Sitting date: 17 December 2024

BROADCASTING (REPEAL OF ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications: I present a legislative statement—

Hon Willie Jackson: Where's the Minister?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Enough—enough.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Hon Willie Jackson: Where's the Minister?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill will remove advertising restrictions from section 81—

Hon Willie Jackson: Where's the Minister?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which currently prohibits broadcast television advertising—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Willie Jackson will stand, withdraw, and apologise. I warned you; you've said it twice since.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK, I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, Mr Potaka—continue.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill will remove advertising restrictions from section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which 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 ways in which audiences consume content. As technology and audiences continue to move away from traditional methods of viewing television shows and listening to radio programming, these restrictions have become increasingly redundant. In fact, New Zealand On Air data shows this year YouTube was the most popular platform in the country, reaching 44 percent of the population daily. The repeal will level the playing field by ensuring local media companies are not disadvantaged by restricted advertising times when global streaming platforms like YouTube are unregulated in this respect.

In a challenging economic environment for New Zealand media companies, section 81 is actively hindering broadcasters' ability to earn revenue from advertising. Industry estimates suggest that local media companies could earn approximately $6 million annually if the restrictions were removed. Lost opportunities for revenue are significant in the current tight financial context, where broadcasters are reducing their commissioning of local content.

In June, the Government outlined a range of actions it will take to better support New Zealand's media and content production sector. This delivers on a promise made in that announcement and comes as we assess how we will proceed with the proposed Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

The New Zealand media sector has been calling for this change for a long time. It is an anomaly that needs to be fixed, and I am pleased to be taking action to support the media sector. I therefore commend this bill to the House—to this Whare.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): This is a sad, sad, sad night, having to stand up and support this bill. It's one of the saddest times of my political life, having to stand up and support a bill because Jenny Marcroft and New Zealand First have betrayed the coalition, and, of course, they have come across to the sensible side of the House, because we realise that any sort of pūtea, any sort of dollars for our broadcasting media crew is something—is something, when you consider this coalition has decided to forget all about broadcasting and media, particularly that Minister who's just sat down, who's let down Māori broadcasting, let down Māori Television, let down the Māori nation, let down his people, because he has not got one extra cent for Māori TV and for Māori broadcasting—not one extra cent.

Hon Member: You didn't either.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Look, I wouldn't talk too much, some of the people on the other side of the House. What did you get in Audrey Young's analysis? I think it was a D—a D. And you got a C. Mr Meager got an A—he's on fire; he's got an A. What did Tama Potaka get in the analysis? So I'd be quiet if I was you because I'll come out with all the—in fact, I've got the assessment here of how all the first-year National MPs did, and it was bloody miserable, I tell you.

But I've got to say, coming back to this bill—we need to stay on the subject—we support this bill because it is a reshaping of the 1989 Act. It's a reshaping of that. We have to give our people in radio and TV a bit of an opportunity. It's not because we want to bombard them with advertising on Anzac Day, on Christmas Day. We get it—we get it—on Anzac Day, on Christmas Day, on holidays, those days should be sacrosanct. We get that, but we've moved into 2024, New Zealand First. So tell your leader, "I know you think you're doing a wonderful job, but we've got a media setup that is dying—that is dying—and so we need some help." So we don't need useless Ministers standing up and saying "Well, this is what we're going to do."; what we need is the digital bargaining bill.

We need the digital bargaining bill; we don't need Mr Goldsmith buckling to the Googles and the—no, no, no, we need him to stand up and show some fortitude, show some strength. Don't just be like these weak-kneed MPs over here. Grant, you got a B, eh? You got a C. What did you get, James? James got an A+. Give James a clap. He's Audrey's—he's going to have a hell of a job on that Justice Committee; I can't wait to get on the Justice Committee to watch how James deals with some of our people, it's going to be fabulous. I'm really looking forward to how James handles it, so is Rawiri Waititi. A+—what did Rawiri Waititi get?

