Alexander Marc: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18635] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 One of the things that sticks in my throat is the sad fact that we have to come to Parliament and pass legislation like this. It is sad that there are people out there who would abuse children in such a way that we need laws like this. It is an absolute tragedy. But I have to say that I am getting a sense that a lot of parties around the Chamber feel equally disgusted by the activities of some people in our community. This legislation will pass with a great deal of support from all around this Chamber and I think that is gratifying. Times are a-changing. This legislation in every way supersedes my member’s bill that attempted to address some of these issues but it did so not nearly as comprehensively as this bill does. 
During the course of looking at the information that I was able to access as a result of my bill I saw some of the material dealt with by the chief censor’s office. The kind of material that some people get their kicks out of is absolutely astonishing. Things that we might find simply obscene are nothing compared with some of the stuff that is out there. In fact one has to watch some of the things very closely even to discern what is being sexualised. 
I am reminded of one example that absolutely horrified me. It was a home video—which I gathered from the information I was given was to be put up for sale—in which a father actually videotaped his own child in bed. He videotaped certain portions of the child’s anatomy and he kept moving the blankets so that he could videotape his son and then on-sell. I find such things so disgusting and so appalling. So it is high time for legislation like this. 
I am pleased that the penalties have been increased to the extent that they have been. I cannot wait for people to get caught under this legislation. I cannot wait to see people who have profited from and who have enjoyed child pornography and child abuse finally get the comeuppance they so richly deserve. So of course United Future will be supporting this legislation very heartily. The bill puts first the interests of protecting children from child sex abuse images and the penalties reflect that which is a good thing. 
What the bill does not do however is address the vexed question of hate speech—and for good reason. We do not need to ask judges to determine subjective standards as to what constitutes hate speech. It is simply beyond the scope of this bill. Although we can all agree on addressing the problems of child sex abuse images via the Internet and suchlike it falls far short of impinging on our freedom of expression. 
I have looked at some of the amendments that members have suggested. I think they are trying to do their best and I do not think anybody is trying deliberately to undermine this bill but members in their zeal to put forward amendments might have overlooked a few things. In particular I look at Keith Locke’s amendment to section 3(1A)(b) in clause 4. It states: “(b) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of a person who is or appears to be under 18 years of age engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities;”. Members can imagine just how difficult that would make it for the Department of Internal Affairs to prosecute as the department would be required to prove that the person depicted was under the age of 18. It is pretty hard to do. 
Keith Locke 
: It’s in the bill. It’s definitely in the bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well the member should try to prove it. When one gets hold of this pornographic material one does not always get hold of the protagonists who are involved in the video. It is pretty damn hard. And to expect to do that in order to secure a prosecution is just madness. So from that point of view I know what the member is trying to do—it is a good effort—but it is not good enough. 
Peter Brown 
: Like the NCEA. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: That is right. The provisions on speech that is considered to be highly offensive to the public in general do not actually stop free speech; they restrict it so that it is not likely to cause harm to those who are under age. The legislation does not restrict one’s freedom to say those things but it does protect young children. 
Stephen Franks 
: So you can’t teach kids. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: It is not a question of trying to teach kids. One would have to be pretty peculiar if by way of trying to teach a child one were to give the child a video that degenerated into the worst possible language or was pornographic.