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

Sorry, can I just indicate to Amy Adams before we start that we’re having a little bit of a problem with the clocks at the moment, and it may be that the clock goes up rather than down—all right?

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I’ll take the clock as gospel, then! Look, it is a pleasure to take a call in this third reading on what is a very good bill from my very hard-working colleague whom I’m now delighted to call the member for the Hutt, Chris Bishop, who put this bill into the House through the members’ ballot. That is, as new members will come to know, a very important part of the way this House operates. It is often where we see some very worthwhile changes—not always the biggest, most significant changes, but none the less very important changes—that can be addressed and worked through, and I congratulate Chris Bishop for finding this gap in the law and working to address it.

The particular issue that’s being discussed here—and it’s probably worth reflecting on it, just because it has been far more than the usual period of break in an interrupted reading since we had discussions on this bill—is, of course, the change to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act that came about as the result of a very unique situation in New Zealand, and one, I think, that everyone would agree is not the sort of New Zealand that any of us want to live in. That is the situation where, as a country, we found a book being banned. In a country that stands up for free speech and the rule of law, it is quite inimical to our way of life that we would have book banning.

Yet that was the issue that the board of review found themselves with in September 2013 with a book called Into the River, which was almost by operation of law having to be banned. The review office found themselves in the situation where, having been asked to review the decision of the classification office, and having been asked to put in place an interim classification for the publication in question, they had only the two options, which were to either leave a book entirely unclassified that had previously been classified as restricted to 14-year-olds and over, or ban the book entirely. Even though the review office were quite clear that they didn’t think banning the book was appropriate, they did not feel comfortable making it entirely unrestricted, because of the nature of its content. So we had this, as I say, very contrary to New Zealand’s way of life approach of completely banning the book.

So Chris Bishop realised that there was a lacuna in the law and put forward this member’s bill to provide for an enhanced series of interim orders that addresses that situation and means that where there is an interim order on a classification office decision or board of review decision, they can put in place, really, the full range of orders that you would expect them to be able to do—either to leave it unclassified, to ban it entirely, or to put whatever restrictions are required in terms of access to the publication in the meantime.

The bill has been through the Justice and Electoral Committee, of course. I was not on the select committee at the time, but I understand there were a number of thoughtful submissions. The committee made some useful changes, tweaking the name of the bill to better reflect the style of parliamentary drafting, and obviously just adjusting the offence provisions as well to give effect to that more complete set of interim orders under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act.

So we find ourselves now at the third reading stage in this interrupted debate. My understanding is that the bill has been unanimously supported through the House to this point. I would very much hope that that would continue. I see no reason why not. It is an issue that needs to be resolved. As I said at the outset, it is not the biggest issue that this House will deal with, but none the less this is an issue that resulted in something that I regard as actually very serious. We don’t want to be a country that bans books. That is not who we are, and it is absolutely the view of most of us in the House—I know I’ve expressed it myself on many occasions—that whether or not I agree with what someone says, I will always stand up for their right to say it. I haven’t read this book. I don’t know particularly how offensive or challenging the material might be, but none the less I’m prepared to stand up for the right of the book to be available, subject to the appropriate classifications.

So where we’ve found ourselves in a situation where the law compelled a banning of books, then it was right to act, and Chris Bishop saw that opportunity and put the bill in the ballot. He was very fortunate, I have to say, in having the bill drawn. Not every member in the House is as lucky. I’ve been lucky once myself. I hope to be lucky far more often now that I can be back in the ballot. It is with those few words that I wish to commend the bill to the House.

I take the call to speak on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. I wish to acknowledge Chris Bishop for identifying this anomaly in the current law, which has given rise to the occasion, quite unusually in New Zealand, of a book being banned. That book was banned on the basis of there being inappropriate material for young people to engage with, and I think that that’s been a really appropriate issue to be taken up on by the member, who has taken a good role within the Hutt South community to engage with young people and be advocating on behalf of their rights and interests, making sure that they are well looked after in our society. That has been one of the underlying reasons that it’s been an interesting course of action to see a book here banned.

I support this bill, as does the Labour Party, for the reason that there is an anomaly that allowed the book to be outright banned when a restriction or more flexibility in terms of the censorship would’ve been far more appropriate. Unlike the previous member, Amy Adams, I have read large sections of this book, and, to be honest, having children of my own in teenage years, there are some sections that are reasonably explicit. There are questions about how children should be accessing material and how we deem that to be appropriate. This is particularly interesting in an age where kids are accessing a lot of information through the internet, and that’s particularly unrestricted. So while it’s important to have clear access and to not be outright banning books, we do need to keep in mind how we’re making sure that children are safe through what they’re accessing through social media and through the internet. We need to be, as much as technology allows us, consistent when we’re looking at the type of material that young people are accessing.

The Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for classifying publications such as films, videos, books, games, and audio recordings, and I understand that this particular anomaly arose because of the nature of the material—because it was a book—and so it fell into a different classification. So I think, again, it’s important that we change and modify as technology does. The question is: it is just because this item is a book that it was banned, when other information available wider on the internet was far more easily accessible?

One of the interesting points that came across in terms of the banning of the particular book, Into the River, that this whole member’s bill arose from was that it actually generated far more public interest in the book. Far more people made an endeavour to purchase the book. Probably, more kids went out and tried to access the book. So it’s always important to weigh up how this type of action is going to be making an impact upon people’s lives. The controversy, the media coverage, and the increased attention on this piece of literature ended up generating far more heat and light than otherwise.

