Films, Videos, and Publications ClassificationAmendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration and report back by 30 June 2004. This is the first significant reform of the censorship laws since 1993. The bill arises out of the 2003 Ministry of Justice review of the offence and enforcement provisions of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act and the wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the Act by the Government Administration Committee, as also reported in 2003.

The most important reform advanced by the bill is the new measures it contains to combat the alarming growth in child pornography trade via the Internet. While 10 years ago censorship laws were concerned mainly with books, films, and magazines, offenders now use the Internet to access, exchange, and store thousands of objectionable images in a way not previously imagined. The tenfold increase in penalties for dealing in such material contained in this bill reflects the abhorrence with which this Government and society regard this trade. Child pornography is images of child abuse. Trading in such images creates a market for such abuse.

Most of that trade is not a commercial transaction, so it is not treated as a serious offending under existing laws. The current maximum sentence for producing, copying, or trading objectionable material is 1 year in jail, while possession is punishable by a fine of only $2,000. The penalties in this bill will cover all forms of distribution, whether or not for commercial gain. The bill increases the maximum sentence for dealing in objectionable material to 10 years in jail. It also creates a new offence of possession with knowledge that will carry a maximum penalty of 2 years’ jail.

While the new maximum penalties will be available for all objectionable material, the fact is that child pornography is a No. 1 enforcement priority. This is reinforced by the provision in the bill that child pornography will be treated by the courts as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The amendments also ensure that New Zealand meets its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, covering child prostitution and child pornography, by providing for the extradition of people who have committed offences in other countries.

The introduction of importing and exporting offences recognises that trade in child pornography is an international problem. The classification criteria contained in the Act have come under scrutiny following a recent Court of Appeal decision. Following a comprehensive review in 1993, section 3 of the Act sets out the meaning of “objectionable”, the legal standard for prohibition. For a publication to be objectionable, it must deal with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of a publication is likely to be injurious to the public good. The meaning of “objectionable” contained in section 3 of the Act acts as a gateway to restrict the scope of censorship laws.

The operation of this gateway has come under scrutiny in the recent Court of Appeal decisions. The decision in the Living Word Distributors Ltd case made clear that the Act cannot be used as a censor of publications on the primary basis that they contain derogatory, highly offensive, or even hateful opinions about particular groups—material that we might call hate speech. Similarly, the law cannot be used to address the growing problem of covert filming. The Government Administration Committee expressed concern about both these issues. The Government has concluded, however, that the gateway correctly identified the kind of material that should be banned under censorship laws, and that censorship law is not an appropriate place to deal with hate speech or covert filming issues.

The danger in widening the gateway to encompass matters of opinion or belief is that it opens censorship to potential abuse. Censorship regimes have in other times and places been used to suppress political and religious thought and opinion considered by those in power to be dangerous or subversive. A regime relying solely on “injurious to the public good” test would not provide adequate safeguards for the important principle of free speech against such abuse. The Government believes that its concerns about hate speech and covert filming can be isolated and dealt with appropriately elsewhere.

Hate speech is essentially concerned with discrimination and should be considered in that context. We need to be very careful about the balance struck between freedom to express opinions on such matters and protection of members of the community from demonstrable harm. The Ministry of Justice will report to Phil Goff on a range of options available to address statements and behaviour that vilify certain groups in society. This will include consideration of the Crimes Act and the Human Rights Act.

The essence of our concern about covert filming is the intrusion on a person’s privacy. The images captured through such filming do not necessarily portray anything objectionable. If they do, they are, of course, classified on that basis. The covert nature and the way in which the image was made do not properly fit within our censorship regime, but I share the concerns of the committee about this practice. The Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice are currently undertaking further work on the potential legal responses of covert filming, which recognise it primarily as an intrusion on privacy.

There are, however, two discrete areas, child nudity and offensive language, where doubts have been raised about the implications of the Living Word Distributors decision. The bill makes discrete amendments to deal with these potential areas of uncertainty. The law must leave no doubt that sexual images of children are objectionable and can be banned by the censors. The second amendment provides that offensive language is in itself a ground for age restriction, and may be harmful to people under a particular age. It is the Government’s view that the fundamentals of the classification system are in good shape. The system is accessible, responsive, and consistent, but there are areas where improvement could be made. The Government Administration Committee’s inquiry has been helpful in identifying these areas.

Improvements proposed include: the Commissioner of Police being able to submit for publication classification directly to the chief censor without having to seek leave—the chief censor being able to fulfil public notice requirements, where it will be too great a burden for the submitter; official labels having to be used uniformly for publications other than films, as it is confusing for the public at present to have a range of non-official labels that are currently in use; and the Film and Literature Board of Review having a review of its membership size from nine to six to make it more manageable. There are also several other minor changes to improve the clarity of the law.

This bill is the first significant reform of our censorship laws for nearly 10 years. It clarifies issues around the meaning of “objectionable” and will improve the operation of our fundamentally sound censorship regime. By far the most important change, however, is that it addresses the recent explosion in trade in child pornography via the Internet. People who produce, trade, or distribute child pornography now may face up to 10 years in prison, and people who possess child pornography may face up to 2 years. These penalties clearly reflect the abhorrence in which this Government holds these crimes. I commend the bill to the House.

