Kuriger Barbara; Tinetti JanBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): 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into Parliament I don't think most of the public often realise just how things move and our legislation becomes quite outdated.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.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): 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."