Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank my erstwhile colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee for their detailed examination of this bill. We did not receive a huge number of submissions, which I was personally disappointed by. We did not receive a huge number of submissions, but we did consider them in detail, and we have made some useful amendments to this bill.

I would like to start by just reminding the House about the origins of this member’s bill and why I drafted it. In 2015 members may recall that an award-winning novel called Into the River, by a New Zealand author called Ted Dawe, was banned in New Zealand.

💬 Tracey Martin: Have you read it?

Members opposite ask me whether I have read it, and the answer is no, I have not read it. I have skim-read parts of it, but it is actually not intended for someone like myself, Ms Martin; it is intended for young adults, so I have not read it. It was banned in New Zealand—temporarily, but still banned. The reason it was banned was a strange anomaly in our censorship laws, and this bill attempts to address that anomaly. What this bill does is make a small but important change to improve freedom of expression in New Zealand, and, of course, that is a right guaranteed in New Zealand by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Let me just recount the story, as it were, of Into the River and how we got to this point. In New Zealand publications are classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, and in September 2013 Into the River was classified as unrestricted M—suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over—by the classification office. In New Zealand one can appeal classification decisions to the Film and Literature Board of Review, and, indeed, the decision on Into the River was appealed by Family First, the families lobby group, which sought a restricted classification for the book. In December 2013 the board of review classified the book R14. This is a unique classification that had never previously been assigned, and the board president, Don Mathieson QC, who would have rated the book R18, issued a dissenting opinion.

In 2014 there was growing dissatisfaction with the board’s decision, particularly amongst teachers and librarians. Auckland Libraries requested the board’s decision be reconsidered by the classification office—the first time this had actually happened—and the classification was changed again to unrestricted.

Then, of course, Family First appealed that decision again. So this was the fourth time one book had been considered—the fourth time. So it was appealed to the board of review, and this time Family First asked the board to impose an interim restriction order, which is where we get to the nub of the issue.

💬 Sue Moroney: Surely you’ve got better things to do with your time.

That application was granted on 3 September 2015. The interim restriction order made it illegal to supply the book to anyone, or to display the book in or within view of a public place. This was the first time an interim restriction order had ever been imposed on a book.

For the second time in 2 days, Sue Moroney has made a stupid interjection in the House, because what she just said to me then was: “Surely you’ve got better things to do with your time.” Actually, this bill concerns one of the most fundamental rights in the New Zealand constitution, which is freedom of expression. What the Into the River saga demonstrates is that that is a fragile right in New Zealand, because for a period of 6 weeks a book that had been classified as being available for New Zealanders was unavailable because of the interim restriction regime we currently have. It was a nonsense—I submit it was a nonsense. What this bill seeks to do is to remedy that situation so that situations like that do not happen again. So Sue Moroney can regard that as not worthy of Parliament’s time; I for one think the opposite, and that is why Parliament is dealing with it.

What I have done is outlined the situation of the board of review and what happened with the Into the River decision. What are interim restrictions? Well, they are short-term restrictions on publications used during classification reviews or appeals. They are meant to be rare—and, in fact, they are rare—and they are intended to allow quick action if the New Zealand public is considered vulnerable to the publication under review. The problem with them, and this was revealed during the Into the River saga, is that the president has only two options currently: they can either allow the decision of the censor that Into the River should be unrestricted to stand while the board makes its review decision, or the president can ban a publication entirely pending the decision made by the board.

What is not available under the current law is the power to, essentially, reinstate either of the two original classifications. In the case of Into the River, this was unrestricted M, or R14. As I said previously, I think the end result was ridiculous. We had a situation where a book was banned for 6 weeks even though three previous censorship decisions across both the Office of Film and Literature Classification and the board of review had ruled that it should be legally available, even if restricted.

What this bill does is propose simple amendments to give the president of the board of review more flexibility when imposing interim restrictions. The key provisions in the bill are intended to allow interim restriction orders to completely restrict access to a publication, as they do currently, or to restrict access only to people who are of a certain age, who belong to a certain class, such as tertiary students, or those who are accessing the publication for a certain purpose, such as a film festival. Essentially, what the bill does is create three new types of interim restriction orders that mirror and reflect the classifications that can be imposed on a publication by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. In the case of Into the River, it would have meant that the president could more accurately calibrate the interim restriction—they could have rated it R14, for example, or unrestricted M, both of which the book had previously been classified as.

The Justice and Electoral Committee has made amendments to the bill that I agree with. It has made some amendments to the structure and drafting of the bill. The amendments set out the four types of interim restriction orders more clearly. There is also a change in the bill’s name to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: That’s catchy.

Exactly—Maggie Barry says that is catchy. Indeed—very catchy.

There are also changes to the offence provisions. The principal Act contains offence provisions that do not envisage the more flexible interim restriction orders proposed in the bill, so, under the amended Act, the existing penalty for breaching an interim restriction order would also apply to breaching any of the new types of orders. So there are, essentially, changes that are necessary—they are consequential on changing the way in which interim restriction orders are dealt with.

Some members opposite may like to scoff at a bill like this, but, as I said at the start of my speech, I think it is a good bill that makes a small but important change to better protect freedom of speech in New Zealand. It cleans up that anomaly—an anomaly that, frankly, no one really thought existed until we had the case of Into the River. But that is actually what Parliament’s responsibility is—to see how laws interact with what actually goes on in society and see how they are applied. When Parliament thinks that the law is being applied poorly and when Parliament thinks that the law is not having the consequences and the effects that society envisages, it is Parliament’s responsibility to act. I have acted and introduced the bill. Members might like to scoff at it, but I think it is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

First up, a disclosure: I have not read Into the River either, but I can tell the House that I have actually read the tracts of the book that Family First, in its submission, helpfully provided. There were quite large excerpts from the book in Family First’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I found quite fascinating, and anyone who wants to read that submission is welcome to come and ask me. I also did not sit on the select committee, but I have had a look at the submissions and I am looking forward to the Committee stage of this bill.

Labour supports this bill. I am going to actually stick up for Chris Bishop on this particular piece of legislation, and say that I agree that there is an important place in this Parliament for bills to be brought through to correct anomalies in law if they are anomalies that have clearly been shown to have had an impact out there in society. I think that what we did see with the Into the River example is that there was an impact, and it did have the effect of taking a book out of circulation. It was for a shortish period of time, but it is still quite a shocking thing in 2017 in New Zealand for an anomaly in the law to have that impact.

Chris Bishop will also be pleased to know that I have read his first reading speech in quite significant detail. He gave a couple of examples in that speech of other films, I think, that had been subject to interim restriction orders, which meant that they could not be shown at a film festival that they were billed to be shown at. By the time the restriction order was lifted, the film festival had happened, so there was no point.

This bill has got the support of the Labour Party. It did not get a lot of submissions, but I think the four submissions that it got were actually quite meaty submissions. I have not got a lot of time in this second reading speech to go into those details, but I would like to raise some of those issues in the Committee stage.