We have been treated by the previous speaker to an illuminating insight into the key passages of this bill, and also into the provisions that the Government believes are the key provisions deserving the attention of the Government Administration Committee. I say from the outset that National will support this bill going to a select committee. We do so, though, conscious of the fact that this legislation contains significant changes, and that what has been a settled understanding of quite difficult provisions may well be disturbed by the use of new statutory language; also, settled case law may be put on one side. So National seeks an assurance from the Minister that if inconsistencies or injustices are revealed when this legislation is passed, the Government will forthwith implement remedial legislation to deal with those issues. In a circumstance where it seems likely that the life of this Government is moving to a close, National can give a similar assurance that if inconsistencies are revealed, when it comes to office in 2005 it will, on a prompt basis, implement remedial legislation.

The previous speaker spoke about a balance that needs to be struck: on the one hand the right of freedom of speech, and on the other hand the necessity to set appropriate bounds in the context of the criminal law and public policy considerations. Pornography is an example of an issue that has grown very quickly from a state of insignificance to become a major social issue, at least in some parts of the world. From the very beginning, in the early 1960s, of what has been termed the modern pornography wave, there has been controversy over nearly all aspects of the topic, and only one aspect of that topic is the issue of balancing of interests.

Members will know that erotic art is probably as old as art itself, and that sexual themes appear in the artistic creations of all times and cultures. The first erotic paintings, sculptures, and writings were probably produced in the early youth of humanity, and every milestone in the arts usually saw new developments in the field of erotica. It was Johann Gutenberg who developed the art of printing, in around 1448. One of the very first books to appear in print was Il Decamerone, Boccacio’s erotic work. Of course, what happened immediately after that was that there was suppression of freedom of the press. The next giant step towards mass media production was the invention of the photographic process, in 1832. There were similar consequences, because 40 years later, in 1874, 130,000 obscene photographs and 5,000 slides were seized by police in a raid on two houses in London owned by a photographer called Henry Hayler. When Edison invented moving pictures, the pornographic potential of that new media was of course too obvious to be overlooked. Very soon, a prosperous underground production of blue movies began, particularly in South America.

So we move to today where, as the previous speaker has said, we face a wave of pornography through the spread of the Internet. I was interested to read material that was reported on ABC Online on 13 January 2004. It was an interview with the writer of a report, John Carr, in London. The first point he noted was that child pornography crime had risen fifteenfold since 1988. That is an enormous increase. In the course of the interview he was asked about this very tricky issue of the linkage between child pornography and child crime. He noted there were two sources of reasonable information to establish that causal connection. The first was interviews that he had had with paedophiles themselves. He spoke about a clinic in the UK called the Lucy Faithful Foundation, which treats convicted sex offenders. It was clear from what those sex offenders said that they had been influenced by exposure to child pornography material. But there is also some objective data. The United States Postal Inspection Service did an analysis of everyone it had arrested from 1997 till the end of 2003. Over 2,000 men had been arrested, and the analysis found that 35 percent of them were also hands-on abusers. So I think there is a fair basis of evidence in the literature, and anecdotally, to make the particular connection between child pornography and unlawful sexual activity.

We come then to the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. I have already said that National will support this legislation going to the select committee. It is appropriate that there be a review of this legislation, because, after all, the principal Act has been in operation for 9 years—the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. It was the start of a unified regime for the censorship and classification of printed material, of film, and of other publications. Three things have happened since then that provide, in the view of National, justification for this amendment bill.

The first, and the one that the previous speaker has referred to, is the availability and use of the Internet. That has, of course, prompted, on an international basis, legal measures to address the exploitation of children. I need only refer to the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. We signed that protocol, so we had an obligation, as a matter of international law, to line up our domestic law with it. We have done so, or have sought to do so—certainly, in connection with this bill.

The second aspect is that the Ministry of Justice undertook a review in 2003 of the current offence provisions and enforcement powers contained in the principal Act, and that review concluded that the existing penalties simply do not reflect the seriousness of some offending, particularly that involving child pornography.

The third aspect, which was also before the Government Administration Committee, concerns the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called Living Word Distributors Ltd v Human Rights Action Group. The Court of Appeal said that for material to be “objectionable”, which is one of the statutory words in the legislation, it must fall within the scope of a subject matter gateway, and that the subject matter limitation was designed to limit the reach of the censorship laws. The court said—and this was seen to be, by many, a gap—that publications could be banned under the Act only if they dealt with sex, horror, crime, cruelty, violence, or other, similar matters. So one of the things that this bill does is seek to deal with that gap identified in the Court of Appeal decision.

What does the bill do? The main reforms of the bill are dealt with in the explanatory note, and I am not going to deal with them in any detail. Suffice it to say that we see in this bill a raft of changes. We see the extension of the scope of “trading or commercial” offences. We see an increase in maximum penalties. We see the creation of a new offence, punishable by up to 2 years’ imprisonment, of possession of an objectionable publication, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it is objectionable. We also see the removal of doubt that nude or partially nude images of children can reasonably be caught and classified as “objectionable” by the censors.

