Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I believe you are seeking leave to present that legislative statement.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, OK then: I seek leave to present that statement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Could you just read out what you’re seeking leave to—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I thought I was presenting the legislative statement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, you’re seeking leave to present a legislative statement. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is short and simple, but it’s an important change for the media sector and one they have been calling for for a very long time. I’m proud that today, hopefully, depending on the length of the speeches, we’ll be able to pass this bill and get it into law. The bill repeals section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which restricts broadcast television and radio advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings, and both television and radio advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

The good people of New Zealand might say, “Well, that’s a reasonable thing to do.” The problem is that the world has moved on somewhat, and there are many, many people looking at YouTube, Spotify, Facebook, TikTok—a whole range of other things—where these restrictions don’t apply. Of course, online, all the various ways that people get their entertainment has changed dramatically, so the broadcasters, particularly the New Zealand - owned broadcasters, are at a competitive disadvantage in not having the ability to do something that their competitors can. The current rules deprive local broadcasters of, they think, around $6 million annually in advertising revenue, and, of course, as we all know the pressure that the broader media sector is under, every dollar helps and every dollar counts. That’s why this bill is an important, small but important, way that we can help level the playing field for New Zealand broadcasters to compete in a very difficult environment.

I want to thank all those who have been involved in the bill, and particularly in the spirit of bipartisanship, I do want to thank the Labour Party and spokesperson Reuben Davidson on this matter for their support for this bill. There’s been a lot of talk this week about polarisation in New Zealand politics and it’s good to see that, on this occasion, we’ve had support across the House for a piece of legislation that will help our broadcast media sector to be more sustainable in the time ahead. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to rise and to take a call on a bill for broadcasting. But it is also a speech about broken promises, because this is from a Government that came in saying they were going to get things back on track, and from a Minister a year ago—over a year ago—who said he was going to take immediate action for our broadcasting and media sector. And if this is immediate action, I think that was false advertising.

Now, we know what this bill does, but I think it’s good to just spell it out again. What this bill does is it says, to a very outdated broadcasted Act, “Linear broadcasters can have the same rights to advertise on Sunday mornings and public holidays as are currently enjoyed by digital platforms and advertisers on those platforms.” It’s a very, very, very simple bill.

Such a simple bill, after more than a year, from a Minister who promised immediate action. I’ve done this before but I’m going to do it again, because across the time when this 73-word bill has been the only immediate action the Minister has taken, this is what else has been happening. At the beginning of 2024, Warner Bros. proposes to close Newshub. On 7 March 2024, TVNZ announces 68 job cuts.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Cheer up!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: On 9 April 2024, Newshub confirms their closure plans, and that is 200 job losses. Now, there’s a chirp from that side of the House saying “Cheer up!” My message is: say that to the hundreds of people losing their jobs in the media sector while you progress a 73-word bill that allows advertisements on linear broadcasters on Sunday mornings.

On 24 April, Melissa Lee was sacked as Minister and Paul Goldsmith was appointed Minister of Media and Communications, and this is on 2 July 2024, not 2025—not this year—but 2 July 2024, with the now infamous media release from the Minister committing to taking immediate action to support the media sector. And this 73-word bill is all of the immediate action—that’s it; that’s all that’s been taken.

On 7 November 2024, TVNZ announced a further 50 jobs to be cut. On 13 November 2024, one of the tools in the tool box, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, was reported to be in limbo all of a sudden, and the next day, on 14 November, New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME) announces the closure of 14 regional community newspapers before Christmas, resulting in the loss of 30 more jobs in the broadcasting and media sector in New Zealand. I don’t know if you’re keeping count on the other side of the House; I don’t know if you care. But that is hundreds of people—hundreds of people—who have lost their jobs in the broadcasting and media sector, and this bill is the only immediate action the Minister has taken.

Now, the job losses continue. In January 2025—that’s the beginning of this year—NZME proposes a reduction of 40 further roles, and the job losses go on and on and on and the cuts from central government for funding to the sector come through in that Budget, and what else do we see but just this week: The Hui and Te Karere, two very, very important programmes here in New Zealand—vital programmes here in New Zealand—are now faced with the prospect of no longer existing because this Minister, who promised immediate action, has delivered only a 73-word bill.

The other thing I’ve got here—I like lists; this is a list of dates, and on this list there are 49 dates during which Cabinet met and the Minister, in response to a question about what he took to that Cabinet meeting to help, what he took to those Cabinet meetings for immediate action for our broadcasting and media sector, the answer, for all of these 49 dates, is nothing—nothing taken; nothing offered; no immediate action.