Essentially, this bill is really quite simple in what it does. In clause 5, it inserts a section into the principal Act that enables the High Court or a judge to impose what is described as a calibrated interim restriction order, where access can be granted to certain persons or groups of people according to their age, class, or purpose for access. What that means is that, with the Into the River book, while Family First’s appeal was being heard, that board could have reverted back to a previous classification while it was being heard. I hope I am correct on that; I did not sit on the select committee so I do not know all the absolute details. That is not a very big change to the law, but it is a change that corrects this anomaly.

Going back to Chris Bishop’s second reading speech, though, he has again referred to the principles of freedom of expression and his great libertarian ideals, which are great. But in his first reading speech he actually went a lot further and said that what he would like to see happen is for there to be a much bigger review of the interim restriction orders. He gave three reasons—and I thought they were all quite valid reasons—that he felt there was a strong case for abolishing them completely: that they gave too much power to the president of the board, who was the one that, essentially, meant that this book was taken out of circulation; that the extraordinary power enjoyed by the president was unnecessary; that the board unjustifiably interfered with freedom of expression; and that the interim restriction orders can be abused.

I would like to challenge the member, actually, to bring another member’s bill to the House that actually addresses those issues. I think it is probably quite timely, because this legislation was written in 1993. It is now 2017. Community standards have changed, evolved, or whatever you want to say, and maybe it is time to look at how that film classification board operates—which is the check and balance on the Office of Film and Literature Classification, essentially, which is the censor. Maybe it is time to have a review of that. Maybe it is time to put up a case for removing the powers for interim restriction orders, and maybe, you know, the great freedom of expression ideals that are being espoused by Chris Bishop could be put to the test. The question is, though, whether or not his party would actually accept that as a member’s bill to put forward, or whether it is him just on his soapbox in a first reading, and he knows that, actually, his party would not get behind that.

If you want to talk about what is important in legislative change, going back to first principles is important. A piece of legislation that was drafted in 1993—it is time. Twenty-four years later is actually a good time to have a good look at it, as to whether it is fit for purpose.

The other point I want to make around the legislation that we are dealing with is about how classification of content is undertaken. You know, I have given a tick to Chris Bishop’s efforts—the correction of the small anomaly. What this Government has not addressed is the anomalies—the much, much bigger anomalies—that are occurring out there in our community right now, in terms of how content is being classified. We have broadcast TV content, which is classified under the Broadcasting Act according to a code that is overseen by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. We have got film content, which is classified by the censor’s office—the classification office—and it provides ratings. Then you have got online content, which has no oversight, no mediation, and no ability—and so there is this grey area in our law and our community standards that has not been addressed.

In 2015 the Government released a discussion paper on convergence, and this was one of the issues that was raised. In 2016—nearly a year ago—the Government announced that it was actually going to put forward a piece of legislation to address this anomaly, but it also said it was going to do something, and it was going to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, which I do not think there was a lot of community outrage about. That piece of draft legislation, which we still have not seen, was also going to do something else: it was going to remove restrictions, or partly remove restrictions, on Sunday advertising on television. That was controversial and it was a bit mad.

Anyway, as I understand it, there is a piece of legislation sitting in the drafting office of the Clerk. Who knows when it is actually going to appear? But what has not happened is that this Government has not dealt with these convergence issues after 9 years—after 9 years—and certainly in the last 3 years. You would think, in 2017, that this Government would actually have worked out that it had to do something in this area to appear modern and to appear as if it actually understood the difference between broadcast, television, film, and online content—were there differences; and if there were not, then it all came under the same consistent regime. Well, it has not. Who knows when it will? Look, it is backward. We support this bill, but there are much bigger issues that the Government, and not a member, should be dealing with.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak in support of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill, in the name of Mr Chris Bishop. It must be “Feel the Love Day” for Mr Bishop—it must be “Feel the Love Day”—because I too think that this is a really good member’s bill that balances the public good with freedom of speech. I think it is well overdue, and I commend Mr Bishop for spotting the anomaly, seeing a problem, and working towards providing solutions so that freedom of speech is upheld, but also providing practical measures so as to better monitor publications when it comes to interim classification. So well done, Mr Chris Bishop. Well done, also, on having the luck of the Irish to have a couple of members’ bills pulled from the biscuit tin. Of course, prior to this, he had the live organ donors bill, which was well received by many communities across New Zealand. Long may it continue that Mr Bishop keeps up with these great ideas, presents them to the House, and provides solutions to make things—

💬 Kris Faafoi: He’s an ideas man.

He is an ideas man, Mr Faafoi. “Feel the Love Day”, Mr Bishop—congratulations.

Look, the current regime has a very specific purpose that is grounded in common-sense logic. The bill gives the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review, the High Court, and the High Court judges more flexibility when making interim order restrictions. Of course, this bill will seek to amend the parent Act, which is the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

I want to pick up on one of the points Ms Curran made, with regard to censorship. Of course, the Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for classifying publications, and, of course, that ranges from books to videos to games to audio recordings. For this purpose, the classification system is there to protect the public and inform them about the publications that they will use or see. I just want to, basically, praise the office. Last year, I think it was, or a couple of years ago, we had the opportunity in the Government Administration Committee to review the functions of the office. Those censors do a fantastic job of classifying publications. We, as part of that review, had an opportunity to look at snippets of publications that these censors had to go in and watch and come up with a classification for. Quite frankly, it can be quite distressing work. So they should be praised for what they do. It is in the public good for New Zealand, and we need to make sure that, again, they are commended for that.

But there is an issue, as Mr Bishop raised, when it comes to interim classification. This bill was brought about because of issues surrounding Ted Dawe’s award-winning novel Into the River. Where that case went was that there was this book—and, again, I have to admit I have not read it—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Oh! Have you read the extract?

Well, I mean, this was not my member’s bill, but, you know, as the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee I took the process very seriously and also listened to the submitters. Of course, one of those was Family First, and, as Ms Curran said, the Family First submitters used snippets of the book to highlight their points. I think where we need to go with that, though, is that when you are taking snippets of publications out of context you do not necessarily get the entire gist of a publication.

However, where this went was that Into the River was banned for 6 weeks in 2015, and this highlighted the problem with interim restriction orders. Basically, interim restriction orders are straight censorship. There is no nuance around those interim restriction orders. So, currently, they function like censorship and they make it illegal to possess, distribute, import, or display the actual publication. Obviously, interim restriction orders can be imposed by the High Court—a High Court judge—or the president of the board of review, if it is in the public interest to do so. This bill will make some changes to that. It will nuance the system for interim restriction and allow the interim restrictions to be nuanced so that a particular age or class of persons can, for a particular purpose, be banned. So we are going to allow those nuances. We are going to allow an ability for flexibility, and a ban through an interim restriction order is just simply confusing and does not make any sense in today’s society, when it comes to material that we watch. The committee has worked extremely hard on this. There were only two submitters, but we listened very carefully and we had a lot of debate on this bill.

💬 Chris Bishop: There were four.

Sorry, Mr Bishop. There were four—two on the torts bill. We are coming to that bill next. The committee worked hard to ensure that this bill effectively fulfilled its purpose, so there are a number of recommendations. We made some structural changes to ensure the intended policy was properly reflected in the bill and that amendments would set out the four types of interim restriction orders more clearly, in that nuanced state, to bring that flexibility into the system and so that the orders were more clearly defined and more easy to understand.

