Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. Very good to rise here. We're in urgency—it's just ticked over midday on the final day of the 53rd Parliament and it's an honour to be able to rise and give my last speech in the 53rd Parliament. Speaking on the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill—the first reading—sneaking it in here right before we close up for the year and head into the election I just want to wish everyone all the very best going into this election season.I heard the Minister's speech earlier in this reading and he noted that it's looking to maximise the benefits for local media. I think there is some fairly good intention in there and it is genuine however I don't think it is going to achieve the outcomes that the Minister for Broadcasting and Media desires. There's a few issues in that you know—we already have rules in place that prevent digital platforms breaching copyright and making money from news content. Where they are doing that they will be found to have not been doing what they should be and they will be forced to pay for that. However this is a different situation in which we're doing here—I'm getting told by the Speaker to go a little bit louder.We have a situation here where tech companies if they are utilising and monetising then you would be expected to pay for that but the question is whether you would expect them to pay for that when people are freely sharing news stories on their social platform. We would argue that that isn't the role of Government; it shouldn't be for Government to come in there. That is the place for commercial negotiations to take place. This bill effectively nullifies any negotiations that have been made and imposes a mandatory bargaining code and effectively another tax on businesses. So it isn't something that we would support.There has been a big move and speakers on this bill have already discussed how there has been an evolution in the way people consume their media. And there has—I mean long gone are the days of the big broadsheet; I think there's about one left but people don't tend to consume it like that. I used to read the paper every day the physical version of the paper; I simply don't purchase it any more. I consume it either online or I'm directed to it via social media.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can't read it!SAM UFFINDELL: I didn't hear that from the honourable member over there.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It was funny. SAM UFFINDELL: I'm sure it was very funny. I will have to read the Hansard record—[Interruption] I won't repeat that one. No no.But I would read it and I know a lot of people do consume their news through stuff that is posted on social media that will be redirected through to a news media site. To say that the digital provider Facebook or Meta in this instance should have to pay for that because someone's freely posted I think is going a bit too far and is something that commercial entities could discuss themselves. We have seen where such instances have been imposed—and we note the case of Spain and I believe Canada was the other one. Ultimately those big providers such as Meta have simply switched off that service. They are not willing to get into the situation where they may be fined or face penalties and they're not willing to take on the administrative burden of what such a situation would impose on them. As a result people are worse off.I hear that there was quite a bit of talk around looking after the smaller media outlets and I'm sure everyone here especially those from regional electorates will have those; we certainly do in Tauranga. I know that they will in Hawke's Bay where the previous speaker Anna Lorck was just discussing—they will have their local news media outlet there. A lot of that traffic that's driven to it is going to be through these digital platforms people going on there and then linking through from there. It was also mentioned by someone else how you can be a relatively small media provider but you can have quite a significant reach and a lot of that is done through promoting or having your content promoted through social media. I think we're somewhat short-sighted in expecting that that will all continue and companies like Meta will just happily go about paying the tax. As I've stated what we've seen overseas is that that doesn't really happen.We've seen here—I think the Minister expects this to raise I believe it was $30 million to $60 million. We would question whether that will actually occur. We would probably say that that is a little bit misleading and what is likely to happen is that that won't be raised at all. They will simply opt out as they have done in other countries.We believe that there's no need for the Government to be interfering here. We've made that perfectly clear. We think this is simply more overreach. We don't believe the Minister has had a great run looking after or attempting to move the New Zealand media landscape. We can point to the mega media merger that failed. There have been concerns raised about media independence and we've seen millions spent through the Public Interest Journalism Fund and $20 million - plus spent on the failed merger. So while we do note—and I did say it at the start of this—that we think he has good intentions in raising this I think it is somewhat short-sighted and I don't think it will achieve what it is that he wants to achieve out of this. We note that this will be the first and only reading of this bill in this term of Parliament and the next Parliament will have an opportunity to consider where it goes from there. I will leave it there and state that my position and the position of the National Party is that we oppose this bill.