Seymour David; Tisch LindsayDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I could not help but wonder when Julie Anne Genter was speaking: what would she do if it came down to a choice between pay-per-view sport or sport that was funded by the advertising of sugary drinks? What would she do with that particular dilemma? I have no idea but it was clear that she did not really support the bill anyway.I would like to compliment the Labour Party for taking a principled view on this bill but from New Zealand First we could not expect any better. There are people who come into politics for purely populist reasons and people who come into politics to make better public policy and this is a classic example of purely populist—Hon Simon Bridges: They don't know why they came into politics.DAVID SEYMOUR: That is a very good point from Simon Bridges. They may not know at all. But I can tell them why they are there. It is for purely populist politics and nothing to do with making better public policy. What this bill would do is take the owners of private property of brands of events and of institutions and take away their right to sell their property to another private interest that still more New Zealanders have paid to consume a product from. If we start going down that track well there are just so many examples of different things in New Zealand that are produced by private enterprise that constitute private property that other New Zealanders choose to consume and that in theory we could apply this concept to.Take for example the agricultural sector and the food sector in New Zealand. Well why should we stop at sport when we could have free to eat"? There are lots of people who want lots of food that is produced by all sorts of businesses and if you do not care about the property rights of all of those people who work and produce and invest—just like New Zealand First does not care about the New Zealand Rugby Union does not care about Netball New Zealand does not care about New Zealand Cricket or any of their rights. Why should we not just take away the rights in the property of the entire food sector? We could call it "free to eat".But what about the clothing sector? There are a lot of people who want to wear Karen Walker. I know that Simon Bridges is one of them. Yet why should we not have a "free to wear" policy? Karen Walker does not deserve the property rights for the business that she has built up over a long period of time! With a forthcoming member's bill from New Zealand First "Free to Wear" everybody can have Karen Walker jewellery and clothing and bugger the property rights of New Zealand businesses!What about entertainment? What about Adele's concert? Why should she be able to come to New Zealand and charge people?Paul Foster-Bell: What about Bieber?DAVID SEYMOUR: "What about Justin Bieber?" I hear from Paul Foster-Bell. Paul Foster-Bell wants to know why he cannot have free tickets to Justin Bieber. Why should Justin Bieber be allowed to come to New Zealand and sell his tickets only to people who actually pay to go to his concert? It is an outrage! We should have "free to Belieb". People should be able to get free Justin Bieber tickets for the good of our nation.What about cars? We should have "free to drive". Why should private businesses be able to import cars into New Zealand and sell them only to people who pay to buy them? This is an outrage! We should have a "free to drive" policy so that everybody can freely drive cars funded by the taxpayer or by advertising.If you take it to its logical conclusion this New Zealand First bill has no respect for property rights no respect for business no respect for individual choice and free enterprise. It takes us back to a world where we are all watching the same where we are all wearing the same we are all going to the same concerts we are all getting the same entertainment we are all driving the same cars—all of the things that are allowed by the Government. This bill is actually communist. It actually takes away the property rights of private enterprise and gives it to people by Government fiat. I know New Zealand First would love to take us back to the 1970s. I know that they would like to go back to those grey old days of New Zealand but the reality is that today we live in a prosperous diverse property-owning business-building liberal democracy. I am very proud of that and proud to oppose this—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member's time has expired."