The other thing is an amendment to clause 1 to change the bill’s name to better reflect what we are doing—Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment bill. That makes it very clear as to what we are doing and how we are changing the parent Act, and it more accurately reflects the content of the bill.

We were also advised that the principal Act actually contained offence provisions that did not envisage the more flexible interim order regime as proposed in this bill. The existing penalty for breaching an interim restriction order applied to breaching any new types of orders, hence we added clause 6 to insert new section 133A in the principal Act. That new section would introduce new offence provisions for interim restriction orders.

So I think this is a well-rounded bill. I think, as I said earlier, that it looks to protect the right to free speech but also allow a more nuanced regime in the public good. I commend the work that the Office of Film and Literature Classification does. I commend the work done by Chris Bishop and, of course, the fantastic Justice and Electoral Committee, which has a very high workload at the moment but managed to move through this bill very effectively and efficiently. We now enjoy its second reading, which I support. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātau katoa i tēnei wiki, ngā mi’i nui ki a rātau mā e noho pōuri ana i tēnei wā, te tokomaha ō koutou, nō reira tēnā tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time acknowledgments to us all this week, and huge condolences to those others experiencing remorse at this moment; the many of you. Therefore, acknowledgments to us.]

I spoke on the first reading of this bill, and that was a very interesting debate, to say the very least. Probably my most pressing question to Mr Bishop is: did he get his Lotto ticket from Jono Naylor, which he promised to get?

The anomaly that the member speaks about addressing—a 6-week period where this book was not available; that is what the member was speaking about. Just to give some context, there are some way more important issues that our whānau are dealing with, and I will give you one. The name the main character in this book has been given is Te Arepa, and for those of you in the House who do not know, Te Arepa is more of a title than a name. It is actually part of the name of Jesus Christ. It is a biblical name. When people refer to Te Ārepa me Te Ōmeka, it can be taken as referring to Jesus Christ. One of the issues that I have with the book itself is: why did the writer choose that particular name to give to this child? But, over and above that, getting back to some of the anomalies, if that book was written in 2017 that whānau may very well have been living in a car-park, in a car. That is probably a way more important anomaly in our society to be dealing with. This is really a “First World problem” issue.

Over to the bill—what does the bill actually do? I want to acknowledge the four submitters—

💬 Louisa Wall: Four?

Four submitters: Family First, Shane Campbell, the Society for Promotion of Community Standards, and the Office of Film and Literature Classification. So there were just four, and, as my colleague Clare Curran pointed out, they were fairly substantial submissions. I want to, in particular, acknowledge Shane Campbell. I quite enjoyed reading his submission. I thought it was a very well-written one. I was not on the select committee, so I do want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill.

In the end, it is not really about the book called Into the River by Ted Dawe—and, for the record, no, I have not read it, and I am not going to read it. In effect, it is about the process as it applies to every classification of every book. That is the real issue around this particular bill.

I do want to acknowledge that it does address something that people might be concerned about and creates more options for classification under the review process to be used, because there was a serious lack of options to apply to the classification of this book, which led to the book not being available for 6 weeks. It is not like having to wait for a doctor’s appointment for 4 months, or a dentist’s appointment, or whatever—you know, just to give some context.

That is what needed to be addressed through this bill in the select committee, and it has been. It has come back to the House with a number of changes, which is right and correct, and there seems to have been support from all of the committee, as far as I understand it, but I look forward to hearing from other speakers from the other parties yet to speak.

So when we think about the process that they have to go through, it also, as I understand it, introduces other options where one of these additional classifications during that review period has been applied, and, of course, you would naturally need provisions to deal with a case where those conditions have been breached. So the committee has come back with some recommendations, and from the departmental report they look absolutely appropriate to include in this bill. The bill has been restructured on the advice, also, I believe, of the department.

Getting back to how this really impacts on the whole process—yes, it will make that process better. It will mean that in the instance where a book has been classified and then, basically, challenged, then the process and the tools in the tool kit available for that process to happen are more enhanced. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

It is my pleasure too to stand here in support of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill. This bill, as we know, is a member’s bill in the name of Chris Bishop, a National list MP based in the mighty Hutt Valley. This bill has been considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, and our decisions were informed by the four submissions that we received, and two of those were supported by oral submissions.

I am personally a lover of books, and in my former role I would spend a lot of time visiting schools around my district and promoting reading and books to the students. One of my favourite sayings that I would share is: “You may have tangible wealth untold; caskets of jewels and coffers of gold. Richer than I you can never be—I had a mother who read to me.” This was something that I promoted around the schools and in the audiences that I talked to about reading, because reading is a fundamental part of our freedom of expression.

I have also actively supported and advocated for our own Hokitika library back in Westland, and, actually, with my council’s support, we built a brand new library—so much had we supported the access to books. This enlivened our community libraries as well. As a member of the Local Government New Zealand board, I was the contact person for the Association of Public Library Managers and was even invited to speak at one of its annual conferences.

I was recently visiting Grey Main School, which is quite a big school in Greymouth on the West Coast, and I was delighted when I came into the playground and was confronted by the big double doors that go into the school’s library. The very wise words of one of the most famous doctors were emblazoned on the doors. Dr Seuss had said: “The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.” Access to books and to knowledge is a fundamental part of our freedom of expression.

I am not sure how anyone in this House even finds time to read books now, with the other reading that we have to do, especially in preparation for our select committees. But I have discovered audiobooks. I have got to say that with the amount of driving I do around my electorate, they are an absolute godsend.

I thank the committee, at this stage, for the work that was done on this bill. I thank, of course, Chris Bishop for bringing it to our attention. One of the things that I have noticed about being quite a new member of the Government is the absolutely amazing support that we get in our select committees from the clerks, and, in this particular committee, from the advisers from the Ministry of Justice and our collegial friends across the House.

To go back to the bill, the need for this bill came about when on 11 September 2013 the book Into the River by Ted Dawe received a classification by the classification office as M, meaning that it was unrestricted, but it came with a note saying that it contains sex scenes, offensive language, and drug use. The classification for this book was challenged in December 2013, and an application was made to the Film and Literature Board of Review, and it asked for a reclassification for this book. It was reclassified as R14, at that stage, which was a unique classification at the time, because it had not been assigned in this country prior to that. But there was growing dissatisfaction among the public, especially from librarians and teachers, about the restricted access that that placed on this book. Actually, it was Auckland Libraries that requested that the decision be reconsidered, and as a consequence, the book was again reclassified in August 2015, and the book was again made unrestricted.

Another challenge was made, and this time it asked the Film and Literature Board of Review to exercise its power under section 49 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993 to impose an interim restriction order on the book. This was the first time that we had had an interim restriction order in New Zealand, so it was breaking new ground. The president duly granted that order, which, effectively, banned the book from supply and display. That meant that every book in every bookshop shelf had to be removed, and it also had to be removed from school libraries. When the board met, the majority view was to reclassify the book as unrestricted, because the board had been asked again to have another look at this book and its classification. That happened in October 2015.

