Ardern Shane: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18442] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I start tonight by saying that the National Party will support the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the officials here tonight who advised the Government Administration Committee throughout what was on balance quite a difficult process. That is what it is—an on balance difficult process. I listened with great interest to those who are much more learned in law than myself—including Mr Franks and a number of others—in terms of the concerns they raised. They have been sensible in the way they have raised those concerns but I say to them that at the end of the day one has to make a judgment call and have some faith in the people we employ in our bureaucracy like our Chief Censor of Film and Literature. Maybe the censor will get it wrong and maybe he will not. At the end of the day Parliament will ultimately be the judge of that and that is how the process should be. 
I also congratulate the Minister on accepting the advice of Denise Ritchie. I shall answer some of the questions as to why the committee itself did not come to that conclusion. The bottom line is that we looked at an enormous amount of information. We did not ask whether we were harmonising with like-minded countries on this particular penalty and with the benefit of hindsight perhaps we should have. But having said that Denise Ritchie and her group Stop Demand brought that to the attention of the Minister. The Minister has accepted the recommendations they brought forward and I congratulate him on that. 
As an aside it is an interesting thing in politics when one sees a Minister like Phil Goff so responsive to public demand like that to think of what may have happened if the famous Phil Goff barbecue had been successful and he was the Prime Minister today. “Move over Tony Blair.” I would say. What a better country New Zealand might have been had that famous barbecue meeting come to fruition for Phil Goff. Having said that we have what we have and it is not Phil Goff—so be it. The electorate will fix that up at the next election. 
I say to the other members of the committee that I too was fascinated by what we found out when we went to the Department of Internal Affairs. I was absolutely astounded. Being a poor humble country boy I genuinely never realised that such activity took place. I knew that there was a bit of pervert activity around the edges but as to the actual volume of it its sophistication and the level to which people will go to trade in that—well what can we describe it as? I can think of no word that is parliamentary. It is something that I find absolutely abhorrent as would any father mother parent guardian or person who has had any involvement with children at all and who was a normal sane person. That is where we must draw the line because those who trade in this matter clearly are not normal sane people. We cannot be PC about that. They are—what could we describe them as—less than human. They are insane sick or have something wrong with them to trade in and want to view what the majority of society finds to be absolutely abhorrent material. None the less they do. The material exists it is produced and we need laws in this country to make sure that it is properly policed. 
I listened with great interest to the contribution made by Keith Locke of the Green Party who said that we need to be careful that we do not capture art. If there is any confusion between art and pornography then we have allowed our laws to become too liberal. It is as simple as that. It is black and white to me. There is absolutely no confusion between what could be described as something artistic—[ 
Interruption 
] I see that the member over there is shaking her head a bit. It is not for me. It is absolutely clear; I am absolutely black and white on this. People may call me conservative old-fashioned or whatever they like but I do not care. The bottom line is that it is absolutely black and white to me. There is a definite difference between pornographic material and art and that is the end of the subject. Providing that the chief censor carries those values forward I do not think we have any problem at all. 
The issue of the gateway approach as in the existing legislation and the amendments to it was raised by a number of speakers. I say to them that the gateway structure as it stands takes account of the categories of sex horror crime and hate. During the discussion in the committee it was decided that hate would probably be the most difficult category to manage and to draw a black and white line on—as I have—in terms of pornography. That is the reason the committee decided to separate that category out and call an inquiry into hate speech. 
To those members who may be a bit nervous about where we are heading with that I say that they should hold their horses make their submissions to the select committee and be involved in the process. Clearly we do not want to curtail people’s idea of what freedom of speech is or rein in the media or for that matter politicians over what they may or may not say. We pride ourselves on being an open democratic society that holds open democratic elections every 3 years. At the end of the day people need to be able to say what they think regardless of how objectionable others may find that in a political sense. 
That obviously will be an interesting process. Committee members will listen to and read with great interest all the submissions that come to that inquiry. I also say to a number of members that there has been discussion about what is happening in society in terms of where we are heading as a country and about the general decline I guess of what could have been originally described as Victorian or Christian values. Child prostitution is an issue on which this Government should pause for a moment take a look and ask: “Did we get the balance right?” because I would argue that it has not. I suggest—in fact I will predict—that sometime within the next 5 years that issue will be revisited in this Parliament regardless of who the Government is because the police will ultimately come back to the Government with overwhelming evidence that they are being constrained by the current law the way it stands. 
I also point out that trading this material has become much more prevalent because of the massive growth in technology. The ability now for a person to buy a small cellphone that can fit in a pocket to take covert photographs of people in various stages of undress and then to trade that around the world via the Internet or to exploit young children or young people by using that medium is something that I do not think anybody would have contemplated even as recently as 1993. The way in which that ability has advanced and the way in which everybody has absolutely engaged in the use of that technology now could never have been predicted as recently as 1993. Again I say well done to the Minister for recognising that growth and the need to do something about it. 
At the end of the day the wider public the democratic society we live in will decide what is right and what is wrong. Parliament will make the best attempt it can to strike the right balance and through its elected Ministers choose a censor who reflects the view of society and bases his or her decisions on the weight of evidence that flows both ways. Ultimately changes to this kind of legislation will be an ongoing regular thing. As was the case in 1993 we cannot forecast the next wave of technology or forecast what will be the ability of people to trade in images in the future. I say to those people who are concerned about the fact this is happening that they should just have a look at what is going on in the Department of Internal Affairs and what is going on internationally and in the jurisdictions of other Western Christian-based nations similar to our own. Then they will come to the conclusion that something must be done on a regular basis.