This is a very good bill, which will reform the law as far as it relates to the trade of child pornography over the Internet. It will increase 10 times the penalties for dealing with such material. For instance, people who trade in child pornography now face up to 10 years in prison under this bill. It really strengthens the law in this respect. I support the bill.

I rise for the ACT party to support the introduction of this bill. I was very pleased to hear the Minister in charge explain in clear terms that the bill does not propose to follow the recommendations of the Government Administration Committee. Last year the select committee produced a report that would have to be one of the most woeful pieces of reasoning to have come out of this House in that time. It was a report that basically said that the censor should have the power to ban things that the censor did not like.

The United Future party followed that report by quickly leaping in with a member’s bill to implement the Government Administration Committee’s move. I suspect the reason we now have the Government introducing this bill—a year later—is that for a while it thought that United Future would get in with its bill to do the Government Administration Committee’s absurd work.

What has happened is that United Future realised a little belatedly that it was a massive own goal. Essentially, Marc Alexander’s little bill was going to give the censor power to ban things like the Living Word video and other publications that might powerfully make a case against, for example, homosexuality, prostitution, or the other things that United Future did not like, while at the same time leaving the censor free to allow circulation of all kinds of demeaning, dehumanising, and worse than immoral publications that were very powerful propagations of messages that United Future did not want. We have a bill that has been dressed up to look as if it is all about child pornography, but in its genesis was really a bill to head off a United Future own goal—even though United Future realised it only last week, when Marc Alexander withdrew his member’s bill.

This bill deals with censorship. Censorship has an irony or a flaw right at its core. It has been recognised for many years that often—in the name of art or serious discussion of issues of great topicality—very powerful artistic works get the nod and can go through because they have merits that allegedly outweigh their detrimental effects. They are works that are very persuasive in advocating lifestyles that might horrify the majority, or which might be thought to undermine values that most communities have held dear. These powerful works are allowed to circulate because of the balancing that the censor does, and probably because of the censor’s own elitist preferences.

Meanwhile, the tawdry, scruffy, ugly forms of eroticism—the forms that most people probably turn away from for their own sanity and feeling of cleanliness—are banned. So one finds that censorship tends to focus on stuff that probably is not very effective, and is forced to allow through the really great works of art—and Mr Richard Worth mentioned some of them—that probably have far more influence in changing mores and ideas of what is, and is not, socially or culturally acceptable. Those kinds of works are allowed through. For that reason, many people have said in the end that censorship itself is doomed to fail, and is too dangerous a concept to have in our law because it simply allows people to misuse it to suppress legitimate discussion.

In New Zealand we saw that when the Court of Appeal had to send back to the censor—twice in effect—classifications in which the censor attempted to prevent people from arguing that homosexuality was wrong. These were videos that involved fully clothed, sober, boring-looking adults claiming what had been mainstream, traditional views of homosexuality only 20 years earlier. The censor was able to twist the words of the Act, which is being changed here, to persuade himself that the board had a power to essentially ban the circulation of those documents because they would offend gays.

I am not arguing here that either side was right or wrong in terms of the influence of those publications. But what was very clear was that the Court of Appeal told the film censors to go back to the drawing board, look at the Act, and only ban things that had the elements that were set out—sex, horror, violence, exploitation of children, torture, and so forth. The censors disgracefully sat on the matter for months and months, and in that they were abetted by this Government. This Government failed to abide by the Act, failed to appoint new members to the board, ignored petitions and applications from people with a direct interest, left the office of Bill Hastings, the Chief Censor, without a deputy, and connived at this law being a mockery. Successive Ministers simply ignored the fact that they had allowed the appointment of members of the board to expire and had not bothered to find new ones.

So what do we now see in this bill? Sitting right down the back of it we find a cute little provision, in wording that I had to read three or four times, that essentially does not mean what it says with regard to the expiry of the term of office of a board member. Board members stay there for ever if the Government does not get around to appointing new ones.

💬 Peter Brown: Where is that?

It is in clause 17, “Membership”. Subclause (2) of that clause gives the Government the power to essentially leave people for life, if they wish. So the Government is retrospectively making permanent a scandalous state of affairs that was temporary. It is saying that appointments to this body could be for life. In fact, the appointees will be there at the pleasure of the Minister. Because next time—if there is a next time for United Future—one of the stipulations of the coalition agreement with the Government might be that that party decides who will be on the Film Censorship Board. It might be a small price for a desperate Labour Party to pay to retain office, and we could well find that the censorship board—

💬 Judith Collins: They will be talking to us!

I certainly hope that that condition is not one that National or ACT would see as tradable. It would not be a tradable item for ACT—that is for certain!

This bill does, of course, have the camouflage of increasing penalties on child porn, and that is the reason that we will send it to the select committee. The definitions are not improved. The bill very cutely claims that it clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that sexualised images of nude or partially nude children are a matter of sex, and therefore can be classified as objectionable. I do not think that avoids doubt. When I look at that definition, as a lawyer of 20 years experience, I think it simply increases it, because the definition says that they fall into that category if the visual images of children or young persons who are nude or partially nude “are reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature”. If the provision were really removing doubt, it would have said “likely”, or “intended”, or that there would have been something not reasonably capable.