So this demonstrates the inflexibility of the current law, in that the book could only be banned or made unrestricted. This bill provides for allowing classifications that could restrict the publication based on certain things, like age or classes of people—such as high school students, or mature audiences, or an age restriction like an R14 classification. This simple amendment gives the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review a couple of practical tools to add to the toolkit so that common sense can prevail, and thereby avoid that messy situation that found the book Into the River completely banned for 6 weeks.

In his submission to the select committee the chief censor stated that, had this proposed amendment been in place in August 2015, the president could have issued a more nuanced interim restriction order and allowed the book to remain in circulation. This would have meant that some people, at least, could have still had access to the book while the interim restriction was in place, and that would have reflected consistency with our right to freedom of expression.

We heard at the select committee hearings that 92 percent of New Zealanders value the classifications that are applied to entertainment media when choosing for our children and teens. It can be assumed that Kiwis would value the same classifications being applied to books so that appropriate material can be bought or borrowed for our young people’s reading pleasure. It is an important aspect in shielding our vulnerable readers from harm. We also heard that there is a high level of trust and reliance on the classification labels from our submitters.

This bill helps protect New Zealanders from harm by providing consistent information from a trusted and independent source, and it enables consumers to make informed choices about what they read. I congratulate Chris Bishop on his initiative in recognising the need to tidy up the principal Act, and I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I rise to thank Chris Bishop for bringing this bill to the House. To us, it is a relatively minor change, but a welcome change, to the current regulations. It also gives the chance for us as MPs to look into areas that we do not always look into.

It has caused me to go back and look at censorship in New Zealand and abroad and discover some things, like All Quiet on the Western Front being banned in the 1930s for its anti-war message. During the waterfront dispute in 1951, it was illegal to publish material that was supporting the strikers. The Wild One, starring Marlon Brando, was actually banned in 1953. Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov, is a book that was banned in 1960. Mad Max, surprisingly enough, was banned in 1979. Then we fast-forward to Into the River by award-winning author Ted Dawe, which prompted this member’s bill and which was banned in 2015. It was banned for 6 weeks, after three previous censorship decisions, as we have heard, had ruled that the book should just have restrictions.

So in so far as this member’s bill will help provide a temporary categorisation of restrictions, rather than an outright ban, we think it is a marginal improvement. But, really, this is kind of fiddling while Rome burns. We do need restrictions on materials that can potentially fall into the hands of children or vulnerable adults. If you look at the stuff around sexual violence, torture, and many other forms of content that we would regard as exploitative and objectionable, they are out there and all over internet and online services, and they are unregulated.

We are talking here about a very, very narrow slice of books and film, which do not occupy much of the current attention span of young people today. Recently, for example, the two largest providers of on-demand entertainment, Lightbox and Netflix, have withdrawn from being covered by classification. Games are not covered; online games are not covered. Videos are not covered. Posts on Facebook—there is an enormous amount of stuff online that is not covered and much of it, I think, we would find thoroughly objectionable. Furthermore, a lot of it is not able to be intercepted via the provision of any warnings, or it is without options for parental control.

So my question is: rather than fiddling around with this member’s bill that addresses a very narrow and small issue, why, in fact, has the Government not undertaken some much-needed work on updating these regulations in order to cover the far more dangerous and concerning aspects that are currently not regulated? I draw on the evidence provided by the chief censor to show that legislation on these issues is not, by any means, impossible or unfeasible but has not yet been actioned. So why has the Government not taken this action after 9 years of this Government? I am a little confused, because what we have here, I think, is a danger to young people from materials that they should not be exposed to, particularly those that are really most exploitative and objectionable.

So while the Green Party supports this rather trivial member’s bill, we do not support the Government’s inaction on a lack of censorship and guidance to parents and users of the vast majority of materials that are available to them online. With that, I will end a short call. My thanks to the framers of this member’s bill, to Chris Bishop, to the Justice and Electoral Committee—I was not part of that committee but I have read a fair bit of the evidence. We support this bill, but, certainly, we would hope that a future Government would actually step up and deal with these far more pressing issues that are far more fundamental. With that, I give our agreement to this bill. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the bill, and we do so for the following reasons. Firstly, it has been said here today that this bill is not about Into the River. Well, if I was the author of Into the River, I would be making sure that I sent letters of congratulation and thanks to Mr Bishop, because this gentleman, Mr Bishop, mentioned this book five times in his first reading speech alone. What Mr Bishop may not realise is that because this particular book has probably gained so much notoriety and so much popularity because of a 6-week ban, the author might not want the law to be changed any more.

We need to go back to where this started. This is a knee-jerk reaction to a book that made history. It is the only time that this has happened, and Mr Bishop then went and put a member’s bill in under the guise of this somehow limiting freedom of speech. It was a 6-week period of time, after which the author probably got more book sales than he would have got at the beginning of the 6-week period of time, but that did not stop this book then going out into the public domain.

We have had several members of the Justice and Electoral Committee say that they have never read the book. We have had several members of the House stand up and contribute here and say that they believe in protecting children and in protecting the vulnerable from certain inappropriate pieces of writing, film footage, or whatever. I want to just talk about paragraph 1.19 from Family First’s submission, which reads: “Other concerns with the book, but ignored by the Censor, were the issues of having sex under the legal age, illegal drug use, child sex exploitation and the sexual relationship between the student and the teacher, and violent assault.”

This book started its life as the winner of a children’s book award. That is where this started. It was a children’s book award—not a teen book award, but a children’s book award—and I have heard a couple of members of the National Government say this evening that librarians requested that the restriction be lifted. I understand from my friend Louisa Wall here that the Auckland Central City Library librarians made this request because they had had such demand for the book. It had grown in notoriety by then, of course. But what I know to be true is that in secondary schools, because this was a children’s book award winner, it was instantly purchased by a whole lot of secondary schools and placed on to the shelves of their libraries. Then the librarians started to read it, and, honestly people, you need to go and read it before you decide that this book did not need to be brought back in front of the courts in this way.

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, Tracey.

See, and now Mr Bishop says “Oh, Tracey.”, but he has not bothered to read the book. He had 6 weeks when he could have gone and read the book. He has had more than the period of time that the book was banned to actually read the book so that he could be talking from a place of knowledge, but he did not do that. He speaks from a place of ideology, and yet all this is doing is removing—is removing—a completely valid way of saying that we do not think that the censors got it right and that we think that there should be a pause for a short period of time—

💬 Jono Naylor: It’s a better way.

—while it is reviewed. I will admit—yes, Mr Naylor is waving around the fact that the select committee spent its valuable time on this piece of legislation as a knee-jerk reaction to one book in the history of the country, or whatever, for a 6-week period while everybody sorted out what the best category was.

So the poor old select committee—I mean, I give its members credit. They have tried to do a mate a favour, probably. They have had this bill come before them. They have realised what it is. They realised it was unworkable in the way that Mr Bishop had originally put it into the House. So they have now added to red tape. They have added to red tape. They have added to the process by which these things can be considered, in another three areas. To “restrict access only to people”—there are three more choices. There are three more choices that have now been provided, so that there are another three sections that have to be thought about, as opposed to what we had before, and all because one book was not available for Mr Bishop to buy for a 6-week period.

