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

There are three clauses in this part of the debate. We did have some debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee about the title of this bill, which is in clause 1. We did have some debate—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Ha! You changed it.

Mr Faafoi says “Well, you changed it.”, and that is exactly right. We had a debate and then the committee recommended that it be changed, as well. So the original title was the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill, and we have changed it to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. The reason we made that change is that we felt it better reflected the actual—I mean, I accept it is a minor change; it is a small change, not one that is worthy of much comment, but I just draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we have made that change in order to better reflect the purpose of the bill. It has slightly shortened the title.

We also had a bit of a debate about clause 2, which is the commencement clause, which is when the bill should come into force. There was a bit of debate about whether or not there should be a 6-month lead-in period or whether or not it should be 12 months after the date of Royal assent. That is a classic commencement clause, 12 months, which allows people time to transition to the new phase of classification office decisions. We decided in the end that that was not appropriate in this case, because such a minor change—and, actually, we are dealing with experts here, and we actually received a submission from the Office of Film and Literature Classification, and it said to us, I think I am recalling it correctly when I say it said it broadly supported the changes that were recommended by the bill and that it could bring them into force straight away.

This bill was introduced and received its first reading in December last year. It has been through the full select committee process, and we are pretty confident that the powers that be—the authorities—have the appropriate wherewithal and the appropriate expertise to bring it into force straight away. Therefore, we have decided that it will come into force on the day after it receives Royal assent, which I hope will be in a couple of weeks’ time.

The question—

💬 Maureen Pugh: Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, Maureen Pugh.

Yes, Mr Chair, I am.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I should not be showing hilarity; I am slightly surprised.

I am a little bit surprised myself, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): And this is not a walk-out.

Was it something I said? I stand again tonight in this Committee stage to discuss and support the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill.

This bill, as we know, is in the name of Chris Bishop. In terms of publications of this bill, he is the hero of this story, from the mighty Hutt. Clause 1 of this bill is, of course, the title clause, and during the re-drafting of this bill there was an amendment, as we have heard from the proposer, to the title, and it does better reflect the content of the bill and its purpose, and it also shortens the name very slightly, for efficiency.

Clause 2 is the commencement clause, and this states that it will come into force the day after it receives its Royal assent, which is quite common for bills. The Royal assent comes from the Governor-General, of course—in our case, Dame Patsy Reddy. For clarification for the audience, and for my own benefit too, I did a little bit of research on what this actually means, because in the past I have tended to gloss over the commencement date of bills. What I found was that it is quite a lengthy and detailed process: when the House of Representatives passes a bill’s third reading, it does not become an Act until it has received this Royal assent from the Governor-General. The Governor-General can only act on the advice of the Government in these constitutional matters, and so there is an advice sheet prepared for the Governor-General, which is signed by the Clerk of the House. And then the Clerk of the House advises the Governor-General that there are no reasons why the Royal assent should not be granted. Then that is also signed by the Attorney-General—in our case, the Hon Chris Finlayson—and the Prime Minister, who, of course, is the Rt Hon Bill English, in this case.

Two copies of these are certified by the Clerk of the House, and they are sent with this advice sheet to the Governor-General, and they are signed. At that point the bill becomes an Act. The commencement date of this bill will be the day after it receives that Royal assent. This is, of course, done on behalf of our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth.

Clause 3 of this bill is, of course, the principal Act. As we know, it is amending the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993, and that is the principal Act that is being amended. We have heard already tonight that this is a very simple, effective bill that fills a gap in the legislation, and we are very happy to support it. Thank you.

I join in the ranks of surprise to take another call in this debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3. I never thought that I would, of course, take orders from Mr Matt Doocey, but he is the whip and we will continue to make contributions on this bill, which, as my colleague has said, is a fine bill. It is a small but very technical bill, and of course the title has been slightly amended. It now reads Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill.

I think it is a very apt amendment to better reflect exactly the substance behind this bill. Again, it is one that increases the means and flexibility that the classification team and president, and the court, have to be able to make interim orders where they once were not able to. Of course, this transpires from Chris Bishop, the member in charge of the bill, thinking about the consequences from the publication Into the River, where the president was left with only two options when an appeal occurred, before this bill was thought about. If it comes into force, it will give the team more flexibility. But there were only two options that the president had, and they were to completely ban the publication or revert to the original classification. There were two of them prior to that—either mature audiences or R14.