The problem with censorship is that an awful lot of this material—indeed most of it—is in the minds of the beholders. I suspect that for my generation looking at anatomy texts in the school library was capable of being sexual in nature. So this test is just a change for the sake of looking as if the Government is doing something. This Government comes to everything with its political spectacles on. It does not matter about the quality of the law. It does not matter whether it really makes it more likely that enforcement will stick, or that convictions will be secured. The Government does this for camouflage. It does it to look as if it is doing something about porn, when it is not.

The Green Party is delighted to support this bill to the select committee. Frankly, we are delighted to support any legislation that addresses one of the great scourges of our time—pornography in general, and child pornography in particular, and the fact that the Internet has become one of the major vehicles for the worldwide proliferation of child pornography and pornography.

Frankly, any person who is a parent in our land will be concerned about this issue—the availability of pornography, and in particular child pornography, on the Internet. The ability of unsupervised children to access this material is a huge concern for every single parent. It is literally extending its tentacles into our lives, and it is an enormous issue that we must address.

Obviously, it is not simple. It is not easy to address this issue. The previous speaker, Mr Franks from the ACT party, pointed out what he considers to be some flaws in the bill. That is why we are sending it to a select committee. Those issues that Mr Franks raised can be dealt with in the select committee. Frankly, all members of this Parliament would wish to support this bill, and to see us try to deal with and resolve this particular issue.

The bill increases the maximum penalties—that is, up to 10 years for persons who trade, distribute, or possess pornographic material. That surely is something that will be welcomed by all members in this House. It extends the scope of the definitions, tightens them up, and basically aligns our penalties with those of the United Kingdom and Canada. The bill increases the penalties to create disincentives to distribute, supply, or possess child pornography. It also aligns New Zealand with our international obligations in that respect.

These are all extraordinary, positive provisions that every person in this House would surely support. Every person in this House, and, indeed, all of New Zealand, is incredibly worried about pornography and, in particular, child pornography. They are worried about what we can do to protect our children from this hideous new crime that is being perpetrated on Internets all through the land and accessing our vulnerable children and adolescents.

We are absolutely delighted to be able to support this bill. We look forward to addressing some of the issues that have been raised by Mr Franks and others as to what they consider to be flaws in the legislation. We believe that is the purpose of the select committee process. We look forward to participating actively in the select committee to strengthen—

💬 Stephen Franks: There is no ACT member on that committee.

But I am sure the ACT member will be aware that the provisions of this House enable any member to participate in a select committee. Given the strength of Mr Franks’ concerns about this bill, I am quite sure that he and the ACT party will wish to avail themselves of membership of the committee so that they can participate in strengthening this bill. There is no point in just criticising such an important piece of legislation from the sidelines. If there are issues, we need to address them in the select committee. We will be very happy to do our part to strengthen and ensure the passage of this important legislation.

The National Party supports this bill going to a select committee. After listening to the debate this afternoon it seems that all parties support it going to a select committee, and that is particularly pleasing.

💬 Hon David Carter: We’ve not heard from United.

The member is quite right; we have not heard from United Future. I wonder why United Future members have not taken this seriously. However, hopefully, they will be able to take a call very soon. The bill deals with issues regarding the classification of “objectionable”, and the penalties in relation to objectionable material, the possession, sale, passing on, and all that sort of information. It also deals with some of the issues that I note Mr Franks, in particular, has raised. I would like to commend him for pointing out to the House this very new information that we have not been told about before. I share his concern that this bill is to go to the Government Administration Committee if, as Mr Franks said—and I will absolutely accept his word on it—the committee was somewhat woeful in its work last time. Taking on board the comments of the Green Party member Sue Kedgley, I am sure the Greens and ACT will be in there, as well as us, to try to make sure it does a better job.

One of the main parts of the bill deals with the absolute crime of child pornography. I cannot imagine that there is any member of this House who is not utterly made ill by the thought of anybody indulging in child pornography or wishing to pass that sort of information on. I have to say, in a term, that I hope is still parliamentary that one would have to be a pretty sick bunny to be interested in child pornography. I see you think that is all right, Mr Speaker, so I will continue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring me into the debate.

There is, of course, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for child pornography. I have looked, as a lawyer does, at the meaning of “objectionable” under the bill. I am a little bit concerned that in its current form it might inadvertently catch some images that are not intended to be pornographic, but some people might view them as such. Subsection (1A) in clause 4(1) states: “Without limiting subsection (1), a publication deals with a matter such as sex for the purposes of that subsection if—(a) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude; and (b) those 1 or more visual images are reasonably capable of being sexual in nature.”

