Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I think Chris Bishop described this bill as small and useful and the Labour Party would agree. We support it. It corrects an anomaly in legislation and that is always an important thing to do. It stems—and I will not go into too much depth on this; obviously it has been traversed before—from an outcry around the total restriction on Into the River the book written by Ted Dawe in 2015. It corrects that anomaly around interim restriction orders made under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act.In the Justice and Electoral Committee discussion—I did not sit on the select committee but in reference to the commentary back from the select committee there are essentially two changes that are being made. One is to the title which does not relate to Part 1. The second is the insertion of new clause 6 which inserts new section 133A into the principal Act. The member Chris Bishop has just touched on that around the introduction of new offence provisions for breaching interim restriction orders. Basically what that appears to be saying to me is that the existing penalty for breaching an interim restriction order would also apply to breaching any of the new types of orders.Because I did not sit on the select committee I am not quite sure what the principal Act offence provisions are that are not envisaged by the more flexible interim restriction orders proposed in this bill so maybe the chair might just like to answer that.Kris Faafoi: The chair?CLARE CURRAN: Oh not the Chair. Mr Chair my apologies go to you. I am sure that you could have a go and I am sure you could answer it. It would be a hands-tied-behind-the-back—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I might be the Chair; I'm not the member's researcher.CLARE CURRAN: But the member in charge of this bill Mr Bishop could answer it.I would also just like to refer to the submission by the censor's office or the Office of Film and Literature Classification which is an important office. It gave a considered submission. It referred to the unprecedented public outcry at the imposition of the interim restriction order which the president of the film classification board had no option about. His hands were tied. He had to impose that total restriction during that period of time. But there was a considerable public outcry and the chief censor's office really said that had this amendment been in place in August 2015 the president could have issued a more nuanced interim restriction order. Of course there is no guarantee that that would have been done but this anomaly being corrected allows for that to occur. For instance it could have continued with the R14 classification which means that libraries still could have issued the book and there would not have been the public outcry.But I also note in my closing remarks that the member in his various speeches on this bill has raised the issue—and I think the censor sort of goes there to some extent as well in his submission on this bill—of the concept of the interim restriction orders and asked whether it was timely for a review of those. Clearly this bill does not go there and he deals with just a small anomaly which Labour supports. But I think that I would like to see the member bringing another member's bill maybe next year when he is in Opposition to actually address the bigger issue of interim restriction orders and to see whether they could be reviewed and to review the role of the film censorship board in actually carrying out those orders.