Rawiri Waititi: A+!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I don't think so. No, too many hakas—too many hakas.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Well, I hope you get back to the bill—what everyone else got—Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Coming back to the bill. It's about revenue. The media has been doing it tough for a number of years, and the official forecasts in terms of the repeal of section 81 will provide an additional $6 million to the media sector. So it's about modernising the Act. The media sector's currently operating under the Broadcasting Act of 1989.

So we get it, on this side. That's why we want to give, sadly, this useless coalition some support because they've been betrayed by New Zealand First, and Minister Goldsmith—yes, we'll help you, "Goldie", yes, we'll help you, but why don't you help the broadcasting sector, you useless broadcasting Minister? Do something. Provide a plan. Do something. Help Tama Potaka. Tama's getting smashed to pieces by all his relations, the Māori Party are threatening him in the House. He's a disgrace to the Māori—but we love him on this side, me and Peeni. We'll look after him. Do something for the media. Do something for broadcasting, you useless National Party members. You're a disgrace, but we support the bill. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it was entertaining, if a little unprincipled. But we appreciate it, Mr Jackson; we do appreciate it. For the sake of those who are seeking to see the progressive side of the House hold the line on principles of not further allowing the pernicious, constant infiltration and presence and, you know, pervasive presence of advertising in all parts of our lives and existence, we will be voting against this bill.

Let's be clear: it restricts broadcast television advertising—the current legislation—on Sunday and Anzac mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and both television and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Is there nothing left; is there nothing left? I mean, most of us only ever watch TV on a Christmas Day so why would we not at least protect the purity of the actual day. Out of some decency, why would we not keep it advertising-free if there is such—and Willie Jackson's absolutely right, public broadcasting in this country is sorely in need of proper funding and investment. But this piddling sop to the need for funding public broadcasting and the advertising agency is not the way to do it; it's not the way to do it.

Believe it or not, one of my jobs shortly after leaving high school was that I worked in the advertising industry. I worked in the advertising industry and it always amazed how, even after the 1987 share market crash, people would turn up and spend tens of thousands of dollars on advertising. Do you know why they spend all that money on it? Because, it seems subtle to those of us in the community, but it actually has this very pervasive effect of working. Advertising sells products, many of which are products that we don't need to be convinced we should be consuming more of, like alcohol, like fizzy drinks.

Now, the reason that the advertising industry is constantly pushing to have the right to, you know, be part of every single part of our lives, is because it gets into our brains, it gets into our heads, it makes people buy products that they don't need and don't want and are not in our best interests. So let's be honest, I mean, who does not prefer a day of not having to see advertising?

Todd Stephenson: Just turn it off.

STEVE ABEL: Yeah, that's what we're voting for: we're voting for turning it off. We're voting for advertising not being put on those last few days of the year where advertising is currently restricted. We're voting to keep it that way, that we will ensure that on Anzac Day of all days, there is no advertising. We actually let it be the day it should be, of honouring those who lost their lives in those brutal colonial, imperial wars of the First World War, and protecting the public holiday of Christmas Day; and for some who are Christian and sacred, Good Friday and Easter Sunday—they should have their right to have those days remain sacred and free of advertising. We will be voting against this. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, the House is suspended. I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider members' orders of the day. Good night.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. Wednesday 18 December

Sitting date: 18 December 2024

BROADCASTING (REPEAL OF ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Debate resumed from 17 December.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I'm prepared to accept one. This is the process we're going to follow: I'm going to put the question, I'm going to announce the result, and at that stage any member can ask for a personal vote. So when we were debating this call, we were up to call no. 4—the ACT Party call.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much. Just to clarify the process: if a party chooses at the point when you call for a party vote, they could indicate a split vote at that point?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is my understanding.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. It is the last day of Parliament, and I want to wish everybody in the House a really lovely, merry Christmas, and those viewers back at home. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Media and Communications): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. And thank you, Madam Speaker, for noting that this bill raises an issue of conscience and a personal vote will be made, should people wish to do so, because, of course, for elected members, that personal vote provides a bit more freedom, in fact, to express the views of our constituents, the views of our communities that we represent.