Here's an analogy for you. If you have a business with a limited number of customers and you’re not making enough money and you’re trading six days a week, the solution is not just to open on Sundays, because you just have the same number of customers, but you have to be open more and you have to work harder. That’s essentially the silver bullet solution this Minister has brought here in the repeal of advertising restrictions. It’s a little bit like saying to someone who’s receiving welfare or a benefit that they need budgeting advice. I can tell you that I have met so many constituents who have come into our electorate office because they cannot afford the basic necessities that they need—some of these people are working, some of these people are receiving support, some of these people are receiving a little bit of both, and they’re being told that they need to budget better. And I can tell you, they run some of the best, tightest budgets I’ve ever seen, and they could teach Nicola Willis a thing or two about how to manage a decent budget. That’s what this bill is a little bit like, because it offers so little to the industry.

Now, way back in 2024, when Melissa Lee was the Minister and it became evident that there were some real challenges in the industry, Melissa Lee said that she was not a magician. Then she was replaced by Minister Goldsmith. And I know there’s the obvious joke, and I’m not going to make it, about Minister Goldsmith being a clown, because I don’t think that would be fair, because, actually, Minister Goldsmith has been a mime: he’s moved around a whole lot and he’s waved his arms around, but he hasn’t said anything. He hasn’t delivered a single word of help for a broadcasting and media industry that really, really needs it. And this is at a time when other Ministers have had quite a lot to say. Minister Peters, on RNZ, when he didn’t like the tone of questions, said he’d simply turn the tap off, and Minister Seymour put out social media tiles celebrating the cuts to funding for Radio New Zealand, our State broadcaster, in this year’s Budget.

Simon Court: They’re losing their audience. Why would you fund losers?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: I think that member ought to check the growth in the digital audience of RNZ, because I think you’ll see astronomical growth in the digital audiences and platforms of RNZ.

Tom Rutherford: They are a radio station.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: The ignorance from the other side of the House is astounding, and that’s why I’m not going to poke the bear any further, because we’ve actually got the solutions that the Minister needs, and the good news is they’re available for you, Minister: two of them sitting in the biscuit tin, and one of them is on your desk. In the biscuit tin, there is a bill for a stream of levies which ensures that the international streamers that sell us their content and charge New Zealanders to watch it would contribute a percentage of their profit back which could be invested in local content. It’s not quite as simple as your bill, Minister, but I think it’s a great, great bill and an excellent mechanism to ensure a user-pays system, Mr Court—you’d love that; a user-pays system to fund local content.

Simon Court: No, it’s State-sanctioned theft.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: I’ve stopped listening.

The other is the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Now, that was written, it’s ready to go, and what that does is it makes sure that those international platforms that host our content pay for it. The money in can continue to fund more of it. So that is another bill sitting there ready to go. And I’ll give you a third because I’m feeling generous and I’ve got 45 seconds: the Online Safety Bill is also sitting in the biscuit tin, Minister. It will be simple for you and me to sit down over a cup of tea and get that one out of the tin and under way in this House, to make sure that these platforms and spaces are much safer for all New Zealanders. And that should be a priority for everyone in this House. But instead, we’ve got a 73-word bill. If you typed it out, you could fit it on a postage stamp, and it’s probably worth about the same to the industry, because no one believes it’s worth $6 million; it’s more broken promises from a Government that keeps making things worse. We’re supporting the bill, but, Minister, we are so disappointed for the industry.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this legislation and the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

As we gather today, we actually have to think about how often we live in such a crazy, noisy world and where the sanctity lies when we have Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas. It is actually having some quiet time with whānau. Our viewing might have changed, acknowledging we don’t always watch TV these days, but for those of us with mokopuna or those of us who do care for our elders, we enjoy watching the Q+A. We might watch Marae. We might gather as whānau to have breakfast and talk with one another and not have the distraction of advertising from big industry or businesses coming across our TV screens.

To be fair, when we hear about the potential income that could be generated from allowing advertising on Sundays and public holidays, it’s just approximately $6 million. That’s not going to fundamentally fix the shortfalls that we have.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Come on.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, the shortfalls that we have in funding, if we’re being real about fixing the system, have got to be more than a $6 million lifeline, because that $6 million that might be raised isn’t going to fix the shortfalls that we have in TVNZ, fix Whakaata Māori, or fix Radio New Zealand also. Yes, it is correct: we have heard that there are going to be changes in funding through Te Māngai Pāho for shows such as Te Karere and also Marae, maybe even The Hui, but this little $6 million that might be generated out of advertising on our Christmas Day, on Anzac Day, on Easter, and our regular Sunday viewing, is not going to fix the fundamentals.

