Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise to commend this bill to the House and I note my colleague's comments that Jurassic Park also came out in 1993 with the previous Act. As what my children would describe as a dinosaur I need to remind the House that in those days it was unusual to have an email account. We are dealing with a very different world. It is absolutely vital that we address those issues. This is a first reading of a bill that is going to be going through a long process and I am delighted that we are going to be having this debate because it's really really important. I remember the Ides of March—I remember the 15th of March. I remember as a mother with children who have cellphones and access to the internet how concerned I was that they would inadvertently or—teenagers being what they are—recklessly stumble upon something. I think that we have all heard over the weeks and years and months since just how traumatising it was for people to stumble across that material. There is also the point that for victims of that violence—just as victims for example of sexual offences are protected from people learning of their victimisation by suppression orders for their names unless they seek to remove them—it is not helpful to have the details of their abuse and their personal lives known. It is re-traumatising and I suggest to this House that there is a real parallel there with the victims of the Christchurch massacre knowing that fellows in their community were able to see that material. It is so deeply traumatising. I am glad to see that we are all in agreement that something has to be done in relation to those points. But what confuses me about this bill is the reaction to it from the other side of the House because I feel that when you do what a lawyer would do and sit down and actually read the provisions—and I'm afraid I am a lawyer so I've reverted to type—a lot of the concerns that are being raised disappear. In particular I hear the concern of my friends across the House regarding the possibility that there might be the banning of important whistleblowing information such as the uplift of the pepe from the hospital that we saw and that was an important prod to us all—to use very understated language—as to the extent of the issue that those of us working in the system knew about and now the rest of the country does too. So you know whistle-blowing and slices of real life like that are absolutely vital to our society and so of course we must protect them. Similarly I heard reference from the other side of the House last night to the case of George Floyd and of course that is something that the member has averted to this afternoon. There again is an instance of real life live streamed footage that has brought about a very welcome and very timely and in fact long overdue focus upon social justice issues. We cannot allow a piece of legislation to go forward that would curtail that sort of whistle-blowing if I may call it that. But this piece of legislation doesn't. Again we had concerns raised on the other side of the House about the possibility that an innocent broadcaster—so we've got innocent bystanders and now we also have innocent broadcasters—who is someone who is filming something innocuous that becomes appalling and they are still broadcasting. Would that be then considered somehow a criminal act under section 124—and additional letters? Would that be a criminal act? So these are the issues that I think have been raised and I think that if you actually look back at what it says in the legislation a lot of those concerns disappear. So Mr Speaker with your leave I'm going to do what a lawyer does and I'm going to look at the Act. So what I want to direct everyone's attention back to is actually section 3 of the Jurassic" Act 1993 because section 3 defines the meaning of "objectionable" and it is one of three sections doing so. It's really really important to look back at because if we do look back at it I don't think there's any way the baby uplift the George Floyd whistleblower broadcaster or the innocent bystander would ever be caught and that provision—that definition of "objectionable"—has not changed in this new bill. That's really crucial. So I want to just take you if I may to that section. If you look at section 3 section 3(1) states "For the purposes of this Act"—this is the 1993 one—"a publication is 'objectionable' " if it depicts material that is "likely to be injurious to the public good." Now if you flip at that point down to subsection (4)—lawyers love this stuff but my friend on the other side of the House is disappearing—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member should not refer to—Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Oh my apologies sir. My apologies—withdrawn. "In determining for the purposes of this Act" says subsection (4) "whether or not any publication … is objectionable … the following matters should be considered:" and I draw the House's attention to "(a) the dominant effect of the publication as a whole: … (c) the character of the publication including … in relation to … social [matters and] other matters:" and also "(e) the purpose for which the publication is intended to be used:" and "(f) any other relevant circumstances". Now what I would strongly say to this House is that that precludes from the definition material of obvious social and political value such as the George Floyd video and it precludes the baby uplift videos. Those are matters where it is about political speech they are matters of social importance and that in itself should be cover. You see the thing about this bill is it's not actually changing anything except the method of delivery. It is addressing the new method of delivery of this material. The fundamental ideas about what is objectionable and what is not have been with us since 1993 and I think that is really important to consider. The next point I would just like to bring the House's attention to is the point about the innocent broadcasting bystander. So that is section 124AB and this is the criminal offence of live streaming and the possible criminal culpability of that. But you see in order to be prosecuted or convicted of such an offence one has to know or have reasonable cause to believe that the material one is live streaming is objectionable. Now in that case it seems to me quite clear that no one is going to define our poor innocent broadcasting bystander as a criminal. I commend this bill to the House."