I mean, as somebody mentioned before, it is a First World problem, is it not? If you cannot get a book for a 6-week period just while people decide which age group is appropriate that it can be provided for, we have to suddenly run off to the House and slip it into the members’ ballot. And if the Government felt so strongly about this, why on earth did it not bring it here? Why did Mr Bishop have to stand alone, so outraged about this situation—he could not buy a book for 6 weeks—that he had to put a member’s bill into the ballot? If this was so important, then the Government should have taken it up, Mr Bishop, but it left you on your own to then go and have to put it into the members’ ballot. It would not have anything to do with trying to fill up the members’ ballot with bits and pieces of little paper so that that minimises the Opposition’s chances of getting really substantial issues out, I do not suppose.

What we have got here is Mr Bishop getting all upset about the fact that for a little period of time, he could not go and get a book. He is also very, very upset that it was Family First that created that situation by using a quite legitimate process to say: “We disagree with the censor.” If you go back and have a look—

💬 Jono Naylor: Even they think we should change it.

Mr Naylor, you did not read it either. Have a listen. If you go back and have a look at the situation, the censor took into account only the swear words—the foul language that was inside the book. That was the point that Family First was trying to make, which is that there are other themes in here that, as a Parliament, we deal with every day, seriously—seriously. Child sexual exploitation, sexual relationships between students and teachers, violent assaults, sex under the legal age—these are all themes that we deal with in this House in a serious way, and yet this Government is standing up, trying to legitimise why this book should not have had a pause in its publication and in its release to the public while another discussion was taking place. It was not that onerous. It is not that onerous.

This bill wastes the House’s time. It removes an opportunity for New Zealanders to raise quite legitimate issues against the censors, and New Zealand First will not endorse Mr Bishop’s indulgences by supporting the bill at this stage. We will continue to oppose the bill. We will continue to try to get sense to reign across the House, but at this stage we will not support the bill.

What an absurd and outrageous contribution from the member who has just resumed her seat, Tracey Martin. She is a member whom I have some time for, and she usually makes, I think, a reasonably well-constructed argument and actually advocates for the right position on many issues. But this is clearly not one of them. To stand up in this House and defend the banning of books or a system that allows for books to be banned, rather than other more moderate and sensible measures, is absolutely outrageous in a free and liberal country like New Zealand. I think Chris Bishop should be commended for bringing this bill. It may be a relatively small and boutique issue, but it is a very important one in a country such as New Zealand, which values freedom of speech.

This bill may have been spurred into action by the unfortunate banning of an individual book, and I am referring to the book Into the River, the sales of which were suspended for 6 weeks in 2015. But, equally for any piece of literature, I think there actually has to be a very high bar proven, that this piece of literature may be injurious to public safety and public order and cause widespread offence and harm, and not to have available to the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review or the High Court an ability to impose a classification that is one of the normal classifications that might be available, but being given only two options, which is an outright ban—something that should be treated very, very seriously—or completely unrestricting the literature. Again, this is something that could be problematic if the book did contain mature content or controversial content. So introducing a mechanism and a means by which the president of the board of appeal for literature review has that ability to make a sensible decision and reinstate a classification, pending proper reconsideration, as part of an interim restriction order, is incredibly sensible.

The member Tracey Martin was talking about just one book, Into the River, but let us think about some of the implications that such a ban could have for any sort of publication, be it films or books. Some of these are not necessarily pleasant reading or viewing. Some of these are films or books that members of this House may have no interest in reading. But in a free society, where freedom of expression is valued, I think we do have to be very, very careful before we impose a ban.

I will give a couple of practical examples of how the status quo is unacceptable and how it cannot be allowed to prevail. We have situations—for instance, in the case of film festivals. We have films that are highly controversial in subject matter, for which special permission has been obtained to screen them, for educative purposes—for instance, those that university students might go along and watch as part of their film course. We are not necessarily talking about pleasant viewing, but these are films that the public does have the right to see, in certain restricted settings.

If a group that was opposed to that film was able to seek an interim order and interfere with the running of that film festival for a period of weeks, this is providing a commercial problem for the organisers of that film festival. Even if they get, at the end of that interim period, an order that allows them to screen that film, either to the original designated audience group—so it could be restricted, for instance, to students or academics who are studying that field of subject matter. Even if they get that order, by the time that 6 weeks has passed, or the 12 weeks, or however long it takes to consider, the commercial imperatives are very clear that the film festival probably will not be able to go ahead. It is simply, I think, a commercial tool used by those who would wish to silence certain kinds of literature and certain kinds of films, fully in the knowledge that if they can get that interim order it becomes somewhat commercially unsustainable to proceed with either publication or sales and distribution of the book, or the eventual screening of the film or the visual content.

Whilst this may have been brought about because of the case of one individual book, Into the River—and this needs to be not confused with “Up Shit Creek”, which is the story of the Labour Party’s camp in South Auckland for foreign students, who have been imported to campaign. I think that story is going to be exposed very soon in the media, and let us hope that that will not face any interim banning—

💬 Matt Doocey: Without a paddle.

Without the paddle, as my colleague Matt Doocey points out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We do not want to go down that track. Just concentrate on the bill. [Interruption]

💬 Kris Faafoi: Shall we talk about the Clutha River?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, we will not.

As I said, whilst this bill may have been spurred into existence by the unfortunate banning of Into the River, there are a wide range of books and films that it may apply to.

I think of some of the films that I went to see as part of festivals, as a student at the University of Otago.

💬 Jono Naylor: Please don’t tell those stories.

Well, actually, I am pleased to admit that I went along with a group of my colleagues—anthropology students and French students—to see the film Baise-Moi in the late 1990s, which was a very controversial, graphic, and violent depiction of the underbelly of French life, that milieu of degradation in Marseille that existed in the late 1990s. This was not pleasant viewing, but it was, I think, necessary for us who were studying that field, to appreciate and to achieve a wide understanding and a proper understanding of the subject matter that we were studying.

I, for one, may be a liberal—even verging on a libertarian—and I would not want to see a film like that, which was highly graphic, very violent, and contains sexual violence, available to children, available on free-to-air TV channels before a certain time of day, for instance. So it is right and proper that we have a censorship and classification system in this country that allows such literature that has the potential to be harmful to those if it falls into the wrong hands—it is right and proper that we have a censorship regime and that those receive a classification that is indicative to parents, such as the mature classification, so that if parents or caregivers are going out to the bookshop with their young person, they can make sure that there is an easy system in place so that the parent can assist in making an informed decision as to whether that book is suitable for their young person or not. But, moreover, when there is an R rating, access is actually restricted—such as for those films such as Baise-Moi, which had a restrictive rating that not only reflected an age classification but made them available only to groups such as tertiary students and academics, to be screened in supervised settings for the purpose of an educative film festival.

