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

Members, we come now to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 7, “Definitions, application of Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, and interim classification assessments”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

This bill will update the classification Act to allow for urgent steps to be taken to prevent and mitigate harms caused by objectionable publications. The amendments will ensure that Government internet service providers and online content hosts can swiftly and consistently take action against objectionable material and prevent the potential harm that this material can cause to New Zealanders.

Part 1 of the bill first amends definitions in section 2 of the classification Act. This provides certainty that the definition of publication expressly includes “a copy of images or sounds that have been livestreamed” in the definition. It amends the Act to expressly override the “safe harbour” provisions in the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 when the classification Act applies. The result of this change would ensure that online content hosts could be prosecuted for possessing or distributing objectionable or restricted content, such as violent extremist material.

The bill will also provide for a new urgent interim classification assessment processed for the Classification Office. This will cover all publications by the principal Act, in contrast to the rest of the bill, which only applies to online publications. The change provides an option for the chief censor to indicate a likely classification status and alert the public and enforcement agencies accordingly, as a result allowing public enforcement agencies and online content hosts to act sooner in dealing with objectionable content.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be speaking in the committee stage—and say it once again—of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. And again, congratulations to the Minister for, firstly, updating this bill. The one we debated before this was around mental health, and that was another bill that is moving with the technology of the times.

From coming into Parliament, I don’t think most of the public often realise just how things move and our legislation becomes quite outdated. Our existing system was designed in the early 1990s without the internet and focused on traditional newspapers and printing material and free to air for TV, so it was not fit for purpose. There’s one question, really, and it’s not really a question because we’ve talked this bill through and we’ve worked really well together. But the current system has been confusing for content providers and consumers, because consumers have no single complaints processes currently, and some content providers are regulated by multiple regimes. So just, really, for the Minister, I’m just hoping that you would just explain perhaps more to the committee and more to the public about how the new regime is going to be much more helpful for those who are current providers. Because I know in the select committee, when it came in, there was quite a bit of uncertainty around the current regime. So it’s been good to settle it down with the changes. Thank you.

So the next the next piece I was just going to ask was: the communities all have a role to play in reducing harm. This was widely consulted, and I just wanted to say how pleased I am that the Minister has taken this on board, because the main reason for this was the March 15th episode that we had in 2019, which was abhorrent. Maybe the Minister could just explain to the committee around “objectionable” actually being a term that’s already currently in the law. That was a question that most people had: what does objectionable mean? Because it means something different to some of us than it does to others, when we’re talking in general language, but objectionable is already in the law. And I just think it’s important, as we go through this process before we get to the final reading of this bill, just to make sure that the public is fully comprehensive of what we’re doing here. Thank you.

Thank you for that, because that’s exactly true. The term “objectionable” in this case is already defined within the classifications Act, so this particular bill isn’t seeking to redefine that term “objectionable”. As the previous member that’s just sat down has just pointed out, that is already well defined within law. Going back to your previous question, what this bill seeks to do is give clarity through the issuing of take-down notices to those providers. So they will understand when the material is objectionable, because it’s already been defined. They will have a take-down notice that will give them that sense of clarity as opposed to the voluntary regime that currently operates. So this makes it clearer for them and I think that that’s a good thing that this bill is doing for them.

Since this has gone through select committee—and I do say thank you once again to the Governance and Administration Committee, who worked really diligently on this bill—we have heard come back from providers that that’s exactly what they are looking forward to, that sense of clarity.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. I just had another question around Part 1 of this bill, around the online content host description. I just wanted you to be able to elaborate a little around the role that online content hosts will be playing in the sense that—just trying to understand what difference this law will make when it comes into effect, when there are internet service providers (ISPs) and platforms already removing material voluntarily.