I think it’s important, also, when we’re looking at the type of material that children are accessing, to acknowledge that society changes and adapts over time. In the history of books that have been banned, there’s always a lively debate when we look back and see the types of literature years ago that we as a society found to be unacceptable. To Kill a Mockingbird was banned because of offensive language, racism, and being unsuited to a particular age group. We’ve also seen Ulysses banned, and when it screened at movie theatres we saw men and women having to enter at different times. I guess this is another point to show that, over time, society has changed. We’ve seen other books over time, such as Where Did I Come From?, published in 1973, banned. I remember that one quite fondly. It was well looked at on the library bookshelves in my primary school, along with The Clan of the Cave Bear. So it’s important to remember, when we’re looking at material, when we are considering whether it should be made available or not—that we also keep in mind that society does change its judgments as time moves on.

One of the key provisions in the bill, which is intended to allow interim restriction orders to completely restrict access to a publication, means that there’s more flexibility, and I think that’s the great improvement here. That means that there can be taken into account that there is a certain age group that might be more suited to accessing the material; that they could belong to a certain class, such as tertiary students; and that the accessing of the publication can be for a certain purpose, such as a film festival. These are the three new types of interim restriction orders that reflect the classifications that may be imposed on a publication by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This commentary covers the main amendments that have been recommended to the bill, but it does not cover the minor or technical ones.

It has been good to see that the principal Act contains offence provisions that do not envisage the more flexible interim restriction orders proposed in this bill. It is important, too, that we enable the Office of Film and Literature Classification to be able to have the flexibility to look at material and respond appropriately, as they are required to. Keeping in mind, too, that this is a small issue—this is the only book that I’m aware of that has come into this instance. So it will be interesting to see in the future if we have other instances coming up that require that flexibility that will be enabled by this legislation to be taken into account and be able to be utilised.

The bill here will provide that the president of the board of review and the High Court have an expanded tool kit, and they can be used when considering whether to restrict a publication. The bill will also allow the president to restrict a publication, as already mentioned, based on that more flexible ability of looking at age and considering whether that’s appropriate or not.

It is quite clear from all of the commentary that we’ve seen to date, whether it be in this House or in wider media, that Into the River should not have been banned. This change is a small one, but this side of the House considers it’s a useful one, because we see that freedom of expression in New Zealand is important and we need to protect the ability for expression to go freely in New Zealand. Outright bans of literature are simply not acceptable in New Zealand if we want to continue to be a free society, a democratic society, and one that gives people access to the information that they are able to digest at that age. So I thank the House for the time, and I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora koutou katoa, ko ēnei ngā kōrero mō tēnei kaupapa.

[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you all, these are the comments pertaining to this matter.]

This is my first call in the House, and I am grateful for that opportunity. I take a look at this bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill, and I would just like to start off by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill.

This is not a groundbreaking alteration to the legislation; this member’s bill of Mr Bishop’s is simply a small tweak. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill has been labelled as being something of a catchy title; personally, I think it’s a little clunky.

Looking at a little bit of back story, painting a picture here, we’ve seen public silent readings of a book. We’ve seen book shop front window displays with books encased in paper bags, being faced with the potential of seriously large fines of thousands of dollars. Now, this gives a whole new perspective to the term “reading for meaning”, all over one single book, which has become something of a poster child for this piece of legislation. This literary poster child has created a bit of a brouhaha over a blip on the legislative landscape.

Destined to become for ever a footnote in Aotearoa New Zealand’s literary history, the written word, of course, is art, and we know that art improves our human experience and our life in general. Art in all its forms is aspirational; it challenges, inspires, and has the power to shape our attitudes and our values. So this little legislative tweak will correct what seemed like a big overreach at the time, and an obvious example of destructive interference with a process that was taking some time to work but nevertheless was working well.

It shouldn’t have ever been about the book—a book that is a writer’s authentic work, presented for public consumption in a very genuine way. The author’s ambition to write about difficult subjects like teen sex, drug use, and bullying, in language that teenagers can relate to, is a good and worthy one. How well he has succeeded—how well the author has succeeded—is an entirely different question. People will have different views of this book, and it is right and proper that those views can be, and have been, expressed in public debate.

When we look at reading, and reading of all manner of books, that is, of course, good for everyone. Especially important is finding topics to engage our young people. This particular book has engaged young male readers, and that is something that we need to encourage more of. Not only does reading increase our empathy, it also happens to be one of the single best habits for enhancing our creativity.

A study by graduates at the University of Western Ontario, published in the US for a psychological science journal, has found that creativity thrives in people who are happy and positive, and those who read books regularly are, on average, more satisfied with life, happier, and more likely to feel their lives are worthwhile. If you read regularly, the resulting improvements in your mood will spill over into your creative endeavours in life, so you’re happier, more creative—kind of like killing two birds with one book.

Reading’s also a boon for creativity in so far that it promotes a calm, a contemplative mind-set, reducing stress—and we could all do with a bit of that—and it does that more so than, would you believe, listening to music, drinking a cup of tea, taking a walk, even in the bush, or any other commonly used stress relief mechanisms. So in spite of all these benefits, too many people claim that they don’t have enough time for reading.