That’s the issue here. We have a system that needs a good review. We need to review and provide a clear direction in terms of where we are heading, a better coordinated, collaborative—and also something that brings together innovation, the online as well as the linear. We’re not having the relevant wānanga to bring the stakeholders together. In fact, it’s actually dog eat dog right now. We’re competing. We’re in request for proposal mode. We’re going after funding to try to keep our kaimahi engaged. That’s no different across Māori radio. That’s no different to what’s happening in Te Māngai Pāho right now. Sustainable funding for public broadcasting is well overdue, and that’s what this bill does not address. This bill does not provide the relevant lifeline, beyond the $6 million, that will fix these fundamental issues.

I thank those in the community who have said, “Actually, why do we have to bring advertising in? Why do we have to do that?” For the $6 million? No. Actually, when we have time like Anzac Day—and I want to highlight Anzac Day as a day of sanctity, of remembering those that fell in the great wars and the beautiful coverage that we see coming out across our screens, both online as well as on TV. To know that we could have advertising on there selling us a burger, that we could have Briscoes popping up on our TV screens, The Warehouse—why would we do that? Why would we clutter our online as well as our TV viewing on a day when we should remember them? Look at this House, remembering all of those, all of these great battles, and then we have Anzac Day. I’m only using Anzac Day because that is a day when we pause as Aotearoa New Zealand. Nothing’s open—none of the shops are open—so why should we allow advertising on such an important day for us in Aotearoa New Zealand?

We continue, as the Green Party, to say, “Well, actually, this is a bigger issue beyond advertising on public holidays and Sundays. This is actually the need for us to wānanga a collective solution for proper sustainable funding for public broadcasting.” There could be solutions in the biscuit tin—absolutely. Quality public broadcasting and including our digital media is an important space, whereby we do need to move, we do need to nurture, we do need to increase the workforce development for kaimahi in the sector, and we’re losing too many. But $6 million in revenue ain’t going to fix it. Te Rōpū Kākāriki maintains our ongoing concern and opposition to this legislation. Kia ora tātou.

The ACT Party supports this bill. It’s quite clear that businesses and organisations involved in producing a product and putting it out there on the market need to be able to find all kinds of ways to generate revenue, and selling advertising space to television viewers on linear television is a pretty simple way to do that.

It’s important that they do increase their revenue. This is one tool. Apparently, $6 million could be generated in this way. But I also point out that another really good way for linear television broadcasters to increase their revenue is to produce products that people actually want to watch, and so if people watch it and then the advertisers get revenue, maybe that’s another way to fill the gap. I highly recommend that they consider that as well, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, noting that we have asked for a conscience vote on this particular piece of legislation, the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

Our party has always encouraged policies that enhance respect for national identity and shield traditions from erosion in the quest of profit. It’s important for those members of the House who will be taking a personal vote on this not only to reflect the views, if they hold Christian beliefs and believe that those days when advertising will now be available if the bill is to pass—that they can actually also reflect their constituency, if they have a Christian conservative constituency, and are able to cast a vote on their behalf as well.

Media entities exist within an ecosystem that’s been disrupted by new media arrivals and they’re enjoying, no doubt, some critical advantages. For one, they don’t rely on paper and pen any more to get their messages across. They don’t even actually employ journalists, artists, photographers, or editors. The legislation that applies to old media does not and cannot apply to big tech situated offshore in Silicon Valley. This is a reality that so far has evaded, not just New Zealand but the entire world, in how to deal and re-engineer ways in which the media landscape can change up its business model. Digital media, the big tech companies, are just as regulated as the whalers and sealers of the 1880s.

Society has, in most parts, moved on from the analogue environment, the paper and pen environment, into our digital environment. This digital paradigm has completely flipped that business model on its head. The advertising has shifted from traditional media into large global platforms, and that has had massive implications for mainstream media. If we look at the last five years of advertising revenue that has been spent on our local media, in 2019 the total industry revenue spent was $2.76 billion of advertising across our media. In 2024, it had increased by 30 percent, to $3.59 billion. Advertisers are spending more. However, television advertising revenue has gone down by 15 percent; radio has gone down by just 3 percent. The digital advertising, and this is the rub, has gone from $1.08 billion, in 2019, to $2.17 billion. Radio has done a really good job of increasing their digital advertising revenue. They have increased it over the last five years by 325 percent, but television has done a really bad job of it.