I am sure that members of the House will be familiar with the work of the very well-known photographer Anne Geddes, whose calendar work and particular work with very young children is internationally recognised. A little while ago there was some concern that some of Anne Geddes’ work might be considered to be child pornography. I note that Jill Pettis is raising her eyebrows. I personally did not see it as that myself, but it just concerned me a little bit and maybe the select committee needs to look at how this particular provision might be seen as extending in some way to very innocent work that is all about promoting children and seeing children as beautiful, which of course they are—unless they are crying in the middle of the night at 3 o’clock in the morning! I give that warning to the select committee that it needs to be aware of that. I am also just a tiny bit concerned about the strict liability provisions, because, certainly, I am aware that some people—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether these members would be a little bit quiet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members who are in close proximity to a member who is speaking that it actually muffles the microphone. Could members please be aware of that.

I am a little bit concerned with the strict liability provisions, just because I know that people often end up getting these dreadfully awful spam emails and some of them might include pornography, including child pornography. Most of us try to get this set up so that we can get them deleted before they come through as junk mail. However, I am just a bit concerned that some people have ended up with these hidden images inside other attachments and that at some stage they could be considered to have broken the law under the strict liability provisions. With the penalty increasing to a $10,000 personal fine and also imprisonment for holding these images, I think that is something the committee will need to look at.

At the end of the day we do not want this sort of law that is being brought in with the very best of intentions getting itself a bad reputation just because somebody received an email or something like that and not realising that it has an objectionable piece in it.

In addition to that, of course, I understand from people who know about computers that even if people delete a message from their computer the hard drive of the computer will still have that image, and that is a concern for people. We do not want people inadvertently breaking the law when they do not mean to. I can see members of the Government nodding, so, hopefully, we will get some good sense on that.

I would like to deal with the issue of consultation on this bill. I am a great one for believing that the people who know about subjects should be consulted before bills are put together. I see that some organisations that I thought might have been consulted, were not—in particular, the Maxim Institute, Parentline, and the Pacific Foundation. Very surprisingly, the Commissioner for Children does not seem to be one of the people consulted—unless my eyes fail me; however, I think we will find that the Commissioner for Children was not listed as someone who was consulted, and if that is correct, that is a bit of an outrage, really. I note that the churches do not get a look in at all. That might be because they are too busy doing other things, rather than looking after children and families.

💬 Hon David Carter: They must be getting the next hīkoi away.

Yes, they must be doing the next Hīkoi of Hope, which I recall they do every time National is in power, but go to ground when we are not. Those issues need to be looked at, and I am very concerned to ensure that those who were not consulted before, who should have been, do get notice of the select committee hearing so that they can get their information in. Certainly, I will be doing the best I can to get that information out to them so that they can start to put their thoughts together and get some of their concerns looked at.

In conclusion, the National Party is very pleased to support this bill going to a select committee. We have a few reservations around the edges to make sure that when the bill becomes an Act, it is a very robust Act, and does not end up having to constantly be re-looked at, because the time involved to look at such bills is tremendous. We are very concerned to make sure that we get it dead right.

I rise on behalf of United Future to indicate our provisional support for this bill. It is a long time coming. In particular, child pornography has been accented in this bill and it is something that we have done very little about for way too long. There is no point going over and rehashing some of the points that have already been made in the valuable contributions from some of the other members.

I shall talk here a little bit about some of the points in this bill. It expands the concept of distribution and supply. At present, people who swap, but do not necessarily profit from, child porn, are difficult to prosecute for trading child porn. Instead, they often get the lesser offence of possession. I think this bill will go some way towards opening up that debate and addressing some of those issues.

Another inconsistency in the past, and something this bill will, hopefully, address more fully, will be the distinction between importing and exporting of pornography. Until now it has not been an offence to export objectionable material, even though importing was, and that to me makes no sense whatsoever. The bill increases maximum penalties, and I am happy to see that. We have been waiting for a very long time for this—far too long. The maximum penalty for trading, making, or distributing will then be 10 years. It is closer to how the public views pornography, and child pornography in particular, and its impact on people.

The bill has a new offence—possession with knowledge. If a person possesses objectionable material and knows it, he or she is guilty as sin. There is no excuse. That person should receive a harsher sentence than if convicted under the strict liability version of the offence. That is something this bill will look into as well. The court has the power to issue warrants in connection with suspicion of the new “possession with knowledge” offence as well. That is something that has to be looked at and expanded—exactly how that will take place, and how it will be effected.

Also, there is the meaning of “objectionable”. The bill will remove doubt about nude, or partially nude, images of children that can be reasonably considered sexual in nature, which fall within the censor’s jurisdiction. It was that particular aspect that got my member’s bill going in the first instance, and which I have now pulled, because this bill supersedes it and encompasses exactly what some of my initial concerns were.

💬 Stephen Franks: That’s stretching it a little.

Well, it does, and the interesting thing is that we are getting support now from National, which is great to see. I have to say that we were given a hard time, particularly from New Zealand First, for the bill that I had initially proposed. I do not understand why, because one of the things I was focusing on was the surreptitious filming of children, and the sexualising of children. I know that there was something going on in the background there with David Lane trying, basically, to squash the right of so-called “mockumentaries” that were deriding the right of homosexuals and so on, and that was seen as a reason why surreptitious filming of children could not be barred. I could not quite see the connection there. However, I am glad to see that this has now been addressed, partially at least, in this bill. It is something that I hope will be taken up. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Can I just say to members at the back that back-benchers interjecting on each other in close proximity has an effect on the microphone. It muffles them. It is a longstanding convention that it does not happen. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 57/5.