The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill—the process that the Office of Film and Literature Classification went through in the case of this book that we’ve been talking about, Into the River, was a very rare one, but through the amendment this anomaly will not happen again, and that is something to be thankful for. This is the first time in over 10 years that an interim restriction has been put in place, and it’s the first time for a book. The last time was in 2002 for the film Bully, which was initially rated R18. This bill would not have been applicable in the case of this film, as, until the decision was reviewed, it was perceived that this film may not have been suitable for viewing by an adult audience. After the review process, the same classification remained for that film.

From the few submissions that have been made in relation to this bill—and there were four submissions—there were two main concerns, the first being that in censorship of content, currently interim restrictions function like censorship, making the classified documents illegal to possess, distribute, import, and display, hence the books in paper bags. This bill aims to have these interim restrictions changed from temporarily banning the content whilst the classification is reviewed to instead allowing the material’s availability to be restricted to particular groups.

In the case of Into the River, at no point was there any reason, based on the classification it was given, for it to have been banned for adults. Even the group that had appealed the rating of the book was advocating only for an R18 rating, not for the book to be banned. The author himself, Ted Dawe, was aggravated by this step to ban the book until the classification could be reviewed, because he felt he was being cut off from the reading public. He had a lot of comments to make at the time; he, in fact, was baffled by that.

One thing he said was that for most writers, when they get the premier award for winning, which he did for this book, it will be their glory year. For him it was a year of hell. It was a year of accusations, of nasty emails, of censorship. It soured the entire experience of being an award-winning author. He will never get another chance for one of those awards, as, according to him, you only ever get one. Usually, that’s the case, and now his will be spoiled. He said he was blindsided by the ban of his book. He said it was extraordinary, and he’s had a few emails from people who share that sense of outrage. He asked, “Do we live in a country where books get banned? Next thing I’ll get burned.”

This amendment is a movement away from unnecessary censorship. The enforcement of the banning of a book that has already been released, in this case, was not only difficult to enforce but entirely unnecessary. There were outcries from school libraries, from public libraries, from librarians across the country, and from overseas media, of course, ridiculing the ban. The Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa director Joanna Matthew said that libraries generally supported freedom of speech and that she saw that the ban of Into the River was a tragedy. If we censor literature that talks frankly about some of these issues that the book touches on, then I think we run the risk of burying them.

The other concern of submitters was for the ability to appeal the classification to remain intact. Now, this amendment still allows for groups like Family First New Zealand to appeal the classification decision, but, by all accounts, the book Into the River contains some very graphic content that they weren’t happy with that made the book inappropriate to be categorised as a child’s book, as a children’s book. Now, New Zealand First respects community standards and places a high priority on the protection of children from harmful material. This appeals process is fundamental to the protection of the young and the impressionable from objectionable content.

To sum up, we must balance the public good with freedom of speech. We need to remove all barriers in the way of readers. We need to encourage our young people in particular to read. We have a wealth of talented writers in New Zealand, and they must be encouraged to tell all of our stories. To ban the book was seen as a Draconian measure. The flip-flopping of the classification decision—this made New Zealand look like a little backwater on the international stage, as we hit the headlines around the world, as one book caused quite a bit of kerfuffle.

So, in conclusion, New Zealand First supports this bill. Although just a little tweak of legislation, a blip on the legislative landscape, it is an important alteration to an anomaly that will improve the freedom of expression.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand here today and take a call on the third reading of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. I’d like to start by congratulating my good friend Mr Chris Bishop, the MP for Hutt South. Chris had remarkable success not just in the Hutt South but also in having a remarkable number of members’ bills drawn over his short career. As a new MP, I hope that by taking a call tonight some of that good luck rubs off on me.

The bill we’re debating this afternoon is a fairly simple one. It makes a small but necessary change to the legislative and regulatory environment around classification. It fixes an anomaly in the law that allowed for films, books, and other publications to be banned unnecessarily because only two limited options were available to the president of the board of review: to either leave a publication unrestricted or to ban it entirely.

This was the case, as we’ve heard tonight, with Ted Dawe’s award-winning book Into the River, which was the subject of an interim restriction order as a result of an appeal by Family First. Even Family First have accepted that the book should be available. All they wanted was a higher age classification applied to it. Family First did submit on the bill and said the following: “Family First simply wanted the book restricted to an age-appropriate audience because of the material covered in the book.” They note the book contains the “c” word nine times, the “f” word 17 times, the “s” word 16 times, and the other “c” word 10 times. That’s a legitimate position to have, but not one I necessarily subscribe to. As I said in my maiden speech just a couple of weeks ago, I managed to pick up a fairly colourful vocabulary on the pig farm at the age of 15, rather than from books. But, unfortunately, the only two choices that were available to the board of review were to either leave it unrestricted or ban it, as they did for six weeks.

I now want to turn to the changes that Mr Bishop’s bill proposes. The bill will allow interim restriction orders to completely restrict access to a publication, as they do now, or to restrict it only to people who are at a certain age, belong to certain classes, such as tertiary students, or are accessing the publication for a certain purpose, such as film festivals. I want to particularly highlight the second of those: tertiary students. At the risk of getting into debating my university transcript, like this House did just a few years ago for another member, at one point in my university career I did actually take a film paper. It was my final year at university. I’d satisfied all the requirements for my political science major and, unfortunately, lost any ability to get a commerce degree, as I had intended, so I enrolled in a Māori in film course. It was a very enjoyable way to end my university career, watching Once Were Warriors, Patu!, and Whale Rider and then writing, I think, 200- to 400-word short answers on them. I couldn’t really tell you if any of the films that we watched had strong classifications on them, but it did leave me with a pretty strong view that universities and polytechs are places of learning, of debate, and of challenging norms, and it is important they have the freedom to do that.