This broadcasting amendment bill will only increase advertising revenue by $6 million. That’s an assumption that’s been made: $4 million will go to television; $2 million will go to radio. For radio, that’s a 0.73 percent increase. It’s very small amount. That’s an 0.81 percent increase—for the $4 million—to television. Now, we believe that this amount of money is not worth changing how we keep those special days sacred; carving out and protecting those days for special religious observance and for Anzac Day to commemorate all of those people who fought in the wars, as outlined by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon.

Just a couple of points I’d like to make: Radio Rhema is able to advertise currently as a radio station on a Sunday. They choose not to. If this bill passes, they will not be taking advantage of advertising and will not conduct any advertising or seek any advertising revenue with this repeal.

There’s no doubt the New Zealand media faces many difficulties that have been agonised over in great detail and at great length. Those issues are of a higher order than the discussion of whether or not to deregulate advertising in New Zealand on these few special days. If we relax advertising standards at this point, it will be seen as a further dumbing down of our media space that we still do have control over.

New Zealand First stands on a conservative platform of keeping the best and avoiding unintended consequences of deregulation. Those boundaries that we draw around our working lives and our very special celebration days are important to all of us, and we’d be the poorer without them. We oppose this bill. This bill overlooks the cultural value of New Zealand’s commercial-free days as roadblocks to revenue and not foundations of our country’s character. We don’t buy into the idea that every moment of broadcast has to be sold. We believe in New Zealand’s secure times of reflection, family and community, and will not be supporting a bill that takes that away. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Tamatha Paul—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak to this bill. I don’t really watch TV. I don’t know anyone my age that watches TV. I’m going to be honest with you. We can’t escape—

Hon Member: We don’t watch it, either.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, I don’t know of anyone in this room who watches TV any more. Obviously we watch the shows. We can go on TVNZ+ and YouTube and stuff like that and watch them all again. I always catch up with the old Q+A interviews on YouTube these days, and because I’m subscribed to YouTube, I don’t get any ads. I didn’t realise the gravity of this issue, but I can see why it means a lot to people because of the significance of the holidays.

I might not have TV and I might be living free from ads, in the privileged lot living free from ads, but I can definitely respect that days like Anzac Day and Sundays, for some people, are sacrosanct and that they should be protected from, I guess, needless ads—although I would hope that, on days like Anzac Day and other special days, people wouldn’t be watching TV; that they would be having a good kai and having a laugh and a kōrero with their family rather than watching TV. I guess it’s out of that respect for some of those really important milestone days and days like Sunday, which carry a lot of significance for different people of different faiths. I can respect that, and I can respect the freedom, I guess, to watch TV on those days without having those ads in your face.

There isn’t a whole lot more to add than that. I guess I want to echo the points that people have made: that this change will bring in $6 million of revenue into these broadcasters. However, that is really a drop in the bucket compared to the type of funding that these organisations need. I wanted to reiterate some of the points made around Government cuts to broadcasting, some of which are a $10 million cut to Whakaata Māori, our national Māori broadcasting channel; a forecast $18 million worth of cuts to Radio New Zealand, which is quite depressing given that they are also our kind of emergency national radio station, who have to communicate those really important messages to everybody; and the fact that TVNZ’s call for an extra $30 million worth of revenue has been ignored. We all know where that money has been going instead of to our broadcasting channels.

In a time when people are quite suspicious of mainstream media and when people are getting a lot of their information from the internet, it’s probably quite important that we protect national broadcasting channels and platforms as a source of truth for people to get information and to learn things and to know what’s going on in the rest of the country and, indeed, the rest of the world. There are better alternatives, like Reuben Davidson talked about, to look after broadcasting and people’s access to information. Some of those ideas include long-term funding for public, Māori, Pasifika, and community media, strengthening NZ On Air and the Māori Television Service, supporting non-commercial spaces for children’s content, and protecting independent journalism and niche audiences. I don’t know what they mean by “niche audiences”, but it’s clear that better alternatives exist.

