Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a call on the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill.I want to first congratulate the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Mitchell. It is fantastic to look across and see you there. You will get some hard questions certainly on the next bill but I want to just congratulate you.Carmel Sepuloni: I doubt that he is talking on the next bill.PEENI HENARE: That is true and he did make some points in his contribution that actually relate to the next bill and we will get there very shortly. But on this particular bill I do want to start by saying that I was fortunate enough to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee to hear some of the submissions earlier in the process of the review. I want to say that we support this bill because it does make positive steps moving forward. But when we look at these kinds of bills there are always points where I think more definition is needed just for clarity just to make sure that people do not accidently get ankle-tapped by small things that could have been made a bit better in the bill.I want to raise the point that Mr O'Rourke talked about on new sections 78(2)(d) and 78(2)(e) Criteria for allocating money to party" in clause 4. In paragraph (e) in particular it says: "any other indications of public support for that party such as the results of public opinion polls and the number of persons who are members of that party;". I do not know how many times I have seen poll results or heard poll results and thought to myself: "I fall in that demographic." I would talk to a wide range of my friends and associates and wonder to myself "They never got a phone call. They were never polled. I've never been polled on a particular issue."—some of those are around Te Reo Māori or whatever it might be—and I have always wondered how they come up with these formulas where these numbers come from and how we can justify making a decision based on a very small section of the community. That is a bit of a concern to me and I want to make sure that when the criteria for allocating money to a party is considered we are considering sound formula we are considering sound process in the determination of allocating that money.Polls—they come and go and quite often they are wrong. We saw that in the Trump election. One minute it was clear that Mr Trump was not going to win and all experts said that he was not going to. They still expected to see a Clinton triumph. Well the polls were proven wrong. So that is just to the point around the polls—new section 78(2)(e).In new section 78(2)(d) it says: "any relationships that exist between a party and any other party;". We know that on the political landscape and in particular leading up to election day or during an election year a lot of things happen. The Internet Mana party happened and I wonder just how specific that particular part of the bill needs to be because it is pretty vague—"any relationships that exist between a party and any other party;". I think that is pretty vague and I would like to see perhaps some sharpening up there just for some clearer definition or certainly an explanation from the Minister on why it is like that. I would like to hear that.As I look across the Chamber I see Mr Jono Naylor over there. We are talking about broadcasting and how—Hon Annette King: He looks very happy.PEENI HENARE: Yes he does look relieved actually and he will be on 23 September. People do not watch TV. People do not listen to the radio. People are actually on the internet; people are on Facebook. Mr Naylor's most successful advertisement—I guess you could call it—in his time here was actually his speech on Te Reo Māori that he shared on Facebook. It went to over a million viewers—over a million viewers—probably because of the topic as opposed to the speaker. But Te Reo Māori was his topic and the point of that is that even though we are saying that TV is not your traditional platform radio is not your traditional platform just to say "the internet" is actually very broad—very wide. So the internet—I want to be specific and say Facebook. That member can put something up there and get that much exposure for nothing—for absolutely nothing—in terms of dollars. It was a bit of time and it was a bit of effort but that was about it yet you can get that much exposure. So I wonder when we are considering allocating and spending public funds when you have got all of these platforms on the internet available to people at some could argue no cost—others would argue well they do cost something.But as my colleague Mr Hipkins pointed out what is a package of advertising? What does that look like? Facebook and my example of Mr Naylor is one of those questions I have. The internet—wow that is pretty broad pretty big and pretty vague. I would like to see some sort of sharpening in the focus of that because although I do applaud our efforts in moving in that direction to broadcast messages widely and to more people we have just got to make sure that when it comes to the internet and the discussion of the use of the internet and advertising we are clear on what does cost and what does not cost and how those might be measured up in your allocation and in your returns. I am not an expert in this field but I wonder whether the Minister would like to just provide some clarity around that for myself.In conclusion to this part I just want to say they are steps in the right direction. To the Minister in the chair's point only half I think or not quite half—that seems to be a common message from this Government that it is happy to be around halfway—of the recommendations are being considered and we will have some questions in particular for the next bill that is up for debate. Thank you."