I’d like to congratulate the Justice Committee on their work in improving the bill and recommending it be supported with full support in this House. It’s a committee I now sit on, and I’m confident that we’ll carry on with their good work. I do note that of the 10 members that sat on that committee just a year ago, six of them are no longer in this House, which I hope doesn’t bode ill for the rest of us. I do note, though, that one of them has gone on to become Prime Minister, so perhaps there is hope for some of us.

I thank the four submitters who provided comment on the bill. As I mentioned, one of them was Family First; also Shane Campbell, the Office of Film and Literature Classification of films, videos, and publications, and the Society for Promotion of Community Standards. It won’t surprise many of you that there was some dissent, and, in fact, 75 percent of those four submitters are in favour of it.

I again congratulate Chris Bishop on an excellent bill and for pushing it through Parliament over the last 12 or 13 months. It’s an excellent and most sensible change, and I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Firstly, can I congratulate you on your appointment as an Assistant Speaker in this House. I actually want to reflect on that, just briefly, because we have a Pākehā man as our Speaker, we have a Pākehā woman as our Deputy Speaker, and we have a Pacific woman Assistant Speaker and a Māori male Assistant Speaker. So if we wanted to look at a representative Speaker list, I think we have it, and it’s actually worth noting. I don’t think anyone else has really paid tribute to the diversity that we have. I think your job is incredibly important in making sure that we undertake our roles as members of Parliament in this House in a way that manages and ensures we all contribute constructively.

Secondly, I’d like to acknowledge all the new members of this Parliament—a lot of you. I want to acknowledge your maiden speeches. I think they were an outstanding range of maiden speeches, and they also really highlighted why each of us is here representing our particular electorates, our communities of interest. I think this bill, in some ways, speaks to those communities of interest. I am a previous member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I want to acknowledge Sarah Dowie, who chaired that committee, and also Chris Bishop, who was a member of that committee and is, obviously, also, the author of this particular member’s bill.

I’ve got a lot of respect for Chris because he does bring to the House issues that do need legislative reform, and he does it in a manner, I believe, that allows all of us to contribute to what is a discussion that some may see as trivial but, actually, within the context of a lot of the korero that we’ve heard today about freedom of expression, about balancing those freedoms, I guess, with the role that the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act actually has, which is to, I guess, moderate and to look at content related to books, films, videos, and other publications and whether or not they are material that should be available, in the public good, to the public. That, in essence, has been a lot of the discussion we had with regard to this particular piece of legislation.

The reality for the committee, the reality for us as New Zealanders, was that there was a process that banned a book. When I looked at the plot summary of Into the River it was, and I quote, “Set in New Zealand, the book tells the story of Māori youth Te Arepa Santos as he moves from the East Coast to Auckland to boarding school, where he has encounters with intimacy, sex, drugs, racism and death.” Now, none of us would ever have imagined that a story that provided an opportunity to look at a young person moving from the East Coast rural New Zealand to Auckland would create a situation where it was banned. It was banned for six weeks in New Zealand.

I just want to walk us through how that happened, because, in fact, in September 2013 Ted Dawe’s Into the River was classified “unrestricted”. So I would have thought that was the end of the story. Pretty much, it was for mature audiences, suitable for those 16 years and over. What happened in December 2013 was, in fact, Family First appealed that classification. So they went to the Film and Literature Board of Review, and in December 2013 the classification went from “unrestricted” to an R14. There was a really curious thing that happened, actually. The president, Don Mathieson QC, actually had a dissenting view. He said it should have been classified R18. It wasn’t. It was classified R14.

Everyone would have thought, “OK, let’s move on.” But it didn’t, because in August 2015 a group of librarians around Auckland, because there was such a huge demand on the book, appealed and in August 2015 the book was deemed “unrestricted” again. So you’ve already had “unrestricted”, R14, the dissenting voice that said it should have been R18, “unrestricted”, and then Family First appealed it again. What happened in that second application by Family First—they also applied for an interim restriction order. It was that part of the process that then effectively banned the book. Under the current legislation, when there is an interim restriction order imposed, then you can’t supply or distribute the publication and you cannot possess or import the publication for the purpose of supplying or distributing it. And therein lies where we got the ban.

So what this piece of legislation will do is make sure that, when interim restriction orders are being put in place when there is an appeal, one of the tools available to the people who are responsible, the Film and Literature Board of Review, is that they can actually say, “In the interim we’re going to give it an R14.”—which it has—or an R18, whatever it may be. But, essentially, what they’re saying is that it should still be available—what we highlighted in the legislation—to people of a certain age, to people who belong to a certain class, such as tertiary students, and people should be able to access the publication for a specific purpose; we noted that it may be a film festival. Obviously, it’s not relevant to a book. But the reality is, this piece of legislation is providing another tool in the tool kit that will ensure books are not banned.