Exactly what I’ve just said in that this gives them clarity. So we’ve currently got a voluntary regime and a voluntary regime is up to the provider and the ISP. With the take-down notices, there is no question around whether this is objectionable or not. They’re not having to second guess. This gives them that sense of clarity, and that’s where this bill is seeking to improve what currently exists.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for clarifying that for the public at home—around content being objectionable and the ability for this legislation to issue take-down notices, as well; I think that’s really, really important. I acknowledge the work that the Governance and Administration Committee did and, of course, the work that the Minister did in terms of trying to pull this thing together. Our objection was around the internet filter and that has now been taken out, but I’ve been reflecting on this bill because it is about trying to futureproof technology. And so we started off in the 1990s and the 1980s, maybe even before, in the times of VHS and CD-ROMs and all that kind of stuff, and that’s when this legislation—

💬 Hon Member: Good times.

—good times, yeah—first came out and now we’re looking at social media, and so on, and so forth. But with that filter, I know it was a tool that was used to actually deal with some really, really serious issues and I’m thinking a bit further into the future and maybe there is scope in other pieces of legislation where we actually look at the problems around algorithms and social media and what potential work or what potential gap the Minister sees in this particular area as well. I see that we have gotten to a particular place with this legislation but there are still issues that have arisen out of the discussions that the submitters at the select committee submitted when we were going through this process with this bill.

Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Jan Tinetti, sorry.

All good, Madam Chair, I was just going to continue on. I think that’s a really good point that the member brings up because technology is changing all of the time, as the member well knows, and we have several lots of regulation that currently have the oversight of media regulation in this country at this point in time, and not all fit for purpose because technology has moved on so far. What we’ve done up until this point is that we’ve looked at piecemeal changes to each piece of legislation trying to bring it up to date; so what we’re currently looking at is a media content regulatory review to try and bring all that together and to look at futureproofing it.

So that’s currently under way. I’ve got officials who are working with members from the sector looking into this. It’s quite an exciting piece of work. I’m sure the member will understand that this is a big piece of work. We’ve got many from the sector who are very excited about it. But also, as I say, looking at how we can futureproof—that’s not easy, as the member knows; that’s quite daunting. But just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean to say it’s something that we shouldn’t be looking into, and so that’s where we’re working there.

As far as the filter is concerned, I also have asked my officials to look at maybe down the line a voluntary filter—that already does exist in the child sexual exploitation area—because it might not be filter as we currently know filter to be now because the member has alluded that technology is changing incredibly quickly. So there are no sweet answers to that right at this point in time, but how can we look at how we can be responsive to those changes that are happening?

Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you, Minister. Minister, I’ve got a question for you on going back to the objectionable material, and my question is around it—well, sorry, I’ll make a statement first.

You’ve already said that it’s been defined in law so everybody should know what is objectionable and what is not, but I have some concern about whether or not those people out there, who see something on social media and immediately share it, not knowing what we know about the law and objectionable, and how does this Act plan to work within that regime of people accidentally—or, not accidentally but very quickly sharing something, not realising that it is objectionable because they don’t have that same outline as we do, or knowledge of the law?

There are safeguards in this around that. I think that’s a really good question, because we know that that can happen, that people don’t understand or don’t understand that that is objectionable. It is clearly defined in law, but there would have to be intent around that. There’s the protection, again, here of the take-down notices, and it would go through the test of ensuring that the intent of knowing that it was objectionable would actually make that act illegal, and that is defined within the bill as it stands now.

And just further to that, Minister, I just wonder, where content of material hasn’t actually been made objectionable yet—so it’s content that’s still coming to be determined as being objectionable, but has been put up before that determination. I hope that makes sense.

💬 Hon Jan Tinetti: Madam Chair?

Gosh, that was just in time—Hon Jan Tinetti. I was just about to put the closure motion.

Ha, ha! I know you were, Madam Chair, but I did want to be as responsive as I could be, and I was making certain that I got that exactly as it should be the answer. So the rapid assessment within this bill allows for that to be made very, very rapidly. And so, again, then the take-down notice that will be issued to the internet service provider would enable that to be taken down very, very quickly. So it’s ensuring that people, the powers that be—the inspectors, in this particular case—can act very, very quickly, and that’s what that rapid assessment does.

The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Take-down notices for objectionable online publications, offences, and regulations