So we do not want to have—I personally do not want to empower groups such as Family First to make objections in the hope that they can secure an interim order, an interim order that is unreasonable. I am perfectly happy with an interim order that is reasonable. So if an interim order was granted that imposed an R14 age limit, for instance, on the book Into the River, that in my view would have been reasonable. If the interim order had said “This is a book that should be read only by mature people, and it is injurious and harmful if it falls into the hands of younger children.”, then I would be all in favour of putting an M order on that book pending further consideration of that book to ensure that the original decision was correct, or to overturn the original decision. But I am certainly against the idea that any group should be using the seeking of interim orders as a mechanism to—through commercial pressure—jeopardise the sales of a book or the screening of a film or the running of a film festival, particularly where these might serve an educative purpose, however controversial or however unpleasant the subject matter is.

So I want to commend my colleague Chris Bishop for bringing a small but, I think, significant and important issue to the House. It is worthy of consideration, and the idea, as Ms Martin brought up, that it was not worth the time of the Justice and Electoral Committee is outrageous. We have some very important issues come to the Justice and Electoral Committee. For instance, at the moment we are dealing with the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. That is a very restricted but, I think, worthy issue for this House’s attention. I think this is a free and open country where people should be able to read or view whatever they want, particularly if they are informed, consenting adults, and I think that the restrictions based on public order and the ability to cause harm should be used only in situations where harm or threat to public order occur.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Poto Williams.

Don’t you love members’ day—you know, when we get the opportunity to hear the ramblings of Government members when they are defending the indefensible, really. I mean, this bill, let us face it, does do a very small thing, and it does correct a procedure, and it is probably right and proper that it does. However, there are probably many other opportunities that we could have taken to correct this anomaly and process.

When the Minister Amy Adams in 2016 suggested some changes to broadcasting standards and work on content regulation, there was an opportunity to actually put this work into that piece of work that the Minister was suggesting. She announced at the time: “The Government is…considering whether other improvements could be made to the system, for example whether classification labels can be standardised across mediums such as television, films and games.” So the Minister was already thinking about the way we classify publications for broadcasting. That was in 2016, and I believe my colleague Clare Curran referred to that in her contribution on this bill. But I am using one of the four submissions made on this bill, the submission made by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, to refer to this—actually, there is an opportunity to do this other than using the time for members’ bills to do that.

However, we are here and we are correcting it, and this small process will be corrected after the third reading of this particular bill. But what it does raise is, actually, the discussion around how things should be classified and who has the role to do that, and the anomalies that sit across all the different publications, whether they are films, videos, online content, or, in this case, books. I want to tell you about some research that this particular office—I want to get the name right—the Office of Film and Literature Classification, did. It did some research through Colmar Brunton to look at the understanding and explore the views of young New Zealanders aged between 14 and 17. It looked at their understanding of sexual violence in entertainment media and its effect on them and their response. What it got was probably no surprise, really, given the volume of quite explicit material that is available to our young people. I quote from its submission: “Participants understood rape to be sexual violence, but there were differences in understanding of other forms of sexual violence, particular non-physical behaviour and coercion. Some of the boys expressed potentially harmful attitudes and misconceptions about the nature of sexual violence.”

I raise this as an issue because this is the broader issue that this particular member’s bill brings to us. It is about classification and it is about potentially harmful materials and the exposure of our young people and the ability that we have to provide tools for parents to be able to know what they should be looking for in terms of the materials that they supply to their young people to view. We are really in a time when there is so much content out there that we have an inability to understand the harm that it may potentially cause to our young people. But anything that we can do to help parents decide what is suitable for viewing and what is not needs to be looked at. This is a little piece of that puzzle. The Minister was signalling in 2016 that she was looking to explore that more fully, and I think that is what we should be doing. I think that is what we should do.

I am not going to take too much time about this, but I think it is an opportunity that we have missed in ensuring we take a good look at what is potentially harmful to our young folk. But we are commending the bill to the House.

If I can just start with a little clarification, I noted that when Adrian Rurawhe was speaking earlier on he said that he just wanted to make sure I had bought Mr Bishop a Lotto ticket. Just for the record, what I did say at the first reading was that, given Mr Bishop’s record of having bills drawn out of the hat, I was hoping—or aiming—to get him to buy me one, given his ability to have the luck of the draw.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Read the Hansard.

Mr Faafoi thinks I have got it wrong, so maybe I am misremembering myself from that stage. But certainly that was my intention, given Mr Bishop’s awesome ability to get bills drawn out of the hat. That would be useful.

I do want to commend Mr Bishop for this legislation. We had a contribution before from a New Zealand First member Tracey Martin, who was quite disparaging about this, being almost inconsequential and a waste of the Parliament’s time. But sometimes when there are issues that need fixing, the only way to fix them actually is through legislation. It would be kind of nice, I guess, sometimes if we see something out there that looks simple to fix, if we just changed it. But, unfortunately, because of the way the legislation has been constructed in the first place, the only way to change it is through a new piece of legislation. So the incidents that went on with the Into the River book highlighted some shortcomings in our current legislation. Mr Bishop recognised those shortcomings, drafted a very good piece of legislation, and brought it to this House, to enable us to actually put it right.

It is not just to put one little scenario to rights but, in fact, actually there is a principle involved here. So without necessarily going on about that particular publication, I do just want to highlight a couple of things that are important. It is quite consequential for those people who are producers of material. As Paul Foster-Bell said, for example, if a film was going to be at a film festival, then that person’s ability to earn income over that short period of time might be completely taken away from them.

There are lots of people producing lots of material every day. A few years ago I was in a band and we put out an extended play (EP)—called “For the Summer”, by the way. It is still available on Bandcamp if you want to get it—I just double-checked before; it is still there.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Cassette. Cassette.

“For the Summer”, by a band called Truly Made. It was not on cassette; it was not that long ago, Mr Faafoi. We did put it out on CD. It was only 4 years ago, in fact, that the album was put out. But I had to chuck it in because of coming to Parliament; I did not quite have time to play in a band any more. In fact, we did not even win the battle of the bands at the local hotel, but that is by the by.

But we put out this EP. If somebody had taken objection to some of the material that was in it—it would be unlikely, because I am pretty sure it would have received a G rating, and also an A+ for excellence. It may have received a G rating, but if there had been something in it, and somebody had said, “Look, I think that should have received a different rating,” and it had been reported to the censors, they would have only had the options of either leaving it as it was, or taking it off the market. At that stage, our ability to sell those CDs, in the high shifting market that there was at the time for those albums, would have been really, really disadvantaged. There would have been a financial disadvantage for the producers of that product. So it is really important that we do not have this all-or-nothing approach.

Tracey Martin said that the approach that we have got at the moment is perfectly fine, because something was off the shelf for just 6 weeks and gained notoriety. That may well be the case for the publication that she was referring to, but there are, of course, many other different kinds of publications. Once we become aware of a piece of legislation that is not quite achieving what we want it to do, it is important we get it right. In the old words of L V Martin “It’s the putting right that counts.”, and that is what we are wanting to do in this piece of legislation from Chris Bishop.