That’s something to be commended. I think that that’s an incredibly—it’s a great contribution, actually, to lawmaking. I personally think that when we have people like our author Ted Dawe trying to engage with particular cohorts of young people—this book, I remember a lot of discussion about it. It was about providing a genre and an opportunity for young people to have discussions about intimacy, sex, drugs, and relationships.

In fact, I did look at Family First’s kind of rationale for that second appeal. What they said was that it wasn’t just about the book. What they were preoccupied with was about benchmarking the censorship office in setting, I guess, what’s appropriate. From their perspective, they thought things that have adult themes—such as sex; that have sexually explicit content and bad language—should be restricted to that R14 kind of restriction.

I guess therein lies the discussion and debate within society about when is a young person a young person. At what age do our young people have access to information—through story, through narrative—that gives real-life examples of how our young people navigate those particular issues these days: how they navigate growing up, how they interact with their peers, issues such as engaging in relationships that involve sexual exploration, having the opportunity to drink alcohol, and those other things that this book actually provided?

So for us to clarify that books such as this are valid and that they have a place, and while we’re, kind of, going through a bureaucratic process in some ways that they shouldn’t be banned, as I said before, I think that this really provides a good example of a member’s bill—that if it’s crafted in the right way, if it’s brought to the House in the right way, actually will get the support of the House.

One of the other things I want to highlight is that throughout the select committee process we all deliberated collectively. We did have lots of questions, believe it or not. Some people will think that this bill was very small, but actually we had lots of great discussions. One of the aspects of this House that I think we underestimate is that there is an opportunity for us to collaborate, that there is an opportunity for us to work together, and, from my perspective, this piece of legislation provides a really good example of how, collectively, we can make decisions for the public good as a Parliament. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill—what I think is a thoroughly sensible piece of legislation. It highlights an anomaly in the law that arose out of a rather fascinating situation where censorship officers were provided a rather black and white response mechanism, where they could either ban the book in its entirety or allow it to remain available and accessible, which obviously presented a massive inconsistency when the previous classification saw the book as rated R14. So this total ban of about six weeks, we believe, as the Green Party, was inconsistent with Aotearoa’s championing of the freedom of speech.

Censorship in Aotearoa New Zealand is about 100 years old, coming about with the advent of film, and as books began flooding the shelves and the minds of New Zealanders. The reasons cited at the time that censorship was first introduced in this country was that “the class of moving pictures at present exhibited in New Zealand constitutes a grave danger to the moral health and social welfare of the community.”

Fundamentally, I think, it was prompted by a bit of a moral panic, which we have not yet rid ourselves of in this modern day. It was a moral panic in response to the dissemination of ideas, especially those that challenge norms or the status quo, which we still see to this day and, as I believe, was the situation that we saw in this case with this book.

This is a crucial tension to highlight when considering censorship. In doing so, in censoring art or literature or otherwise, are we quashing the potential for robust, thorough debate to challenge our experiences and reflections of reality? Are we stifling critical thinking or a potential critical response?

It’s these seemingly small things, like the situation that we saw with Ted Dawe’s Into the River, that can have flow-on effects in terms of potentially opening the door to the stifling of democracy. With regard to the case that prompted this legislation, the board of review report highlighted, I believe, an incredibly worthwhile point, which is that “The Board considers the book is likely to educate and inform young adults about the potentially negative consequences that can follow from involvement in casual sex, underage drinking, drug taking, crime, violence and bullying. The Board considers that the book serves a useful social purpose in raising these issues for thought and debate and creating a context which may help young adults think more deeply about the immediate and long term consequences of [the decisions] they may be called upon to make.”

So the context that is being referred to here is such that this book was taught in schools. That context is one of education. It is a safe space where teachers guide children through different and challenging ideas. This, I believe, is the very purpose of the education system as a public good to be the critic and conscience of society and to ensure that we are raising young people who are able to challenge social norms in such a way that leads to our social evolution.

This contextual consideration is something that I think we need to continue considering because, I assume that later, as the years and decades pass, we will see the changing nature of media, as we already have. I’ve had a few people in the Green Party notify me of the fact that I was born in the year that Sony Betamax tapes were first introduced. Now we are seeing kids growing up with the internet. This prompts the issue of modern access and, perhaps, raises the point that censorship doesn’t mean what it might’ve traditionally used to. For the time being, the Green Party is absolutely happy to support this bill because it is a very sensible bill that fixes an anomaly in the law, but we would like to highlight that there will be more coming down the pipeline in this modern day that that we will need to consider.

As time allows me to continue on this point of idealism and theorising, I would like to note that the ideology behind the support of freedom of expression is one that is socially liberal. That’s something that many of the contemporary members in this House have in common. But where I think many of us diverge, as has become quite pertinent and obvious as a point of debate today and in days previous, is on our economic thinking. On this point, I’d like to invite Chris Bishop and other members of his party to consider that economic ideology, because these social and economic ideals are at odds, fundamentally. Whilst we may be advocating for art and literature and those things to be out there in the world, accessible to people, the fact of the matter is that whilst society is unequal, those goods, those ideas, that education, are not accessible to all.

So on that point, I will leave it. I would like to commend this bill to the House, and would like to say that we’re looking forward to the developing technology and the House’s response to it.

I understand this is a split call. Matt King—five minutes.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I’d like to acknowledge you for your appointment, since this is the first time I’ve appeared before you. Well done.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. It’s a mouthful—wait for it—

💬 Hon Member: You can do it.

