Collins Judith: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11464] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party supports this bill going to a select committee. After listening to the debate this afternoon it seems that all parties support it going to a select committee and that is particularly pleasing. 
Hon David Carter 
: We’ve not heard from United. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member is quite right; we have not heard from United Future. I wonder why United Future members have not taken this seriously. However hopefully they will be able to take a call very soon. The bill deals with issues regarding the classification of “objectionable” and the penalties in relation to objectionable material the possession sale passing on and all that sort of information. It also deals with some of the issues that I note Mr Franks in particular has raised. I would like to commend him for pointing out to the House this very new information that we have not been told about before. I share his concern that this bill is to go to the Government Administration Committee if as Mr Franks said—and I will absolutely accept his word on it—the committee was somewhat woeful in its work last time. Taking on board the comments of the Green Party member Sue Kedgley I am sure the Greens and ACT will be in there as well as us to try to make sure it does a better job. 
One of the main parts of the bill deals with the absolute crime of child pornography. I cannot imagine that there is any member of this House who is not utterly made ill by the thought of anybody indulging in child pornography or wishing to pass that sort of information on. I have to say in a term that I hope is still parliamentary that one would have to be a pretty sick bunny to be interested in child pornography. I see you think that is all right Mr Speaker so I will continue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring me into the debate. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: There is of course absolutely no excuse whatsoever for child pornography. I have looked as a lawyer does at the meaning of “objectionable” under the bill. I am a little bit concerned that in its current form it might inadvertently catch some images that are not intended to be pornographic but some people might view them as such. Subsection (1A) in clause 4(1) states: “Without limiting subsection (1) a publication deals with a matter such as sex for the purposes of that subsection if—(a) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude; and (b) those 1 or more visual images are reasonably capable of being sexual in nature.” 
I am sure that members of the House will be familiar with the work of the very well-known photographer Anne Geddes whose calendar work and particular work with very young children is internationally recognised. A little while ago there was some concern that some of Anne Geddes’ work might be considered to be child pornography. I note that Jill Pettis is raising her eyebrows. I personally did not see it as that myself but it just concerned me a little bit and maybe the select committee needs to look at how this particular provision might be seen as extending in some way to very innocent work that is all about promoting children and seeing children as beautiful which of course they are—unless they are crying in the middle of the night at 3 o’clock in the morning! I give that warning to the select committee that it needs to be aware of that. I am also just a tiny bit concerned about the strict liability provisions because certainly I am aware that some people—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether these members would be a little bit quiet. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members who are in close proximity to a member who is speaking that it actually muffles the microphone. Could members please be aware of that. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am a little bit concerned with the strict liability provisions just because I know that people often end up getting these dreadfully awful spam emails and some of them might include pornography including child pornography. Most of us try to get this set up so that we can get them deleted before they come through as junk mail. However I am just a bit concerned that some people have ended up with these hidden images inside other attachments and that at some stage they could be considered to have broken the law under the strict liability provisions. With the penalty increasing to a $10000 personal fine and also imprisonment for holding these images I think that is something the committee will need to look at. 
At the end of the day we do not want this sort of law that is being brought in with the very best of intentions getting itself a bad reputation just because somebody received an email or something like that and not realising that it has an objectionable piece in it. 
In addition to that of course I understand from people who know about computers that even if people delete a message from their computer the hard drive of the computer will still have that image and that is a concern for people. We do not want people inadvertently breaking the law when they do not mean to. I can see members of the Government nodding so hopefully we will get some good sense on that. 
I would like to deal with the issue of consultation on this bill. I am a great one for believing that the people who know about subjects should be consulted before bills are put together. I see that some organisations that I thought might have been consulted were not—in particular the Maxim Institute Parentline and the Pacific Foundation. Very surprisingly the Commissioner for Children does not seem to be one of the people consulted—unless my eyes fail me; however I think we will find that the Commissioner for Children was not listed as someone who was consulted and if that is correct that is a bit of an outrage really. I note that the churches do not get a look in at all. That might be because they are too busy doing other things rather than looking after children and families. 
Hon David Carter 
: They must be getting the next hikoi away. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes they must be doing the next Hikoi of Hope which I recall they do every time National is in power but go to ground when we are not. Those issues need to be looked at and I am very concerned to ensure that those who were not consulted before who should have been do get notice of the select committee hearing so that they can get their information in. Certainly I will be doing the best I can to get that information out to them so that they can start to put their thoughts together and get some of their concerns looked at. 
In conclusion the National Party is very pleased to support this bill going to a select committee. We have a few reservations around the edges to make sure that when the bill becomes an Act it is a very robust Act and does not end up having to constantly be re-looked at because the time involved to look at such bills is tremendous. We are very concerned to make sure that we get it dead right.