Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m just aware of time and standing between the House and the evening! I’m really pleased to be standing here and taking this call to support this bill, and I’d like to start by reassuring Mr Seymour that those of us who are on the backbenches of this fine Labour Government certainly think for ourselves and speak freely in our caucus and, as a result, still resoundingly support this bill.

I want to support this bill because it enables the swift prevention and mitigation of harm caused by objectionable publications, specifically plugging the gaping holes exposed on March 15 that many other people have talked about. The live streaming on that day added harm. It re-victimised victims and victimised innocent bystanders and gave a platform—an unacceptable platform—to extreme communities. I cannot speak for Christchurch, nor can I speak for the Muslim community—it is their story to tell—but I can speak as an educator and as a mum of the impact that this bill will have on our young people. I know you’ll be surprised to learn this, but it is a while since I was a teenager, doing what teenagers are meant to do! That is, explore their identity and find their place in the world. Back in the good old days, for some of us, that was through magazines and books and films; watching radio with pictures. And, as an educator and as a mother, I am acutely aware of how this experience has changed for our young people, with social media front and centre and so impactful in shaping young minds, with shocking swiftness.

So how will harm be prevented and mitigated for our young people through this bill? The live streaming of objectionable content will become a criminal offence. This is a really powerful message for our young people, who are still building their identities, deciding on who they are and what the society is that they live in. Being clear as a society about what is truly objectionable is important—that violent extremism is never an acceptable part of a healthy society. Our young people need our guidance in this—our guidance. We must take responsibility for that, not some multinational corporate who we have to go cap in hand to and ask politely if they’ll censor something. It is our responsibility, not Silicon Valley’s. The Government will also be able to issue the takedown notices—a gain, we will not have to rely on the police asking providers politely—and be able to better hold online content hosts accountable for the responsibilities that they do have in this space. The chief censor will be able to move quickly and notify the public about objectionable material. Right now, we’ve heard about the days and days. This isn’t about the minutes of the attack; this is about being able to respond as well.

I just want to come back to the concerns, and I appreciate those concerns, and it has been raised, as those who have possibly read the notes, that there is a huge amount of concern and controversy around this, and quite rightly we should all be concerned about finding the balance, which the chief censor truly believes we can do. He said it is very achievable to get the balance right between protecting people from deadly extremist material while protecting every New Zealander’s freedom. There is a law lecturer from Victoria University who says we do have to draw a line. We can’t sit here and say, “It’s impossible; so let’s do nothing.” The select committee process—the regulations that have been set out in the bill clearly identify how we keep New Zealanders’ freedoms safe and yet step in and draw the line. We welcome continuing to work with industry—they have been involved in this process—and partnering with them to find the right balance in these regulations.

So while these measures won’t stop extreme communities from sharing objectionable material—and, yes, as somebody who has spent a lot of time with teenagers, it is difficult, as Mr Seymour said, to keep up with which dark place they may go to. For our tech-savvy teenagers, it’s not going to stop them from seeking it out, but it can stop people from being inadvertently exposed to it—innocent bystanders traumatised, victims re-traumatised.

And right now I just want to acknowledge my comrades, the teachers in Christchurch and around the country, who had to support their students as they grappled with what they saw. Melissa Lee, you said, “I chose not to watch it.” We have young people who watched it because it was put in front of them. We need to protect people. We need to protect our young people. This isn’t about being an overly invasive regime; this is about protection and looking after our young people—amongst many, many others of course—and about mitigating risk and harm and damage. At this point, I am happy to say that I wish to commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Members, this bill is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.