Ha, ha! The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. What a mouthful.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Time’s up!

Time’s up!

💬 Darroch Ball: Do you support it or not?

Absolutely—100 percent. Twelve ten-minute speeches; I get to do five minutes on a bill that totals nine pages from cover to cover. We support this bill, in National, because it’s common sense, for one, and, secondly, because my colleague Chris Bishop is running it.

It’s a bill that went before the former Justice and Electoral Committee, of which there are a few members in the House, but, as my colleague noted, some have left. And, as a newly appointed member of the Justice Committee, and along with some very talented people from both sides of the House—and I mention my colleague from my former profession Greg O’Connor in that—it falls on us to speak about it. I look forward to getting my teeth into this justice area. It’s an area that I have personal experience in.

Now, this bill, it’s about flexibility. It’s about providing the President of the Film and Literature Board of Review, and the High Court, flexibility when making interim restriction orders. There are two significant clauses: clause 4, which, essentially, allows the president of the board, when making interim restriction orders, the flexibility to restrict the availability to a particular age—14, 16, or 18—or a class of person, like tertiary students, or for a particular purpose, like film festivals, and clause 6, a new clause, which introduces new offence provisions for interim restriction orders.

I’d like to acknowledge some of the speakers that have spoken before me and the ones that are going to speak after me, for taking up their allotted 10 minutes of time—ha, ha!—because it’s a nine-page bill, and I’m struggling. This is a simple but essential bill that improves freedom of expression in New Zealand—a core National Party belief. So we support this accordingly, and I commend it to the House at two minutes and 50 seconds. Thank you.

I call Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. You have 5 minutes.

Meitaki maata. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I take this opportunity to thank the member for Hutt South, who was then a list MP, Chris Bishop for the opportunity to learn. It’s my first time speaking in a third reading.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives us rights as New Zealanders about how we conduct ourselves in this country, and there’s a section there that I like. I like the fact that it talks about rights of minorities and that a person who belongs to an ethnic or religious minority can enjoy the use of such language in this country. What I liked about what the member Chris Bishop said—I know him because he sits there and he’s usually very vocal, but he’s not here today. He’s not here. I want to commend him, because I like what he said, that it is a small but useful change—small but useful.

So I refer to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which talks about minorities using language—not that I think the Tongan language is any minority in Tonga, but it may be here. It reminds me—in my role as a member of the Tongan Language Year Committee—of a proverb called Si’i pe kae ha. It talks about “small but significant”. This is small and useful. Why do I think that it’s small and useful? I think, if you didn’t identify this gap, it then starts the beginning of the erosion of our freedom of speech. Even though it is small, it’s an indication that in this country—in New Zealand—that if we find a gap that needs to be corrected, then we should correct it.

Now, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Film and Literature Board of Review for their responsibility. They are appointed, as I have learnt, by the Minister of Internal Affairs, and, if we look at those who are appointed to boards, there’s lots of discussions about their qualifications and the merits of one to be on a board. I didn’t go as far as finding who the members are, but I hope that it was covered by all our diversity as was spoken about before, by what diversity looks like in this House.

I also want to thank, as a parent and as a grandparent, all the submitters. I know they have been spoken about before, but I think there’s merit in saying their names: Family First New Zealand, Shane Campbell, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc., and the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The reason why that is is because I’m satisfied as a parent that there are groups out there that believe in their belief so much that they make time to have their voices heard. So I want to thank those submitters.

There have been comments about the esteemed 10 people on this board, and I just want to acknowledge the members of the then Justice and Electoral Committee. The 10, six who are not here today—people may say it’s small and insignificant, but, actually, they had a significant role in correcting this gap. As I said before, if we let things go, it’s like a broken window. The window breaks, and then you move on to the door, and if we don’t fix that it will just continue to break. So, for me, this is about the erosion of our freedom of rights in this country, and the erosion of freedom of speech, and I commend the select committee for their wise judgment in hearing out the voices of New Zealand that were represented by these groups that I have referred to.

I want to commend the member. I know that he’s not here today, but sometimes when he interjects in this House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me. I just need to remind the member that you cannot refer to a member who is not present in the House.

OK. Madam Assistant Speaker, I want to seek leave to apologise, as it’s my first time in speaking in a third reading.

I want to acknowledge the wise ideas that have come through in this House. As a new member in this House, I’m confident that we are able to identify gaps—small for some, but for me very significant—and address them and give flexibility to those people that have been empowered by the Minister to make decisions on behalf of all of us. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too would also like to congratulate you, on my first opportunity to congratulate you, on your position in this place. Well done. I would also like to acknowledge Chris Bishop—the lucky one. I think this is his second—at least second—member’s bill pulled from the ballot in the one Parliament—the previous Parliament.

💬 Todd Muller: Three.

Is it three? There you go. The organ one, this one, and there was—what was the third one?

💬 Todd Muller: I don’t know. No one’s saying it was rigged.

There you go, no one’s—

💬 Matt Doocey: The one next week!

Oh, the other—ha, ha! So, lucky for some, Mr Bishop.

I’d like to pick up on a couple of things that were mentioned across the other side, particularly, as the debate developed. We started talking more about censorship and what that means, because this bill has brought that topic into the House. Censorship and the freedom of speech—there’s freedom of expression to be balanced with protecting society, or particularly young people, from those words or those images that those authors choose to use to express themselves.