New Zealand First stands on a conservative platform, keeping the best and, in fact, avoiding the unintended consequences of deregulation. I'll just go back to the time when these regulations in section 81 were made in the Broadcasting Act 1989. New Zealand has quite a strong foundation, a Christian foundation. We have a history of it. We have heritage around Christian values. And, at the time, a boundary was drawn around carving out these days as meaningful for religious observance, so having a personal vote is important. These boundaries that we draw around our working lives and our special celebrations are important, and we would be all the poorer without them.

In the last decade, we've seen a great migration, a great migration in the way Kiwis engage in media. There's been a migration from mainstream media to new, emerging media, a migration from traditional linear broadcasting to digital. However, there is some good news—there is a bright spot. Radio audiences have remained pretty stable. Now, the way advertising has shifted from traditional media to large global platforms—we've seen that migration. Digital advertising, now, is around $2 billion a year, with about $1.8 billion going offshore to big tech. This has had a massive implication on the mainstream media advertising revenue streams.

That shift in revenue to the global platforms means that media-business models are no longer viable. The old media that we grew up with is no longer able to operate and flourish on market forces. They need to find new ways of engaging the eyes and ears of New Zealanders, so these old media entities are in financial flux. The digital paradigm has completely flipped that media model on its head, and the legislation that applies to old media does not and cannot apply to big tech, which is situated offshore in Silicon Valley.

So there is a reality that, so far, has evaded a workable arrangement by any nation, and this is a global problem which is being looked at. However, that issue now sits at the OECD level, and it's not something that New Zealand is able to lead on. And what new media tends to do is extremely clever. These big tech giants, use the connectivity, the fibre, the internet, all that infrastructure which was paid for by Government with our ultra-fast broadband roll-out—that investment. And also we contribute to that as well by paying our monthly internet bills.

Now, until we find a satisfactory solution to our old media / new media dilemma, until that can be engineered, until the question of trust in news is addressed, and we return to more rigor in our journalism—and we are seeing some green shoots of that—the migration of audience from our old media to our new media will continue, and this is putting a strain on our mainstream media.

However, in terms of this bill, it's extremely unlikely that relaxing advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Anzac Day morning will make the slightest difference to the difficulties overall that New Zealand media organisations are facing. Whilst the case may be able to be made that a little bit of revenue—it's predicted about $6 million, inside this bill—might go and be generated for some of these media entities from a deregulated situation, a counter case can also be made that the same amount could be spent on either side of those days currently restricted.

In conclusion, I understand the media entities' argument that this will level the playing field, but it's the public and the audience that we need to hear, should this go to select committee. The repeal of section 81 will not necessarily make or break traditional media. There are those bigger factors at force which I spoke to earlier about the influence of big global tech. Whether or not advertising on Christmas Day or even Easter Sunday will make a jot of difference is anybody's guess. If this bill does go through to select committee, New Zealand First is very keen to hear from submitters. Thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this first reading of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, and look forward to it coming to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I heard, through another committee today, that it's not just about the revenue but about the ability to contract for other services that were previously limited because of this advertising restriction, for example with the Cricket World Cup for TVNZ. So look forward to what this could do for the sector, and I commend the bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it's a real privilege to rise and take a call on this, the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, because I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone in this House who doesn't agree that our local media sector is in crisis. And that inaction to do anything about that is ultimately a threat to our democracy, because we've seen such rapid shifts, changes, and closures across our local media sector just this year.