So, as we have discussed before, this extends the tool box available to the president and the High Court, creating different criteria for consideration in the interim. Previously, when I was making a contribution on Part 1, I talked about this idea in clause 4, which replaces section 49, that allows specified persons or classes of persons to be considered, and I think this is a really good thing when it comes to education. It allows the president to consider what is going on, to balance the need for freedom of speech versus the protection of society. If a tertiary education provider or a high school or a certain group have already begun studying a publication and are in the depths of it, it may well ring true that the president or the High Court thinks it is appropriate to allow them to finish that study, and that it is not in the best interests to pull that book or that publication away from them while the more substantive consideration is going on after the initial appeal.

I think it is a really great thing to allow that flexibility, moving forward, and this is exactly what this bill—little, but effective—does. And, of course, the other part of the flexibility, in respect of allowing the age consideration movement, is that the president in issuing an interim order does not have to revert to the prior orders in that case. So they can make a judgment call as to whether they have got it right necessarily, notwithstanding that more substantive consideration will go on as the evidence is presented. But, again, it allows that flexibility to balance freedom of speech in respect of that public good, and I think that that more flexible system is more responsive and more suitable to our way of life here in New Zealand moving forward.

I commend Chris Bishop, the member in charge of the bill, for bringing the bill to the House. I reiterate that it is a small but technical and effective bill.

Actually, when I was looking at this bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill, I stopped to think about how many bills that go through this Parliament have long titles that actually, at times, are almost more of a mouthful, and would there be a way that we could simplify the title of this bill to make it easier for people to get their mouths around—and I know we manage to reduce it down by one word through the select committee stage.

But, actually, I was thinking through what some of the alternative titles to this bill could possibly be. For example, I know that based on the way that people consider classifications they might have wanted to call it the “Keeping Dodgy Stuff Away From Teenagers Bill” or, particularly from other submitters, they might have wanted to call it something like the “Protecting Families From Being Exposed to Offensive Material Bill”. I realise then, of course, that those names for those bills would not necessarily be a whole lot shorter either. And, of course, coming from the other spectrum, as has been alluded to today—because in doing this it does restrict people’s ability for freedom of speech—it might have also potentially been called the “Inhibiting Freedom of Speech Bill”.

But when I look at those different options and those different alternatives that are out there, probably on balance the name and the title of this bill is, in fact, about the right one. It is, in fact, obviously, amending a parent Act, which talks about films, videos, and publications. I guess my concern, though, is that actually in the modern day, now, when we are talking about the terminology, like films or videos, for example—I know last time I spoke on this bill, I referred to a recording and Mr Faafoi suggested that perhaps it might have been done so long ago it would have been done on cassette. But what we did have is that, actually, the term video, for example, is a very broad term—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): My first record player had a handle.

—and I wonder whether or not we actually need to really revise our language sometimes to make sure it is a bit futureproofed. I know Mr Mallard still would like to play his LPs on his gramophone, it would appear, from the description he was giving.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, no. We did not have LPs in my time. They were 78s.

Of course, they would not have even been LPs—78s on a gramophone. Of course, if you are using a 78 you have to wind it a little bit faster of course, and it is a little bit more tiring.

Finally, I just do want to touch on the commencement. Sometimes it is appropriate to have a lead-in time between Royal assent and when the bill comes into play. Given that the use of this legislation is usually reasonably rare—it does not happen very often—and given the expertise of the people who are involved in classifications, it seems very appropriate to me that they have actually had quite a lot of lead-in time. They have seen the support that this bill has got across the House, and will be able to even see with a level of surety now that this is the way things are heading, so they can start to gear up for it. So it seems to me that having a commencement date for the day after the Royal assent is entirely appropriate. I do want to thank the member Maureen Pugh for our constitutional lesson that we had about Royal assent a couple of speeches ago.

I think ultimately, as I said, we have settled on the right title for the bill. It does adequately describe what is contained in it. I commend Chris Bishop for championing this bill through the House and look forward to the third reading stage.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.