I remember at my uncle’s bach in the 1970s finding Playboys of the day. Now Playboys, I assume, are still R18, and were then too. I wasn’t 18; I was far younger than 18. But I can tell you those images back then would be seen when walking down the street, or in any newspaper—the front page of a newspaper—or on any TV channel. The standards have moved; the standards have changed—not for the better or for the worse; I’m just saying that they’ve changed. My point here is that the legislation must be flexible enough to allow changes in the standards that we set ourselves across society.

The other point I wanted to make was to be careful about censorship—and it was discussed earlier—around the internet. In this House, we should be considering censorship not just in books and films that are regulated by these people that we’re talking about today—by authorities—because they can touch and feel and control the supply of those books or films or cinematography, but we should also consider what is available across the internet: what is available and not controlled, or not censored and is out of control.

A couple of points that I just thought I’d bring up, given that the debate and the discussion that we had earlier. Turning to the bill, turning to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill, this is a small tweak, as I think it’s been referred to. But, as I say, just because there are a few changes in the words that enable this flexibility to occur—and that’s a good thing—don’t forget that it can spawn and kick off a whole series of thinking that revolves around censorship and the internet. I think we should be thinking about that.

Coming back to the bill, the idea that an appeal can be made by someone, and that the judge, if you like, has a choice of only two options is quite ridiculous, and it was very astute of Mr Bishop to pick this anomaly up. Where else can one appeal and only have a choice of life imprisonment or being let out the door? Or, you know, at a school, where someone might be stood down—well, it’s not going to be expulsion or let off scot-free. The headmistress or the headmaster or the principal always has some discretion around deciding how to treat any situation or an appeal by someone when they want to seek justice in their cause, if you like. Even my kids, when they appeal for leniency or justice, it’s not ever a one of two choices option; there are always grey areas when it comes to listening to your own children appeal a decision that has been previously made.

For the board—the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review—to have a choice of only two is absurd. So this flexibility gives the board three other choices, or three determinants, when considering, and they are their age, belonging to a certain class—like a tertiary student group of people—or for a particular purpose. So a lot more flexibility, a little more grey—that’s a good thing. We should be considering producing legislation that is not just black and white, that is flexible, and that can be adjusted over time without having to come back here because there’s a black and white line in the sand. So that flexibility that is being adopted into this legislation is obviously a good thing. It’s good to hear both sides of the House support it, and I would encourage all legislators here to consider not making black and white rules and regulations but rather consider flexibility—leaving others to decide, giving them jurisdiction on what standards or rules or appeal systems—in this case, appeals systems—can be adopted. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Much has been said about the background of this bill, and much has been said about the book Into the River. I hope Into the River—if I may use the title as figurative language—could help guide us through some “uncharted water”.

Mr Bishop constantly said the book had been banned in New Zealand. Was the book banned in New Zealand? Technically, it wasn’t. It was subject to an interim restriction order, pending a decision by the Film and Literature Board of Review, which meant it could not be sold in New Zealand or taken out of a library. After six weeks of deliberation, the board issued its majority decision, classifying the book in October 2015 as “unrestricted”. The president again issued a strong dissenting opinion upholding his earlier view that the book warranted an R18 classification or, at the very least, an R14 classification. I want to acknowledge that. The bill in its current form has not only exposed the legislative anomaly but also got the balance right.

We are living in the modern 21st century, and online surfing has incrementally become a new normal. In terms of content classification, 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 filmed content, which is classified by the Classification Office, which provides ratings. But for the online content, do we have adequate oversight, mediation, or power, or any ability at all, in that regard? The answer is probably no. So there is a grey area in our law and our community standards that has not been addressed.

We are also living in a modern Aotearoa and celebrating our multiculturalism. We have more than 150 nationalities living in New Zealand. For the Chinese community, for instance, we are celebrating all sorts of our cultural events and celebrating our ethnic languages and publications in those languages. However, this may serve as a timely reminder that we may have some issues in that regard, particularly concerning what we are talking about in this bill, and also particularly with regard to the proliferation of social media in any languages other than English.

In terms of classification of content or publications classification concerning ethnic languages, it is to some extent uncharted territory. For example, there are at least four television channels broadcasting in Chinese in New Zealand, there are about four or five radio channels servicing the Chinese-speaking audience, and six Chinese language newspapers or magazines, as well as a dozen online or social media news portals or websites. None of them are members of the New Zealand Press Council. The Press Council’s scope applies to published material in newspapers, magazines, and their websites, including audio and video streams, as well as to digital sites with news content or blogs characterised by their new commentary. Presumably, the scope covers all of the above, but in English only.

We all know an independent press plays a vital role in our democracy. It plays a very important role in protesting, maintaining, and guarding our freedom of expression. However, as a journalist turned politician, I do appreciate the distinctions between views and news, and between facts and comments. However, in the case of a publication concerning ethnic or, in that regard, foreign languages, the reality is that it is impossible to maintain the basics at the moment, let alone content that may be caught in the definition of “objectionable” as defined in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

I can cite as an example that during the campaigning there was a five-point statement that was widely circulated via the Chinese social media platform, and it openly called upon supporters to give their party vote to the National Party. The top two reasons it gave were (a) those who are receiving social welfare are “lazybones”, and (b) it likened refugees to terrorists. This scaremongering had worked to some extent. We’re not talking about politics here; we’re talking about how to get our laws, such as this bill—which will get passed into law—understood, appreciated, and, eventually, enforced in New Zealand. Thank you.