I just want to take the time—and I think it's important that we do, rather than rushing out the door—to acknowledge that, across this year, we've seen: starting with 28 February, Warner Bros. Discovery proposing to close Newshub; on 7 March, TVNZ announced 68 job cuts including the end of midday and late-night news bulletins, as well as programmes like Fair Go and Sunday. On 9 April, Newshub confirmed their closure plans which resulted in more than 200 job losses. And on the same day, in relation to the 68 TVNZ cuts, then media Minister Melissa Lee is reported by Radio New Zealand as saying, "If only I were a magician." Well, on 24 April, Melissa Lee lost her role as Minister for broadcasting and Paul Goldsmith was appointed Minister. Now, on 2 July he put out a press release saying that the Government was taking action to support the media sector. Since then, Newshub closed down, TVNZ announced a further 50 jobs to save a further $30 million, Radio New Zealand reports that the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is "in limbo and not ready." NZME announces plans to close 14 regional community newspapers before Christmas, resulting in a further 30 job losses for the media sector. And this week—this week—the Minister for broadcasting wrote in and announced a repeal—totalling 73 words; if he'd written a word a day, he could have done it in two months, not eight.

It's a fact that there are more solutions between the biscuit tin, between legislation sitting, waiting, and wanting at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, there are more solutions sitting in those two places than there are coming from the Minister.

Now, the Minister wasn't in the House last night to speak to the introduction of the bill, and we were surprised. He wasn't at select committee this morning to hear from the broadcasting NZ On Air, to hear from RNZ, to hear from TVNZ, and I thought: "This is how the industry feels." They want engagement, they want to talk about the issues, and the Minister is simply missing in action. This is at a time when the largest and most powerful media companies to have ever existed have out of proportion influence over the local media content that New Zealanders can access.

This is a little bit like that scene from Austin Powers when Dr. Evil proposes a hostage fee that is so not adjusted for inflation that he is laughed out of the room, because this repeal—at best—proposes an additional $6 million in ad revenue. Now, if you can find a single person in the media sector that agrees with that statement, I'll buy them a round of drinks. And that round of drinks is actually what media commentators are suggesting, this legislative change eight months after being appointed the Minister of broadcasting. That's about all it's going to stack up to. This is a woeful, woeful, embarrassing bill. It shows a complete lack of engagement with the industry, a complete lack of understanding for exactly what is at stake with the losses that we are seeing across our media sector, and blatant disregard for the threat to our democracy, that inaction from this Government to look after our local media presents.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mr Speaker, my apologies for the previous speaker, Reuben Davidson, who was wanting to be the Grinch that stole Christmas! It is actually a good day in this House—that we're here debating the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill—and it's a good day because National will be supporting this bill through to select committee.

I just want to pick up on a couple of things that previous members have spoken about. Firstly, my colleague Minister Goldsmith is working very, very hard and diligently in this portfolio. He does have COVID, which is why he wasn't able to be at the select committee. But let's come back to the facts of the industry. The facts of the industry are that it has been under a huge amount of change, not just in the last couple of years, but since the iPhone, the media landscape has significantly changed. That member was part of a Government, and Labour had six years in which they were actually able to enact changes, and what did they do? They didn't make any changes at all.

We inherited the media bargaining bill which is before the fantastic and hard-working Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and we're working through that, but let's be under no illusion: the media bargaining bill is a very small solution to a much bigger challenge, which is the upending of the media business models, and it's incumbent on the organisations in those sectors to innovate and create new business models that will enable them to sustain and create vibrant business models in the future.

As I said, that is one such component of this landscape, but we are here debating another important bill, and this bill, I think, does away with the restrictions that were in place, which may have made sense back in 1960s and 1970s New Zealand but, frankly, don't make sense in a modern New Zealand and going forward, particularly with the upending of the media sector, as we've seen. I certainly want, and most of my colleagues I hope would agree, a country with fewer regulations, not more, and so we welcome this bill taking away the unnecessary burden that will enable these companies and those who wish to advertise on these days.

Just for those at home—those two people across New Zealand who are livestreaming this speech at home—this bill will allow advertising on Anzac Day, on Sundays, on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. So it is without further ado that I commend this bill to the House, but I do want to take the time to do two things. The first is to say that I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill as a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We've got other committee members here in the House, and this bill will get a fair hearing at that select committee.

