Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): 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."