There is a need to have a look at the distinction that is made between the privacy provisions and also this bill that ought to encompass the sexualising of children. It is important that that comes under this purview, and I hope that during the select committee stage it will be embodied in the bill.

Offensive language can now be classified to persons of specified age. Previously, language by itself was beyond the censor’s jurisdiction. Again, that made no sense, particularly when one was talking about inflammatory, hate-based language. However, there are a couple of issues of concern. Why on earth urine and excrement are not considered objectionable in and of themselves, and the use of such material in publications will now no longer automatically be objectionable, I find to be rather odd; there is certainly a need of enlightening, and I hope that the select committee process will do that.

The bill itself amends the existing classification criteria so that the use of urine or excrement, in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct, will not result in a publication being deemed objectionable. Why on earth would that be? That makes no sense to me. The words are right there. Why on earth is the degrading, dehumanising aspect, and the sexual conduct not deemed sufficient reason to classify something as being objectionable? I question that.

The other thing is Government indifference. Why has the Government taken so long to beef up penalties for child pornography traders? We get reports weekly from the Department of Internal Affairs on the latest round of convictions, yet those perverts get community service or some other “slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket” type of penalty. It is time that we gave them jail, and lots of it. We should not ever tolerate child pornography.

One point one of my colleagues raised was just how much this bill focuses on children. The simple reason for that I guess is that although adults are quite capable of giving their permission to be part of pornography, children cannot. We need greater protections for them, because they are not of maturity to be able to determine such decisions for themselves. They need to be protected with the fullest sanction of the law to ensure that they are not offended against, which is exactly what child pornography is. Child pornography is a form of child abuse, and that should be spelt out in this bill a little more clearly as well. However, I am hoping that the select committee process will be able to take these considerations in hand, and with the opportunity of submissions, make the bill stronger.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Initially, I want to respond to what my colleague in United Future said. He seemed to imply that New Zealand First had been dictated to by some outside concern, when it came to his own bill.

💬 Marc Alexander: No, it was never the intention.

He denies that now. I will accept the member’s word. I tell the member, though, that his bill was quite different from this one, to an extent that was of concern. I do not think New Zealand First would have supported it, had it been debated in the House. It seemed to legislate against what is termed “hate speech”—people speaking out about their concerns about homosexuality and those sorts of things. I do not know if the member really intended to do that, but it was a by-product of the bill. Had his bill been passed by the House as it was written, people would have been unable to express their concerns about homosexuality, and the like. I got into very deep water once when, in complete innocence, I questioned the appropriateness of our having two censors who were homosexual. The world of officials seemed to descend on me. Bureaucracy went mad and officials came at me left, right, and centre, but the public wrote an enormous amount of letters urging me to carry on speaking about that sort of thing.

New Zealand First will support this bill. It toughens up the penalties for those who use the Internet to promote or get involved in child pornography—a disgusting type of—

💬 Judith Collins: Perversion!

—perversion, or “recreation”. I do not know how people can resort to, or get involved in, that sort of perversion. It is revolting in the extreme, but, apparently, thousands of people in this country—and millions worldwide—get some sort of satisfaction out of watching young children, undressed, on the Internet and in various other areas.

This bill toughens up the penalties for that and—hopefully—will have some impact. It responds to a Ministry of Justice review that was undertaken in 2003, which concluded, according to the explanatory note, that “existing penalties do not reflect the seriousness of some of the offending, particularly that involving child pornography.” That is a worthwhile aim for any bill, and New Zealand First will support the bill for that reason, and for that reason alone.

However, we have concerns—which the honourable member from United Future did touch on briefly—that, as stated by the explanatory note, the bill “amends existing classification criteria so that the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct will not result in a publication being deemed ‘objectionable’,”. I cannot think of anything more objectionable, but this bill states that such acts are not objectionable. They “will instead be a factor that must be given particular weight in reaching a classification decision:”. Where the dickens does the Labour Government dish that sort of rubbish up from? I cannot believe what I am reading: if “the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct” is not objectionable, what the hell is? What is the Labour Government trying to promote? The United Future member is nodding in agreement with me. I believe that issue is serious enough for United Future to say it will withdraw its vote of confidence.

💬 Stephen Franks: Hate speech is worse than that.

I have already taken Mr Alexander to task on his bill, I say to Mr Franks. He assures me that he was misunderstood, and I am prepared to accept the member’s word. This legislation causes me quite some concern, and I cannot understand why a Labour Government, which is being supported by a party that states it is family-friendly, is prepared to allow “the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct” to be deemed to be something less than objectionable.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Stop going through the motions.

Does the member think I am wrong? Maybe he will take a call and explain why the Labour Government is changing its mind on this issue.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Will the member yield?

I would yield if I could get a satisfactory explanation, but I will not yield for a promoter of this sort of garbage.

