the storytelling, the retention and the preservation of our stories, our reo, and our whakapapa, and the celebration of New Zealand stories, New Zealand faces, New Zealand - made content not mentioned and not guaranteed; it also doesn’t go far enough in encouraging people into careers in broadcasting.

We’ve talked about YouTube. These days, like I said, when I have conversations with previous colleagues from my broadcasting days, broadcasting is not so much an attractive career option for rangatahi Māori now. People are becoming TikTok famous. They’re developing YouTube channels, and while kei te pai tērā [that’s OK], sometimes in that, production values can be lost. That’s why we need to support good industry and support good investment, and, like I said, while we support levelling the playing field, this bill does not go far enough.

Mātauranga Māori is something that we risk losing being captured by our good-quality broadcasters without investment and, as I say again, maintaining the sanctity of our rā tapu while preserving our stories. It’s not just kōrero Māori and kaupapa Māori but New Zealand stories. People want to hear and see and feel their own faces and stories and whakapapa broadcast with dignity.

Nā reira, once again, as I said, we do want to support this bill merely for the fact to try and make the playing field fairer for our broadcasters, but it does not go far enough, and we call on the Government to increase funding to support the industry, not just at its current state, and to secure a future for good-quality broadcasting here in Aotearoa. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

Hey, it’s a pleasure to be the last speaker in this debate and to echo the sentiment in the House, which is that times have changed, and the media has to change with it—no more so than our public media. So my message to the media, and it’s been our message, which is clear: adapt to the changing times, don’t expect the Government to continue to bail you out, make sure you’re meeting the needs of New Zealanders, and you’ll be, I’m sure, rewarded handsomely through market mechanisms.

This bill makes a very simple change that does give some relief—$6 million is not insignificant—but it doesn’t change the bare-bones reality of the sector. So with that I’ll just end by saying I commend this bill to the House.

This bill was a subject of a conscience vote for its first reading, so I’m prepared to accept one for this reading if members wish. This is the process we’re going to follow. I’m going to put the question. I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member may ask for a personal vote.