Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I too would also like to congratulate you on my first opportunity to congratulate you on your position in this place. Well done. I would also like to acknowledge Chris Bishop—the lucky one. I think this is his second—at least second—member's bill pulled from the ballot in the one Parliament—the previous Parliament.Todd Muller: Three.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Is it three? There you go. The organ one this one and there was—what was the third one?Todd Muller: I don't know. No one's saying it was rigged.ALASTAIR SCOTT: There you go no one's—Matt Doocey: The one next week!ALASTAIR SCOTT: Oh the other—ha ha! So lucky for some Mr Bishop.I'd like to pick up on a couple of things that were mentioned across the other side particularly as the debate developed. We started talking more about censorship and what that means because this bill has brought that topic into the House. Censorship and the freedom of speech—there's freedom of expression to be balanced with protecting society or particularly young people from those words or those images that those authors choose to use to express themselves.I remember at my uncle's bach in the 1970s finding Playboys of the day. Now Playboys I assume are still R18 and were then too. I wasn't 18; I was far younger than 18. But I can tell you those images back then would be seen when walking down the street or in any newspaper—the front page of a newspaper—or on any TV channel. The standards have moved; the standards have changed—not for the better or for the worse; I'm just saying that they've changed. My point here is that the legislation must be flexible enough to allow changes in the standards that we set ourselves across society.The other point I wanted to make was to be careful about censorship—and it was discussed earlier—around the internet. In this House we should be considering censorship not just in books and films that are regulated by these people that we're talking about today—by authorities—because they can touch and feel and control the supply of those books or films or cinematography but we should also consider what is available across the internet: what is available and not controlled or not censored and is out of control.A couple of points that I just thought I'd bring up given that the debate and the discussion that we had earlier. Turning to the bill turning to the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill this is a small tweak as I think it's been referred to. But as I say just because there are a few changes in the words that enable this flexibility to occur—and that's a good thing—don't forget that it can spawn and kick off a whole series of thinking that revolves around censorship and the internet. I think we should be thinking about that.Coming back to the bill the idea that an appeal can be made by someone and that the judge if you like has a choice of only two options is quite ridiculous and it was very astute of Mr Bishop to pick this anomaly up. Where else can one appeal and only have a choice of life imprisonment or being let out the door? Or you know at a school where someone might be stood down—well it's not going to be expulsion or let off scot-free. The headmistress or the headmaster or the principal always has some discretion around deciding how to treat any situation or an appeal by someone when they want to seek justice in their cause if you like. Even my kids when they appeal for leniency or justice it's not ever a one of two choices option; there are always grey areas when it comes to listening to your own children appeal a decision that has been previously made.For the board—the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review—to have a choice of only two is absurd. So this flexibility gives the board three other choices or three determinants when considering and they are their age belonging to a certain class—like a tertiary student group of people—or for a particular purpose. So a lot more flexibility a little more grey—that's a good thing. We should be considering producing legislation that is not just black and white that is flexible and that can be adjusted over time without having to come back here because there's a black and white line in the sand. So that flexibility that is being adopted into this legislation is obviously a good thing. It's good to hear both sides of the House support it and I would encourage all legislators here to consider not making black and white rules and regulations but rather consider flexibility—leaving others to decide giving them jurisdiction on what standards or rules or appeal systems—in this case appeals systems—can be adopted. With that I commend this bill to the House.