Baldock Larry: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18440] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the second reading of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. First of all I will give a brief summary of how the bill has ended up on the Order Paper today. The report of the Government Administration Committee was presented to the House back on 30 August 2004 but the Government seemed to be more interested in rushing the civil union legislation through the House in urgency before Christmas than in dealing with this bill which is very important. Hopefully this bill sends a message to those who engage in that sort of awful and despicable behaviour and it increases some of the penalties for that behaviour. But that still begs the question as to why it had to sit on the Order Paper for 4 months before it was brought back to the House for its second reading. 
There were a number of press releases over the holidays if anyone was monitoring them and a number of those came from my colleague Marc Alexander who has been our representative on the select committee. He raised the issue with the Government members and urged them to bring the bill on to the Order Paper so that it could be dealt with. Denise Ritchie also made a number of statements about how appalling it was that we were not dealing with this legislation. So it is really no surprise that it has suddenly appeared for us to debate in the House today. 
My colleague Marc Alexander has a particular interest in this bill because part of it comes from the first member’s bill he introduced to the House as a new member which was intended to deal with the appalling situation whereby it was possible for images of children undressing in changing sheds at the beach swimming pools and so on to be distributed by sick people to even sicker people on the Internet. He sought out of very good motives to address that issue and it is pleasing to see that the intent of his bill has been brought into this Government legislation. 
The bill amends the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act to address the impact of the Internet and similar technology on the nature and scale of offending related to the production and distribution of objectionable materials. Images containing nude or partially nude children or young persons that are reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature are a particular focus of this bill. The bill uses the term “child sex abuse images” rather than “child pornography”. 
Stephen Franks has raised some concerns about whether this bill could lead to some impinging on the rights of freedom of speech. As he said in his speech those matters ought to be debated during the Committee stage of this bill because we certainly do not want that to be the case. This bill is designed to deal with some very serious issues in our society and it ought not to be hijacked by anybody who seeks to simply muzzle critics of behaviour that they find offensive. 
However the fact that we are debating this bill really begs the question of what kind of world we are living in today. It reminds me of a saying that I have used for a number of years in discussing the importance or relevance of laws in society: “The more corrupt the State the more numerous the laws.” Here we are again having to look at passing legislation in this House. I think last year we passed 100 laws which was a record I believe. 
 Do we imagine the inventor of cellphones ever conceived that people would take those cellphones that have the ability to take pictures slip into changing sheds around the country and take pictures of innocent children as they were undressing so that those pictures could be distributed on the Internet? It is certainly a very sick society that we find ourselves in in the 21st century. 
Human history reveals that human beings have always been capable of some pretty sick behaviour but it seems today that the lines that have been referred to in some other speeches are getting blurred. The movie  
Baise-Moi 
 which I have not seen but which was referred to by Mr Brown in his speech is one of those examples. We raise children in a double-standard world that says that something is wrong if a person is under 18 or under 16 but once that person has had another birthday suddenly overnight what was previously wrong becomes right for that person. 
I believe that we kid ourselves. As Mr Keith Locke said the lines are definitely blurred and difficult to distinguish. I think the problem is that we place so much stock on being adults in this world and on how adults are supposed to be able to handle anything but if a child is brought into the situation he or she would probably pretty quickly identify for us that something is not art; it is actually pornography. Yet we look at it and kid ourselves that we should be able to handle it. 
In fact the Lord Jesus himself said that if we want to enter the kingdom of Heaven we should become like a child yet much of our society seeks to become adult and to handle all kinds of obscenity that we ought to know will not be good for us or for our children to see. In a civilised society we have the emergence of child pornography and it has spread across the world. We do have to try to pass laws in order to send a message about its abhorrence and to try to stop its spread. 
I join others in commending Denise Ritchie and others like her from the Stop Demand Foundation and End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes for the work they do opposing and fighting child pornography. What a horror it is for a child to be caught as a sex slave. What an awful awful lifestyle! I have walked in some of those places in Asia and have seen some of the images of children being kept in cages for exploitation by foreign visitors and it is an unspeakable horror. 
I commend the Minister for responding to Denise Ritchie’s appeals for an increase in sentencing. However I had to agree with Judith Collins when she asked why he did not also listen to the woman whom he had such regard for in his speech today when she and many others warned about what would happen to our society if the prostitution law reform legislation was passed or what would happen to young people when there was no clear distinction in that law between being under age and over age and when we were not even prepared to allow the police to ask for proof of identity so they could do their job of protecting young people more effectively. That is a very good case of what is happening in our society as the lines are becoming blurred. 
How is it OK for people to engage in selling their bodies for sex when they are 18 but if they are under 18 suddenly it is wrong and abhorrent? Since that law was passed why has there been advertising for prostitution every night on television in New Zealand—from 1 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock on C4—when the law itself states that it is to be banned and is not to occur? Yet any member who chooses to turn on his or her television and look at C4 will find that from 1 o’clock to 5 there is uninterrupted continuous advertising for prostitution. 
Also advertisements are appearing in the paper for students to try prostitution as a means of paying for their student loans. The advertisements say: “It is not so bad. Come along and we will help you. It’s not too bad at all.” Sir Barry Curtis the Mayor of Manukau has a local bill that he wishes to see introduced into this Parliament to ban street soliciting in Manukau because he has video camera evidence of 12 13 14 and 16-year-olds on the street at Hunters Corner as a result. 
I commend this bill to the House because it is sending the right message that that kind of behaviour is not acceptable and that we do need stiffer penalties for those who engage in it. In fact it is hard to imagine what penalties would be really sufficient for the damage done to young lives exploited and used in that way. United Future is pleased to support the second reading of the bill but I do make the point that we kid ourselves when we think we can simply draw a line on ages or on certain behaviour when we have contributed by some of the laws that we have passed in this House in the last 2 years to the demise of our civilisation.