Finally, I just wish to say a very special, merry Christmas to all those members from across the House, no matter which party you're from. Thank you to the staff, who diligently work and serve this Parliament. Thank you to my team back in the Northcote electorate. Thank you to my colleagues. It's been a wonderful year—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why are you filibustering?

DAN BIDOIS: I'm not filibustering. This is the only time I've spoken in the House this week. This is my opportunity, Kieran McAnulty, to say some departing thoughts before I head back on to my flight to Auckland to spend Christmas with my family and my son, Noah. So I'd like to wish you all a very special, merry Christmas. Take a good break and come back next year to work hard to get our country and our economy back on track. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I would like to extend my Christmas greetings to everybody in the House, particularly Dan, who has a small baby, and there are people in this House who've just got small babies, and I would like to extend my absolute sympathy with you this Christmas! Ha, ha! It's always an interesting situation when you're exhausted and you've got that level of pressure on you, so kia kaha.

But what I want to talk about is this bill. I want to talk about it in a wider context. The bill, unfortunately—I'm going to support the bill, but the bill is, basically, going to produce $6 million in an industry that is absolutely on its feet. I agree with my colleagues: this is an industry that is vital to our democracy. It is incredibly important we have a thriving media and that it isn't all about algorithms and social media. What we have done is we've left a playing field that's very uneven between the two parts of that industry and it's really not a very good sign that this Parliament has not been able to get this moving faster, but also it has not been able to find solutions that are much wider.

We did have some good policy, while we were in Government, progressing, and I urge the Government to look at its own view of that policy, but also to accept, maybe for the first time, that not everything is something that you leave to the market. Because this is what happens when you're just totally hands off and there are no rules. And what you have is big businesses actually ruling the roost and doing exactly what they want because it's cowboy world. What we have is an industry of good people, who are dedicated and intelligent and want to do the best for our democracy, want to actually make sure that New Zealanders get what they need out of their media and will help the ability of people to understand what's going out in a very challenging world.

We are not helping that at the present time. We have got stuck because we now have a Government that is very committed to this idea for everything, "We're just going to get rid of regulation. We're going to get rid of rules." Well, there's a place for these things. It's all about balance. I want to fix things too. I don't want regulation for regulation's sake, but this is a really good example of where leadership involves actually making some rules, making it fair for people, thinking about the contribution that people make to this community, and fostering it.

So I would urge this Government to consider pretty quickly its responsibility to get a plan. Because I accept there isn't one at the present time that they are happy with, but they better get a plan, because, actually, we've got a whole lot of people who are relying upon free and good media—quality media—in this country. We have people who are really wonderful at their jobs, who are using them hand over fist. They are not able to bring New Zealanders the news that they need, the culture that they need, the information perspective they need, because we are not doing our job in this Parliament anymore. We are not finding new, creative, interesting, pragmatic solutions to the new problems that we face. And those problems may not have been there 20 years ago.

And $6 million of advertising funding—it's not going to cut it; it's simply not. I wish it was, but it's not. We have to rethink our politics and our world and become pragmatic, but we also have to drop an ideology that's as old as perhaps the previous regulation or part of this legislation. It's so old, it needs to be chucked out. We need a Government that's prepared to lead. Please do so. The voters voted for you to do it. We are the Opposition. All we can do is advocate for that to happen. Please do so. Pick up the mantle. Lead as you should. Merry Christmas.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Mr Speaker, merry Christmas. I'm just reflecting on the speech we've just heard from Labour's Helen White and I'm contrasting it with what we heard from Labour's Reuben Davidson and trying to work out where we stand here. On the one hand, we're hearing, "We need to act. We need to do something. We need to take a step forward." On the other hand, we're hearing, "Don't do anything. Don't take a step forward." We're hearing, "This is terrible; it's too much.", and then we're hearing, "It's not enough."

