Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I join in the ranks of surprise to take another call in this debate on clauses 1 2 and 3. I never thought that I would of course take orders from Mr Matt Doocey but he is the whip and we will continue to make contributions on this bill which as my colleague has said is a fine bill. It is a small but very technical bill and of course the title has been slightly amended. It now reads Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill.I think it is a very apt amendment to better reflect exactly the substance behind this bill. Again it is one that increases the means and flexibility that the classification team and president and the court have to be able to make interim orders where they once were not able to. Of course this transpires from Chris Bishop the member in charge of the bill thinking about the consequences from the publication Into the River where the president was left with only two options when an appeal occurred before this bill was thought about. If it comes into force it will give the team more flexibility. But there were only two options that the president had and they were to completely ban the publication or revert to the original classification. There were two of them prior to that—either mature audiences or R14.So as we have discussed before this extends the tool box available to the president and the High Court creating different criteria for consideration in the interim. Previously when I was making a contribution on Part 1 I talked about this idea in clause 4 which replaces section 49 that allows specified persons or classes of persons to be considered and I think this is a really good thing when it comes to education. It allows the president to consider what is going on to balance the need for freedom of speech versus the protection of society. If a tertiary education provider or a high school or a certain group have already begun studying a publication and are in the depths of it it may well ring true that the president or the High Court thinks it is appropriate to allow them to finish that study and that it is not in the best interests to pull that book or that publication away from them while the more substantive consideration is going on after the initial appeal.I think it is a really great thing to allow that flexibility moving forward and this is exactly what this bill—little but effective—does. And of course the other part of the flexibility in respect of allowing the age consideration movement is that the president in issuing an interim order does not have to revert to the prior orders in that case. So they can make a judgment call as to whether they have got it right necessarily notwithstanding that more substantive consideration will go on as the evidence is presented. But again it allows that flexibility to balance freedom of speech in respect of that public good and I think that that more flexible system is more responsive and more suitable to our way of life here in New Zealand moving forward.I commend Chris Bishop the member in charge of the bill for bringing the bill to the House. I reiterate that it is a small but technical and effective bill.