I want to acknowledge the input from the submitters, and yes, there were a small number of them, but they gave us a lot to think about. Particularly, I want to acknowledge the very constructive approach that Family First New Zealand took in approaching this legislation. It had been the one to appeal the decision around the Into the River book in the first place. In case the record proves me wrong, my recollection, anyway, was that Family First was not necessarily trying to get the book completely removed from the shelves. It just thought that the classification, at R14, was not appropriate, and that actually it should be higher. Family First thought it should have a higher restriction on it. Actually, the only option that the censor had was to either just let it go under its current rating, or demand that it be removed from the shelves altogether.

I think the submitters all pointed out, and Family First said this as well, that a more sensible regime would be far more appealing to everyone involved. It means that those who have produced the material are not necessarily going to be as financially out of pocket in the meantime and that the publication, whatever it is, can still be out there in the market, but that the censor has some variation in the choices that are available to them to put in place.

As we went through this and looked at the bill, simply just removing the material from the shelves or allowing it go unchecked really just does not make any sense any more. And so to be able to enable a different age to be put on it—if, for example, someone might say “We’re not happy with this; we would rather it was R18.”, if it has been out there at R16, then, actually, it could have that put on, as an interim restriction at 18. No one is asking for any more than that. They are not asking for it to be removed. So an interim restriction of 18 would make far more sense in that situation, or perhaps allowing certain classes of, say, tertiary students or others to look at this for the purposes of education. I think by giving the censors more tools, we are going to deliver better results.

There has been a little bit of conversation that has gone on about the importance of censorship, and I do want to touch on that, because these classifications are very, very important. I know as a parent myself—you know, when my kids were younger and they would wander into the DVD shop, to know that if they are wandering up to you with a G, you can sort of look at it, or you can look at what the content is, and go “Yes, I’m OK with my kids watching that.” And as they get older you might sort of let them into the PG territory, or M, or whatever it is, as they get older.

Of course, not all parents necessarily take a responsible attitude towards that, and sometimes parents can be a little bit overkill on that. In fact, I remember at one stage when The Texas Chainsaw Massacre came out, my father was so outraged he was threatening to go and join a protest outside the movie theatre. As a teenager I was very unimpressed at the thought of my father standing outside the theatre, protesting, but thankfully he did not do it.

But, actually, as parents, we do rely on censorship, and it is important that it is accurate, and that there are appropriate steps that are being taken to ensure we get the appropriate restrictions in place while there is a dispute going on about what it should be.

💬 Kris Faafoi: I want to know more about the band.

Mr Faafoi wants to know more about the band—Bandcamp/TrulyMade/FortheSummer. I will send you the link, Mr Faafoi. You can have a listen. I only played a small part on it, playing some keyboards and stuff, but I will send that to Mr Faafoi for his enjoyment. I am sure it will be right up his alley—very cool, laidback music.

Actually, what I just want to cut to, though, is the importance of this. As I said at the start, sometimes we do need legislation to ensure that we make the changes as we become aware of them. And so this is, as I say, an appropriate response to becoming aware of that. It is something that we can move forward with, knowing that our censors will have the appropriate tools to be able to apply appropriate restrictions while there is a dispute going on. I think it was completely unfair in the past that, actually, they were forced to have to either allow something to go through that might not be acceptable if it was under review, or they simply had to take it off the shelves.

So with those final remarks, I just want to say, again, congratulations to Chris Bishop. This is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to the Committee stage, when we will be able to discuss all sorts of intimate—or, you know, intricate details.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Not intimate details—that may well require a restriction of its own kind anyway, but discuss the more intricate details of this legislation. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the second reading of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I have had the pleasure of hearing from the four submitters, and I just want to make the following points.

But, firstly, I just want to begin by saying that members’ bills are really important in our democracy and that the prioritisation of the issues that we bring to this Parliament is based on our constituency work, our passions, and our commitment to resolving certain issues. These are not Government bills, and they are also not executive bills. They are backbench bills, and so, you know, the opportunity that we have to make legislative reform, I think, is incredibly important, and I do want to congratulate Chris Bishop, because sometimes bills are about one person, one incident, or, in this case, one book, but they are incredibly valid and I think do merit this House’s time.

So in looking at this piece of legislation, we really have to understand the Office of Film and Literature Classification and its role within our society. It is an independent Crown entity, and it is responsible for the classification of publication in films, videos, DVDs, Blu-rays, computer games, photos, pictures, books, magazines, newspapers, letters, apparel, and computer files. What it is interested in, in terms of those publications, is matters that deal with such things as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, and violence. So the office, in determining a classification, has to balance a publication’s capacity to injure the public—so, in the public good—versus balancing a right to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed to every citizen of our country in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

So it is really interesting to look at what the definition of “public good” is. A “public good” is “A commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or by a private individual or organization.” So the benefit or well-being of the public is paramount, versus freedom of expression, which is the “Right to express one’s ideas and opinions freely …”—but there is a caveat—“without causing harm to others’ character and/or reputation by false or misleading statements.”

I read that to you, because I do have the commentary from the Deputy Chief Censor of Film and Literature, from the group that initially classified Ted Dawe’s Into the River. He said: “The book deals with some stronger content. There are sexual relationships between teenagers, encounters with possible child sexual exploitation, the use of illegal drugs and other criminal activities, violent assault, and a moderate level of highly offensive language. These are well contextualised within an exciting fast moving narrative that has as its protagonist, a young teenage Maori boy from a rural community who is finding his way through the strange uncomfortable environment of a boys’ boarding school and unfamiliar social mores. The story captures the raw and real extremes of adolescence in teenage boys along with their yearnings and obsessions. The book is notable for being one of the first in New Zealand which specifically targets teenage boys and younger men—a genre that does not have great representation. The genre character is therefore significant. The content immerses the reader in action, wit, and intrigue, as well as a level of social realism, all likely to engage teen and young adult readers and with particular appeal for older boys and young men.”

So it was that that led to the initial classification of Into the River as M, which placed unrestricted access on this book. What then happened was Family First applied for the book to be restricted because it contained sex scenes, offensive language, drug use—everything I have just read out. So what the Office of Film and Literature Classification then did was to classify the book as an R14. As my colleague Tracey Martin talked about earlier, it was because of demand from Auckland libraries, which went back to the Office of Film and Literature Classification and said they wanted the book reclassified as unrestricted, which happened. So it was a bit of a ping-pong thing.

Then what happened was that Family First went back and challenged the unrestricted classification, but what it also did in that process was highlight section 49, which gives the book an interim restriction order, and at the moment—which is what this bill is trying to change—the interim restriction order that was then granted by the president of the board of review, to all intents and purposes, banned the book because this book was treated as being objectionable.

So then we should look at what the definition of “objectionable” is. “Objectionable” as defined in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993, means it is a publication that “describes, depicts, or expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.” All objectionable material is banned. So what this bill is seeking to do for books, or other publications that are in this particular scenario, is to not have them ruled objectionable and, therefore, banned, but to actually have a restriction placed on them that limits who has access to the publication.

So do I think this is a valid piece of legislation? Absolutely, I do, because at the moment I think that form of censorship actually does, and could, encourage people in our society who have got a particular moral perspective, shall we say, to do this not only to this book but maybe other books to come that just have not been written yet. As was highlighted, not many people do engage in writing books for young teenage boys, or for young people at all.