So let's just boil this down to first principles. Let's just think about what this is saying. This is taking a 1989 law which said we don't want to have advertising on particular public holidays and on Sundays on free-to-air media, and at the time that was with an intent to preserve some of the more community social content, what was considered non-commercial programming at the time. But, of course, as we know, over the last 35 years, culture has evolved, programming has evolved, and media has evolved, but what hasn't evolved is the legislation that walks hand in hand with that, and that's why the change is needed.

I err more towards what Miss White was saying—that we actually need to do something. We need to take a step forward and we need to think about what happens now. I remember growing up in the 1980s and the 1990s, and you'd set the VCR to record. There was always a war movie on on Christmas Day—don't ask me why but there was—and you could record it with no adverts. It was fantastic. It was great. Now, that makes no sense to a lot of people out there—what's a video, and why would you set it, and how did all this work?

The point is that media has evolved. If people want to watch—in fact, we have a tradition in our family. Our Christmas movie is Top Gun. I went to watch it on Netflix the other day and it wasn't on, so I've introduced my daughter to Saving Private Ryan as a new Christmas movie. The point is that we now watch things on demand. I remember that when Dad was still around, at 5:50 every Christmas Day he'd walk through to the lounge because we had to see the Queen's message. These days, of course, it's the King's message. It was the only time and the only way you could watch it. Gran would be there with her brandy on the couch, and this is what would happen.

The point is that we have moved on from 1989, and so the legislation needs to now. Even if people want to watch TVNZ programming—and one of my other daughters and I love watching Taskmaster together, and we watch it on demand because life is busy and I don't have a lot of time to sit around watching TV. But when we can, we grab those moments and we watch it on demand. If you want to watch the cricket highlights from the great test in Hamilton—and well done to the Black Caps; what a great victory it was to finish Tim Southee's career—you watch it on demand. It's all there. You can get the full replay.

Steve Abel: He doesn't have figures like Tim Costley, though.

TIM COSTLEY: Oh, you're a generous man, Steve Abel. The point is that we have moved on, and these offshore corporates are taking the advertising revenue that goes with programming. Why would we go and place what now seem like arbitrary rules on top of our free-to-air media, local media, New Zealand media? Why would we restrict them when not everyone else in the market is? Surely we believe in one rule for all. Surely that would be a guiding principle for what we do.

I am in support of a bill and a mechanism that applies that principle, which says, "Let's put everyone on an equal playing field. Let's give the Kiwis in media a chance." Let's give them a chance to nudge forward so that we get some of that great Kiwi programming. I take that point that it's $6 million—but it's $6 million. I tell you what. Go and talk to those that work in this industry.

Today, in fact, this very day, is the final ever Kāpiti News publication, the last newspaper for the Kāpiti Coast. Friday will see the last ever Horowhenua Chronicle. Those are two great publications. Here are Kiwis in media who are directly impacted, ultimately, by the amount of advertising revenue that can keep Kiwi media afloat. Well, translate that to visual media, translate that to television, and translate that to programming and to advertising. This is why it makes a difference.

This might not be the panacea, the fix-all, for New Zealand media, but it makes a difference. It's a logical thing. It puts everyone on an even playing field. It gives Kiwis a chance. It will, I hope, keep some more Kiwis employed. You can still watch the King's message online. You can watch it delayed. You can watch it when you're ready. You can go and find a great Christmas movie like Top Gun online. I'll be doing that with my daughter this Christmas, but this bill is the right step forward.

Can I just take the last couple of seconds to wish everyone, particularly those in Ōtaki, Horowhenua, and Kāpiti a merry Christmas. I am thinking of those who have lost their jobs with the closure of those two papers today. To everyone in the Ōtaki electorate I say it's a privilege to represent you. I look forward to a strong and productive 2025. Merry Christmas. I commend the bill to the House.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 94

Noes 29

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

© Scoop Media