It is well known that people advertise on television and in newspapers in order to sell their products. If members of the public see something, they may be attracted to it and want to buy it or buy into it. It is well known that if we fill people’s bodies with food that is garbage, then their physical well-being will suffer. Nobody argues about that. Equally, I suggest to the House that if we fill people’s minds—particularly the impressionable minds of young people, or the warped minds of the weirdos and the wonder boys, and I am wondering whether we have any weirdos or wonder boys on the Government side of the House—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: That is offensive. What a stupid thing to say.

Let me refer the honourable Minister to clause 4.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: It’s already illegal.

The member is saying it is already illegal?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Yes, in the major Act. This is an amendment.

This is an amendment to take those provisions and make them not objectionable in their own right. The member will have to defend that at the select committee.

I want to depart slightly from the bill to compliment the censor. I have been on record in this House as castigating him, for a number of reasons. I do not want him to get the idea I am totally on his side, but I believe that, in terms of the film The Passion of the Christ, he has got it right. I have his censor’s report here. I have not seen the film and I do not intend to see it, because it is awful, according to the report. I do not think anybody has ever said that the censor has produced a report that is not factually correct, and this report is unpleasant reading. I say to the House that by making the film R16 he has done the right thing. I for one support his decision. I would like to put that in Hansard, because I know I have been quite critical of his decisions in the past.

We need censorship. We need controls on what we see and who sees what—in many cases, perhaps, more than we realise. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, but we will do our darndest to have that clause that the Hon Judith Tizard thinks is fairly innocuous removed, if we possibly can. We hope the National Party—as there are no New Zealand First members on that committee—will stick to its word, as promised by Judith Collins, who said she will do her darndest to get this bill correct. [Interruption] The National Party is. We will support this bill going to the select committee, but we will be watching its progress very, very carefully.

The previous speaker demonstrates the appalling problem of members who fail to read the original legislation when they are talking about proposed amendments. The original legislation, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, has a section 3, “Meaning of ‘objectionable’ “, and section 3(2)(d) states: “The use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct” is outlawed. The problem is that the courts have not interpreted that in the terms—

💬 Peter Brown: You are all woolly-woofters.

What does “woolly-woofter” mean? What a bizarre expression for a female member of this House who is not homosexual and who is not the least bit woolly! I do not understand why members of this House take such a strange attitude and abuse language. However, this legislation is about that matter, and I think we should take it seriously. Having been on the select committee that looked at this matter in 1993, I take it very seriously. I do not laugh about the effects of appalling—calling it “pornography” is too light—degrading, dehumanising, violent matter, which is now very generally available in this country. I take it very seriously.

I also take very seriously the effect of degrading, abusive language. Terms like “woolly-woofter” are amongst the terms I find degrading, because homosexual men, and particularly homosexual boys, are denigrated as somehow less than human. If any member of this House wants to justify the appalling male suicide rate in this country, which to some extent is clearly linked to abuse of people on the grounds of their sexuality, then I want to dissociate myself from that.

This Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill is the first significant reform of the censorship law since 1993, and that law was a major reform of what went before it. However, there have been reviews that indicate that that law has been to some extent watered down, perhaps on the basis of freedom of language, freedom of expression, and all of those things that we all hold dear.

But the most important reform advanced by the bill is the new measures it contains to combat the alarming growth in the trade of child pornography via the Internet. The committee had no idea in 1993 how the Internet would develop, and how it would allow both positive and extremely damaging material to be passed. The bill includes tenfold increases in the penalties for dealing with such material—including the objectionable material that that ignorant member chooses to attack. The bill is trying to tighten it up. [Interruption] It is not loosening it. If that member were to go and read anything about the case law and the original law, he would know that his assertion is just ignorant and stupid.

This is a serious matter. It is a fact that in 1993, for the first time ever, that committee recognised that for every item of child pornography, a child has been abused—a child in this country or a child in another country. I take that very, very seriously. I also take very seriously many of the obscene, degrading, and dehumanising images of women, of men, and of animals. It is an appalling trade. I do not see it as erotica or sexually acceptable to degrade other people or, indeed, animals, for sexual satisfaction. Under this legislation, people who produce, trade, or distribute child pornography will now face up to 10 years in prison, and people who possess child pornography may face up to 2 years in prison. It is the first time that objectionable material such as child pornography will be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and I take that very seriously.

I also want to pay an enormous tribute to the Department of Internal Affairs staff who are actively monitoring the Internet so that people who are trading in this material can be charged. It is a difficult and often disgusting job, and I commend them for the intelligent, well-analysed approach they take to it and the energetic, assertive way they deal with it. I believe that because of the work of those people, there are children alive today, children not being abused. It is only by having good law and good enforcement that our children can be kept safe.

I also want to say I very strongly support the inclusion of hate language. My grandmother used to say to me: “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names will never hurt you.” Well, as I have already indicated in this speech tonight, I believe passionately that many New Zealanders today and in the past have been seriously damaged by abusive language, particularly from people in positions of responsibility, in positions where young and older New Zealanders can be damaged by the denigration of something that is fundamental to them, like their race, age, sexuality, or sexual orientation.