E Te Mana Whakawā, ahiahi mārie. Good afternoon. May I acknowledge the members of the House who are present here today—thank you—and may I also acknowledge the voters of the Whanganui electorate, who have placed me here to speak today.

Furthermore, may I also acknowledge my colleague Chris Bishop for his steady, sturdy, and robust inclination and work on this piece of legislation, which I have the pleasure of being able to stand to speak in support of, noting that for many years, having worked as a lawyer in the courts, this is the first time that I now have the ability to stand and speak in the passage of a bill that is soon to be passed into legislation. So that is indeed a privilege, and I acknowledge my colleague Chris Bishop again for the effort put into this.

May I just say that in my maiden speech, I concluded that with the words e tīmata—it begins! So this opportunity, post-maiden, is quite a privilege, as I stated, and so I have begun. I begin by referring to this bill—soon to be legislation as it is non-contentious. It’s supported by New Zealand First—the member who spoke this afternoon—the Greens, and also members from the Labour Party. I reference that the comment had been made by the New Zealand First member that it’s a small tweak. I would submit that it’s more than a tweak. Although small, it’s not insignificant, and there are members in the House who have spoken to this, prior to that, particularly referencing the importance of the freedom of speech, and I will turn to that later, in the submissions.

There’s been talk—and it’s been well canvassed and covered—as to the purpose of this bill before the House. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill—yes, it is a mouthful, but it is a very small, albeit important, piece of legislation to ensure the significance of freedom of speech. We’ve heard members speak about the detail of the bill. May I just give some context as to how this came to be by way of a book called Into the River. I’d just reference, as my first time standing to speak post-maiden, the coincidences associated with Ted Dawe’s book Into the River. I am from Whanganui, and I have an association and relationship with the river. Now, this story, it’s well-known, was an award-winning teen novel about a young boy who was coming of age. This 14-year-old character, Te Arepa “Devon” Santos, a Māori boy from the rural East Coast, wins a scholarship to attend an exclusive boys’ school in Auckland, and it’s a story about him being bullied, I believe.

Like a number of those here today, I’ve not had the privilege of reading this book, but I just hark back to the days when I was a student at college in the 1970s, and there was a contentious story called The Catcher in the Rye—so there are those of us who may be familiar with that period. It was contentious because it was a book that had been banned in America. It was a piece of American literature that for me, attending a Catholic girls’ convent school—to read the story The Catcher in the Rye had some type of similarity to this book, Into the River. Catcher in the Rye was the story of a young character who, in the 1950s, went on a journey and an adventure into life. But it happened to be that that life journey and adventure was based in the city of New York. And, again, I referenced the coincidences of me speaking on this proposed amendment bill—the association with Into the River, being of the river, but also Catcher in the Rye, which was a story that, when I read it as a 16-year-old back in the 1970s, I had no idea I would actually be referencing in the House of Representatives here in relation to this legislation. The other coincidence is that I have a son who lives in New York and is working there.

The importance of these stories is about the ability and access, that was restricted at the time, as has been canvassed in the discussion and debate before the House—the restriction for a period of six weeks for a group of interested readers to be able to access the story and the messaging behind this. The details around Chris Bishop’s bill here—I refer to the second reading where Mr Bishop had indicated why it was that he saw this as being significant. The book had been temporarily—for that six-week period—banned or restricted; but it was still restricted, therefore, effectively a ban, and there was an anomaly in the censorship laws as result. This bill is going to address those anomalies.

It’s been canvassed, and I just again refer to the second reading quotes from Chris, saying that New Zealand publications are classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. So it started in September 2013 where Into the River was classified as unrestricted, suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over. That was appealed by Family First, a families lobby group—well known—who sought a restricted classification for the book. So in December 2013, it was classified R14, and this was a unique classification in that it had never previously been assigned.

As a result of growing dissatisfaction back in that time, Auckland Libraries requested the board’s decision be reconsidered by the classification office and so that was done. It was appealed again by Family First. So moving fast forward through to arriving at why this amendment to the Act is being made. As stated, it’s more than a tweak; it is significant. And the significance is that this bill proposes simple amendments to give authority and empowerment to the president of the board for those reviews, and 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 currently do, or, importantly, to restrict access to only 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. So, essentially, the bill—what it does is it creates 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 essence, it means that there is a calibration of the interim restrictions, or a recalibration.

I referenced earlier the importance of freedom of speech and the importance of what we have as New Zealanders under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Some may think that this may be small and tweaking and insignificant—it’s far from that. It’s a robust bill that makes a small albeit important change to better protect the freedom of speech and expression of ideas here in Aotearoa New Zealand. So it’s adjusting—it’s more than tweaking; it is completely altering an anomaly, which was identified by Chris Bishop, within this legislation, soon to be amended. Importantly, also, when Parliament thinks that the law is being applied poorly, then it’s important that Parliament addresses these matters by way of amendments to the law.

In conclusion, with all the speakers before, everybody who has stood today to be heard in this House, we’ve commended Chris Bishop for the work, and the members of the committee, and I too seek to commend this bill to the House with the support from not only myself but the party that I stand to represent. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.