Bishop ChrisFILMS VIDEOS AND PUBLICATIONS CLASSIFICATION (INTERIM RESTRICTION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Substantive amendments to principal ActCHRIS BISHOP (National): So Part 1 of the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill—a catchy title as my colleague Maggie Barry said during the second reading of this bill—deals with the substantive amendments to the principal Act which is of course the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. The Act has been amended a couple of times—I think probably more than a couple of times—over the last 24 years since it was passed. It is probably an Act that is in need of a bit more of a substantive review as we move into the internet age. But what this bill does is make a couple of very small but I think very useful changes to advance and improve freedom of expression in New Zealand.In the first and second readings of this bill members in the House canvassed the issues around the book Into the River which was the genesis for this bill basically—the unfortunate events of 2015 around Into the River the award-winning novel by Ted Dawe. What happened there—and I do not want to traverse again the potted history—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No that would be irrelevant.CHRIS BISHOP: —because it takes about 6 minutes to explain and as the Chair is pointing out it would be irrelevant. But I do want to draw the Committee's attention to the exact changes in Part 1 to try to remedy the situation to try to make sure that does not happen again.So what we have in clause 4 of Part 1 is the replacement of section 49 with a new and expanded new section 49 which will become section 49 of the Act to basically expand the tool kit that the president of the board of review and also the High Court can use when considering interim restriction orders. Basically what happened with Into the River was that Family First lodged an appeal—the second appeal or the fourth time a body was going to classify the book Into the River. Family First lodged an appeal and used this little-known section of the Act we are talking about which was the power for the president to order an interim restriction. What the president did in that situation was—they did decide to do that and of course we had the effect of the book not being available for 6 weeks before the board of review met. Basically the president was placed in that position because of the binary nature of interim restrictions.So what new section 49 in clause 4 of this bill does is expand the tool kit. In particular I am talking about subsection (3) which allows—sorry it is subsection (3)(d) or (b). It allows—I will start that again. Section 49 subsection (3) paragraph (b)—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Clause 4.CHRIS BISHOP: No no paragraph—the Chair is pointing out that I mean clause 4 but I actually mean subsection (3)(b) which allows the president to issue an interim restriction order that is more appropriately calibrated to the specific harm that may or may not be in the opinion of the president occurring as a result of this order. So what it does is it allows the president to issue an order that is more closely calibrated to the specific harm.In the case of Into the River which had been at various points classified R18 or R14 rather than simply saying that this publication is objectionable pending further appeal they could say I suppose It is partially objectionable but we will maintain it to be available for people over the age of 18." or in the case—as you sometimes see going into things like the incredible film festival in Wellington in the early 2000s you could also say it is available for film festival viewings or for tertiary study. I have a sort of objection in principle to the idea of restricting speech based on the fact that people are in tertiary education or saying that a higher class of people go to film festivals. I tend to think that is a bit ridiculous actually. But regardless that is in the Act and that power I suppose to restrict to a specific audience is in the Act.Clare Curran: I can feel another member's bill coming on.CHRIS BISHOP: So I am not going to traverse that. I did not hear that interjection but—Clare Curran: That's your next member's bill.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh that is my next member's bill says Clare Curran. Well possibly—I mean this Parliament has got only a short run of life left in it but you never know. My next member's bill is actually around celebrancy. I might get the third luck of the ballot on that one but I highly doubt it—I do not think we can have another member's day.So anyway that is the substantive amendment advanced through new section 49. Then of course we come to clause 5 of the bill—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will call the member again but I will remind him that we are discussing three clauses: clauses 4 5 and 6. The member might be talking about a section of another Act and if that is the case—he is a lawyer. He should know.CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you Mr Chair. We come to clause 5 which deals with similar powers to do with interim restrictions to do with the High Court. It is a little-known section about the power to do with interim restrictions in that they can also be appealed to the High Court. What the bill does is essentially replicate the same powers as in clause 4 of the bill in new section 67 in clause 5 in relation to the High Court and that is just a consequential change that has to be replicated in the appeals to the High Court as a result of the changes we are making in clause 4 to section 49 of the Act.Clause 6 inserts new section 133A. Again this is a change that is necessary in response to the changes we are making through clause 4 which is about the potential penalties for people who contravene an interim restriction order. What the bill proposes as a result of the changes made by the very hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee is in subsection (3) which will make people liable to conviction or a fine not exceeding $3000 or in the case of a body corporate $10000. We had a bit of debate in the select committee I think it is fair to say about the level of fines. You could probably argue they should be greater but we have decided to go for the moderate option that is put forward in the bill. So with those brief introductory remarks I will leave it there."