I think this is good legislation. I commend the Government for taking active steps, and I commend the Government for funding the enforcement of the present law. I look forward to many more New Zealanders being safe and growing up to be healthy, sexually happy people, confident in their culture, their race, their sexual orientation, their pursuits, their jobs, and their sports—and not being called disgusting, denigrating things such as members have heard in the House tonight.

Having sat through the debate earlier before the dinner break, I rise to support the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill being referred to the Government Administration Committee, as do my National Party colleagues. I have decided to take a call to offer congratulations both to the Government and to the speaker who has just resumed her seat, because having sat through about 2 hours of this debate, it was great to finally see a Labour Government member stand enthusiastically and speak with a bit of passion about this legislation. Prior to the dinner break, members were taking very short calls—very short calls, indeed. I can recall Mr Mark Peck taking about a minute to support this legislation, which is Government legislation and good legislation. We would expect there to be some enthusiasm from Labour members—

💬 Peter Brown: I think someone touched a nerve.

Somebody may have touched a nerve in the previous speaker. The point is that she stood and passionately spoke in support of this legislation, and I also passionately support it.

I want to offer my congratulations to the Government, because it has acknowledged the 1993 Act now needs updating. That is not because there are faults with the legislation passed in 1993 but because, as my good colleague Judith Collins pointed out to the House, the ever-advancing technology in this area means that the legislation passed in 1993 to ban the proliferation of pornography is now becoming more and more outdated, given the ever-increasing use of things like the Internet. So I say it is good on the Government for advancing this legislation. Let us hope we can get it through the Government Administration Committee as quickly as possible.

💬 Dianne Yates: And a very good committee that is, too.

It is a very good committee—very well chaired. In fact, I sat on that committee a couple of years ago and thoroughly enjoyed my time on it, so it will be a good select committee to process this legislation.

One of the things that worry me when I read this legislation is the element of double standards. Government members appear to acknowledge the hideousness of child pornography. Yet when I look at this legislation, I do not see anything to combat what is now a dreadful problem in Christchurch of young people—13, 14, and 15-year-olds—standing on the streets and selling themselves as prostitutes. Now, prostitution was legalised by this Parliament not so long ago under the guise of a member’s bill, but Government members were whipped by the Prime Minister to make sure that the bill narrowly passed. I remember taking calls during that debate. Exactly the same problems that we are now facing in Christchurch—I think they have probably been given publicity there; the Christchurch Press has given them a lot of emphasis over the last couple of weeks—are probably happening in other cities, as well, I tell Jill Pettis. I think that it is sad—

💬 Jill Pettis: Answer my question: what about the buyers of the services?

The fires of the service? I think the member means the buyers of the service. They are vile—absolutely!

💬 Jill Pettis: The buyers.

No, she is trying to say the buyers of the services of those child prostitutes. Prostitution is a vile habit, and if the member had bothered to read the Saturday edition of the Christchurch Press she would have seen I made that comment publicly in that paper. The buyers are the very people who should be exposed, so I completely support that. The member nods her head. It would be interesting to know whether she supported the passing of the legislation that legalised prostitution.

💬 Richard Worth: She did.

I think she did. That very legislation now means we have the problem of child prostitution on the streets of Christchurch. I bet it is also happening on the streets of Wellington and Auckland.

💬 Jill Pettis: I bet it has never happened before in the history of mankind!

I tell the member that it has happened before; we all know that. But because that member voted for the legislation that legalised prostitution she has now given prostitution a status as a career choice, and it was inevitable that we would have this problem.

I wonder, as this bill goes before the excellent select committee, whether there is not an opportunity for the committee to consider the issue I have raised. It is something that worries a lot of people in Christchurch. I can see Marc Alexander nodding his head in agreement with me. It was interesting to see that in the newspaper reports on Saturday that I referred to, we had comments by Clayton Cosgrove, David Carter, and Gerry Brownlee—all of whom were quoted as National members of Parliament. It is pretty important that I take this opportunity to clarify, for the benefit of listeners from Christchurch, that Clayton Cosgrove is certainly not a National Party member of Parliament. [Interruption] He is very Labour at the moment. I can imagine why he would want to jump ship, but we do not want him.

So I take this opportunity to point out that there is a problem with child pornography. It is rife in Christchurch because of the passing of legislation that I certainly did not support. Let us hope that when the chair of the select committee gets this bill before her committee, she gives some thought to that issue. If Parliament made a mistake last year with the passing of Tim Barnett’s bill, it should have the gumption to revisit the issue. I am not the only one speaking in this way. A lot of people in Christchurch are horrified at the passing of that legislation, so let us hope that Dianne Yates will take the opportunity to consider that.

As I said earlier, it is with pleasure that I support this bill going to the select committee. Let us hope it is back in the House before too long, ready for enactment.

I wish to speak on this bill and, as chair of the Government Administration Committee, which had an inquiry into the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act and did a great deal of research on it, to say that a number of the things previous speakers have said are not actually in the bill. This debate is perhaps a time for people to air their prejudices and to have a lot to say, but I advise members to read the bill, and to read it in relation to the report our select committee put forward. I look forward to the bill being referred to the Government Administration Committee, where we can look through what is in the bill intelligently in relation to our previous recommendations.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, and that the committee report the bill by 30 June 2004.