Worth Richard: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18648] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We have just been treated to a gross abuse of the Committee stage of the parliamentary process. I say that because you Mr Chairperson and your predecessor in the Chair tonight have carefully confined this debate to particular parts of the bill. We have just heard from Minister Goff a vein-popping and I do not doubt sincere speech in relation to Part 1 which is not in issue. I do not criticise him for the sentiments he expressed—indeed I espouse them. They are fine sentiments worthy of repetition but they have no part in this particular debate as we look at Part 2 “Amendments to other Acts”. 
As I look at a crowded Chamber and a very crowded gallery I cannot help but reflect that maybe in Part 2 there are amendments to other Acts that are worthy of mention. I notice the presence in the Chamber of Dr Choudhary. I think it is a matter of regret that it seems that only a very few members of this Government are prepared to speak on bills of substance and that is particularly so for the reasons the honourable Minister has spoken about in connection with the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. This bill is about protecting young people from what are described in the bill as child sex abuse images. 
This debate is a great opportunity for Dr Choudhary on behalf of his Indian and Pakistani mandate to talk about the sorts of issues that not only drive New Zealand in general but also the Pakistani community in particular. I ask Dr Choudhary why he will not talk about clause 37 the interpretation clause. Why will he not say something about clause 38 which deals with prohibited imports? Why must he remain glumly silent on clause 39 “Prohibited exports”? Why will he not offer a view on clause 40 “Offences in relation to importation or exportation of prohibited goods”? Nothing has been said by him. Apparently he has no willingness to talk about clause 41 “Publications imported in course of official duties”. 
If I were Dr Choudhary I would ask why it is necessary to have a clause like clause 41 which gives high-ranking members in the ministry the opportunity to peruse without fear of prosecution highly prurient materials. Surely this would have been an opportunity for someone who is committed to a strong Indian and Pakistani code of ethics to say that that clause should go. But have we heard from him? Not at all. 
This particular part Part 2 proposes major changes to a number of pieces of legislation. There are amendments to the Customs and Excise Act the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Summary Proceedings Act. I think it is a real matter for regret that although we can listen to vein-popping speeches made by the Minister those who are of lesser station—the Dr Choudharys of this world and the members who sit opposite on the second and third benches—are never given an opportunity to say what they truly feel. Although Mr Goff’s views may be worthy of some respect with regard to the electorate he represents I think we should have the opportunity to hear what the littlies in this Government have to say. We are denied that. I think they should have a voice. They are after all as elected members worthy of even some faint consideration. I raise the point in the context of this bill which National supports that we should hear from them.