I’ll leave it at that because there isn’t an awful lot more to say, except that I totally respect the sacredness of particular days for particular people. Twenty percent of New Zealanders subscribe to some form of faith, and I’d assume that many of those include Sundays being protected and days of rest and days of worship as well. We’re keen to honour that and respect that, and that means we will be opposing this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for National in support of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. I’m sure that, along with myself and Mr Costley, other veterans have far better things to be doing on Anzac Day than watching television. It’s probably one of the busiest days of the year for us. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I listen to the debate and reflect on my life growing up, on Sunday mornings, it was always TV1, and Praise Be was always playing in our house. I actually enjoy—I love—Praise Be. As we ran around, getting ourselves ready for church on a Sunday, Praise Be would always be blasting in the background.

But, Mr Speaker, I have some news for you as well. It gets better, on a Thursday afternoon! I was actually on Praise Be once as well. It's all coming back to me—

Tim Costley: Sing us a song.

GLEN BENNETT: As much as I would love to sing to you this evening, the Standing Orders do quote about offensiveness in this House, and I will be careful. But I actually played in a brass band with the Salvation Army; I actually played the tuba. I digress, but the reason I played the tuba was because it was the biggest instrument you could hide behind, so none of your friends from school would see you behind the tuba. That's another story. But we do reflect on—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): As long as your digressions are entertaining, the Speaker is fairly lax at this time.

GLEN BENNETT: We do reflect on the significance, as been said, of religious festivals, holidays. But the reality of this one is, as with most of the New Zealand calendar, which was imported from England, it is the Christian tradition that we always commemorate. I don't see any broadcasting advertising being taken away for Eid or taken away for Ramadan or those kinds of things. We are in a modern world, and as much as I respect my Sundays, though I don't particularly watch Praise Be much these days anymore, I think that it is the modern world; therefore, we need to reflect on that.

I did think long and hard about would I support this or wouldn't I, and I have come to a place where I do. Because I think it's actually about fairness. It's about fairness when YouTube, when Facebook can make millions and billions of dollars and then little old TVNZ is unable to advertise on a Sunday morning. It just seems a bit unfair. I hope that they don't flaunt this too much and just sort of go hell for leather with everything else, but we all need to consider the changing world.

We reflect on the world, as it changes so rapidly and things evolve, and I think that in broadcasting, it's changing even faster. We look at what was offensive once upon a time to what's offensive today. As I was listening, I was thinking, who remembers the “bugger” ad? Who remembers the Toyota “bugger” ad? The Broadcasting Standards Authority was involved, and there was huge outrage in 1999 about this little wee dog and others saying the word “bugger”. I hope my mum's not listening because she’d be outraged if she heard me saying that word! Anyway, I just think that the world has changed and moved on, and we need to be reflective of that.

Now, a comment was made by a previous contributor about the fact that if TVNZ just produced better material, then people might watch it. Well, that's not the point. It's not the point, because you look at what was just said by Tamatha Paul, and, obviously, we're very generationally the same because I have a YouTube account; in fact, the only paid subscription I have in my life is YouTube—it's amazing—so I get to watch Q+A and I get to watch all of those TVNZ shows without ads. It is great—another digression, sorry. But things have changed; things have moved on, so the reality is—

Hon Member: There you go. Without ads is great. Get rid of the ads.

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah—that's what I'm saying, that the reality is we need to actually have fairness within all this. That's what I made clear when I first started, and that's why I brought it up now: it's around fairness. But the reality is—to finish off—the out of touch-ness of this Government. My colleague Reuben Davidson made it very clear that, you know, “We're wanting to fix everything.”, this Government came in saying, and “We want to get everything back on track.” This is $6 million; this is small change. It's significant change, but it's small change.

We need to be sitting in this House, talking about bigger, more important things than a piece of legislation that just lets you put a bit of advertising on a Sunday morning or on Anzac morning, and I think we need to be reflective of that. We support this bill. I've been thoughtful and cautious, and I might go home afterwards and, on YouTube, watch a bit of Praise Be, just to cleanse myself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Scott Simpson: Praise be.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You can follow me on TikTok, Scott Simpson, ad-free. I'm down with the kids. I've heard of TVNZ+. My friend Glen Bennett makes many good points, but we need to have a median, neutral approach to regulation. It is pretty much in the dark ages when we are having one set of rules for broadcast television, which I've heard referred to as linear television, and in exactly the same programmes provided by exactly the same entity, if you stream them, you're not subject to those rules. That's just irrational.

But I do think we need to recognise that broadcasting is in a parlous state. Look, yes, there's a place for purely commercial programmes that people just love to watch, but we've also got to recognise that the Government has a role to play to make sure that our stories are told, and those stories aren't always commercially successful stories. They can be dramas and comedies or documentaries or even shows like Country Calendar and what have you, but they're our stories, and what this bill does is give a small amount, not of funding but of an opportunity to get funding, but it's not enough to plug the gap.

