Bridges Simon; Rurawhe AdrianHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to start by just acknowledging what happened in Christchurch a couple of years ago on March 15th and acknowledge what heinous atrocities and terrorism that was on our soil and to our people. I've been in meetings with the ministers recently public meetings with the Muslim community and interfaith community—and I acknowledge and I appreciate that other members of Parliament outside of the Government have been invited to those—and to hear from people whose families have been caught up in this has been very humbling and sobering. I'm sure all of the House irrespective of views on this bill would share the view that the live streaming of terrorism around the world was appalling and that we simply do not want the terrorist and others who may share his hate to succeed and to see this and we'd all want to stop that happening again. But this bill is fundamentally flawed and it really is something and I'm quite taken by it when you have a bill in this House and parties as diverse as the National Party the ACT Party the Māori Party and the Green Party—not at third reading not on the first reading but before it's really even got out of the blocks—oppose it. That tells us I think quite clearly that the Government got this law wrong. Jan Tinetti a new Minister has taken it over and so in a sense it may not be her fault but actually it's her bill. She has carriage of it and—yep I heard Todd Muller—she's talked about real change at committee and the issue bluntly is: can a select committee turn a silk purse out of a sow's ear? I have my doubts having read the bill earlier today. A short point on this is this: this morning in select committee we were looking at members' bills and it's permissible when members' bills—because it's one MP without the resources of Government departments and thousands of officials—can get bills wrong. They're sometimes not as tidy as they should be. But for a Government to be putting in a shoddy law in this House that every single party other than the Labour Party opposes at first reading on something that frankly should at a level be uncontroversial it's not good. It's wrong and they should take a look at themselves in relation to all of that. But worse than that this bill unnecessarily and arbitrarily reduces the fundamental freedoms of New Zealanders. I've been a little bit jumpy about this lately in issues of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and where we're seeing erosion of freedoms. But in a sense I'd suggest I've got every reason to be because we are seeing laws come into this House where the instinct of the Government seems to be Actually we'll control. We'll take over. We'll cancel." We heard some excellent points. I was reading through the transcript from the other members who've spoken in opposition to this bill: Chlöe Swarbrick David Seymour and Melissa Lee. Melissa Lee made the excellent point that the chief censor already has the powers—I think it's a "he" at the moment—he needs at this time in relation to live streaming. David Seymour I thought made the excellent point that this bill won't even achieve anything that's logically connected to the March 15 terrorist attacks. It's all sizzle; no sausage—it doesn't have a logical connection with the atrocities that were committed on March 15th. The multinationals—in this case the social media giants; the biggest companies the world has ever seen—did what they could as urgently as they could and that's because of course their reputation is such that they have every incentive. I'm sure they wanted to do the right thing as well to be fair to get this material—this evil material—down as fast as they could. Our Government frankly with a GDP smaller than these companies didn't have a hope of doing it in the sort of time that they did. Yet this bill under the guise of all of that reduces our freedoms even though it's not related to March 15th or not logically at least in reality. The Government's taking the opportunity to go with their instincts to take power to themselves to take control for themselves and to be able to cancel. I'm not suggesting necessarily that's a bad motive. They may think this is the right thing to do but every other party in this House doesn't and we see it for what it is. It's an easy option and—I use this word advisedly because I wouldn't use it overly—it's quite authoritarian what we've seen from the Government here with this bill. It's not 1950s Eastern Europe but it is quite authoritarian and talking with Rawiri Waititi—actually it's a very good point. I think Melissa Lee made a similar one. What would be the situation in relation to a George Floyd—is that objectionable? Sure I think you'd make quite a strong case that it was. It was certainly distressing hugely distressing and yet that video which through laws like this the Government wants the power to filter—I'm not saying what they would or wouldn't have done with that one but I'm simply making the point they could have the power to do something on that. What would happen in New Zealand? Would it be taken down and actually stop a movement that's very powerful about justice for black people in the United States of America and indeed around the world? I mean your closer-to-home example is in relation to Oranga Tamariki and I appreciate there'd be a wide variety of views on that—the taking of babies. Again is that objectionable? Regardless of anyone's view I would doubt there would be a member—I'd hope there isn't—who'd say that that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed on the internet and the power of it for people to see. Yet what we've got here is a law ultimately about internet filters and the control that I'm talking about and that's wrong. It's overreach. It's something that shows us the instinct of this Government and I for one—but I'm not alone—don't like it. I don't think this is isolated. Actually we're already seeing in a very clear sense—the Minister in charge of the March 15th royal commission Kris Faafoi I think is the one to shepherd it—a desire to go down the path of hate speech. Actually we know it's a situation where in that regard they already had a work programme. So again like this law it's a sense of taking the opportunity to do what the Government wanted anyway even though in my view it has no clear connection logically to March 15th. It's an easy option. Dare I say it it's a cancel culture and it's not a path we should go down. I don't see this law as isolated. I think we see more of it coming and the effect on society overall is quite insidious. Whatever people think about Sean Plunket the reality is that in the last week or so he's been taken off his radio show by large corporates who in a sense seem in my view and I appreciate they're free to do it—scared. They're scared of what's happening of identity politics and the cancel culture and the easy thing to do is to get rid of him. That's insidious to our culture of freedom of expression. All that this sort of thing is doing—this bill and what I've just talked about—is forcing material underground where we can't see it. That's not the New Zealand way. Actually we want a culture where we are tolerant of different views and sometimes offensive views actually and so the National Party—and I certainly with relish—oppose this bill. But I say to the Labour Party that we're not alone. Every single party opposes it. If you can't do a good enough job at select committee think very carefully about potentially pulling this objectionable bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this will be a split call. I call Sarah Pallett—five minutes."