I am really happy to have been on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has been through a process of calling for public submissions, having those public submissions, working with our officials, and producing a piece of legislation that I think is going to benefit this area. It is also going to benefit the public so that we can actually have discussions and debates about real things, which is what this book is all about.

I do want to highlight that this book did win the 2013 New Zealand Post Book Award for the fiction category for children and young adults but it was also the Margaret Mahy Book of the Year. The reason it was picked for the book of the year was that it was about a young Māori boy from the East Coast who then went to an elite Auckland boarding school, so it dealt with issues of racism, of identity, and of someone having to walk in two worlds. It was given the award because it was real and true, and I actually think we need to honour that.

We should not be afraid of real and true stories, which is what this book is. I think that if people can use legislation to ban these real and true stories, then we have a problem, because, actually, we are a free and open society. We do not want to give people the power and tools to restrict and limit the real and true stories in our society, especially if they are targeted at certain groups—particularly young men or young people—which I believe will assist them in dealing with and addressing some of the issues that they have.

We have got big issues, as we all know, with youth suicide in our community, and that is because young people, for whatever reason, can end up being isolated and hopeless and having no one whom they can talk to. I think it is through books like this, actually, that they can share their experiences, and they do know that they are not alone because other people have experienced what they have. So I hope then, in passing this bill, it also encourages Ted to write some other books, and also encourages other New Zealand authors to delve into issues such as are depicted in this book, which will, hopefully, provide a resource and a sense of resilience for our young people. Kia ora.

I look forward to standing and speaking in support of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Actually, it is quite a privilege to follow Louisa Wall’s contribution. As I have listened—I am the last speaker on this bill this evening—I think, to be honest, hers would have to be right up there as one of the more considered contributions to the debate that we have had thus far this evening.

If I could have a moment’s indulgence and just pivot away for 30 seconds, I will just acknowledge the America’s Cup win of yesterday, and, in particular, the performance of not only the team but Peter Burling. He is a fellow Tauranga Boys’ College fellow, and it was absolutely fantastic to see him guide Emirates Team New Zealand to that victory. Actually, just as an aside, there is a big picture at Tauranga Boys’ College of three of its most famous old boys, and they are Sam Cane, Kane Williamson, and Peter Burling. Every time I drive past there, I hope that perhaps one day my picture will be there too, but they all seem to have a sporting focus.

Can I firstly acknowledge Chris Bishop for not only his luck in terms of having these bills drawn out but actually his ability as a legislator. As Louisa has just said, part of the import of Parliament is to have a day for members’ bills, when all of us, as non-executive backbenchers or Opposition members, have the opportunity to put forward issues we think should be resolved. Some of them are more philosophical and profound and talk to the direction, perhaps, of the country; some of them reflect our own individual priorities. Some are just small but needed interventions to make the law apply more effectively.

Not only is Chris an effective local community representative MP but he is also, in my view, a very effective legislator. He saw this as an anomaly and researched, himself, the mechanisms to be able to address that anomaly, and that is, essentially, what we are reflecting on here this evening in the second reading. Can I also acknowledge the extraordinary Sarah Dowie for her chairmanship of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I do not have the privilege of sitting in on that committee, but I hear from everybody else you do a fantastic job.

These will just be some comments from my perspective, on what I understand this bill is about but particularly on the contributions that have been made by various speakers thus far this evening. As people will know, this is a bill that is designed to fix up a particular anomaly around interim restrictions. It is not a significant change. It is a small but, as I said, needed change to improve that balance between our freedom of expression and the appropriate application of a framework that assesses the risk to children and young people and adults of certain objectionable material being made available.

As we have heard, the current framework was applied in respect of Ted Dawe’s award-winning novel Into the River, which, essentially, meant that when the review board was to assess the classification decision that was on the table, it really had no choice but to make it either completely available or completely restricted. There were no other tools in the tool box, if you like, to be able to reflect alternative, more nuanced interim restriction orders that could be made. So that did result in the somewhat surprising, arguably, decision that it was completely banned. We know from experience that the moment something is banned—obviously, there is the restriction of freedom of access, but that also, somewhat bizarrely, heightens public interest in the book itself. Others have said that it became, in many ways, a slightly self-defeating process, particularly for those who wanted the book less freely available.

Actually, that reminds me of when I was back at Tauranga Boys’ College. You would go to the library. We all knew that there were certain books there that were perhaps more risqué than others—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

—and, invariably, they were the ones that were taken out more often. They were taken out more often. There is a humorous side, and I appreciate I put myself up for that, but, seriously, there is a key point there: that on one level, you have a framework that is trying to restrict access, but, actually, the community of people whom you are seeking to talk to know the kind of material that they would like to understand and reflect on, and often those attempts to constrain actually do not work. In that scenario, the adults were thinking they were running a process that was supposedly protecting people, when, actually, all the students at the school found out which books were better to read than others. That is the reality here of trying to get the balance right between a framework of protecting people and the reality of making information available for people that suits their understanding of life.

In terms of the departmental report, as has been well canvassed, there were four submissions—two oral—and general support. It is interesting that submissions were either on the path that more constraint is probably useful—versus a more, perhaps, libertarian perspective—or focused on broader policy around the value of interim restriction orders generally, amendments to the appeal process, vesting discretion to grant an order in the board of review as a whole, and the expediting of reviews to speed them up. I found that particularly interesting.

There have been quite a few solid contributions to this debate this evening. I think Chris Bishop summarised his intent when he talked about the importance of accurately calibrating the interim classification to give, obviously, more tools to the review board itself, and making a small change that assists freedom of speech. I thought Sarah Dowie’s contribution reflecting on the balance that is sought between public good and freedom of speech was particularly interesting, and also her acknowledgment of the extraordinary efforts that the board of review has to go through on behalf of the community. This is not black and white. These things are grey, and this society is a different society in 2017 than it was in 2010 or, indeed, 1990. The review board has to move with the appetite and the expectation of the broader community, and I think it does it well.

Can I acknowledge your support, Maureen, for the West Coast, and particularly your strong advocacy for the availability of libraries and some of the challenges libraries have around getting the balance right in terms of availability and access to material such as this. Barry Coates’ contribution, talking specifically around the wider availability of objectionable material, particularly what is available online, I thought was quite measured and fair. I think, certainly as a parent of a 9-, 11-, and 13-year-old, these issues are very front of mind.

In respect of some of Tracey Martin’s comments, and even, I think, in respect of some of Poto Williams’ comments, there has been a view from some here today that because this is a narrow bill, because it is a narrow change, it therefore lacks merit. I think, as Louisa Wall quite well articulated, that this is the day for both broad philosophical debates and, at times, relatively narrow interventions that do not meet the threshold of something that would be a large Government bill. I do think it is appropriate, and I think some of the reactions to that being discussed here are a bit overstated.

It has been a fascinating debate. It is a very, very good contribution by Chris Bishop to have this debate, and it is great to see that, with the exception of New Zealand First, this bill has support. It is a shame those members cannot support it. I think in their hearts they want to; it is just that they want to deny Chris the second opportunity for a unanimously supported member’s bill. I certainly support it, and I know 90 percent of the House does too. Thank you.