We heard today that funding for some of our Māori broadcasts like Te Karere is at risk. That's another example of where there's a real obligation to give voice—a Treaty obligation to give voice, and funding through advertising goes only a very small part of the way.

As Reuben Davidson so clearly phrased it, there's lots of movement from the Minister for Media and Communications, but no real noise, no decisions, no statements, no effective actions. He's miming the position of Minister of broadcasting, and frankly he seems to be somewhat stuck. So we really do need some action in broadcasting from this Minister, because this small change allowing advertising on otherwise prohibited days might go some small way, but it's not really stopping the rot, the decline in broadcasting.

When I refer to broadcasting, I think we need to make it clear: broadcasting more generally across all of the platforms that Tamatha Paul watches. We need to be clear that people do need to be able to go and see our stories on YouTube and on TVNZ Ondemand and what have you, because it's part of our really important cultural heritage to have our stories being told.

So, look, yes, we're going to support this bill and quite right to observe that, particularly for religious days, it's a bit of an anachronism to have the Christian religious day as a preserve when we now live in a very multicultural society where other religious days come and go. While some of us might respect or adhere to them, they're not considered to be kind of State affairs. Anzac Day—I get it. I won't be watching telly on Anzac morning; I will be respecting the work and sacrifice of those who have fought for our freedom and for the freedom of others, but I think that is a personal choice, not one that the State should be imposing on. So for those reasons, we'll support the bill, but really much more needs to be done in the broadcasting space.

As technology changes, so does culture, and so does legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, we are seeing broadcasting change across the world, globally and here in Aotearoa New Zealand. With that, we do need to shift and change some of the legislation and restrictions to enable the broadcasting industry to be at its best. Sadly, this Government just continues to let New Zealanders down. They set big expectations, and I heard more ideas and contributions in this House today from my relation Jenny Marcroft. I think she could do a better job as the Minister and come up with better ideas in the absence of a Labour-led Government. This bill really is about fairness. It’s about balance. It’s about bringing more revenue into broadcasting to make great content that New Zealanders love. I commend this bill to the House.

The New Zealand media sector has long called for these changes and this Government is responding. I commend this bill to the House.

Carl Bates: Mr Speaker.

Sorry, the votes—which call are you taking?

Hon Member: It’s already taken.

Carl Bates: Sorry.

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 that we’re going to follow. I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Ayes will cast their vote in the lobby to the right, the Noes will cast their vote in the lobby to the left. Abstentions will be recorded at the Table. All votes and abstentions will be recorded by the Clerk. Proxy votes will be marked as such. Members present in the Chamber or lobbies must cast a vote or abstain, and must not leave before the vote is announced—Standing Order 151(1). Members, the Ayes are 49; the Noes are 22.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve just had occasion to look at the Standing Orders and I’m reading Standing Order 154. Now, Standing Order 154 states—it’s very short—“Where fewer than 20 members attend the House to vote or abstain on a personal vote, that vote is of no effect.” It appears we have 13 members who attended the House to vote, and it would appear, therefore, that that vote has no effect.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Labour Party is looking for opportunities to kind of undo some of the process that we’re following, but I just want to ask you, Mr Speaker—speaking to the point of order that the Labour member raised, my understanding is that we’re to take members at their word and if they’ve cast proxy votes for other members of their caucus who aren’t here, we take them at their word.

Well, for a start, I’d direct the member to Standing Order 152(2) and he may find that he’s actually wrong. It’s quite clear, for those who are present, that “(2) A proxy must include—(a) the name of the member who is giving the authority, (b) the date the authority is given, (c) the period or business for which the authority is valid, (d) the member who is given authority to exercise the proxy, and (e) the signature of the member who is giving the authority.” The chair is not only not satisfied that hasn’t happened, the chair is satisfied that it didn’t happen. So, now, I’ll speak to the Clerk and relate.

Speaking to the point of order, if the interpretation of Standing Order 154 is correct, then that would therefore mean that the voice vote is the one that is carried. So the motion is agreed because the Standing Order 154 applies to the personal vote which was called after the vote which was carried on the voices.

I’m advised that’s not correct. At this stage, the debate on the bill is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. There were less than 20 members present at the time the vote was taken, in contravention of Standing Order 154.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 October 2025, and we all leave much better informed than we were when this debate began.

The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.