Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to be able to stand and take a call on this bill and particularly I think that when you have got amendment bills of this nature it is really important for us to look and ask what is broken that needs fixing. I think what we saw from the incident that led to the formulation of this bill—i.e. the issue around the Into the River book—was that we had only blunt instruments at the disposal of the president and the board when it came to looking at matters that are on appeal. And so I think it is very very good that Mr Bishop has brought this forward so that we can actually fine-tune the types of things that are available and the tools that are available to deal with appeals to the board on issues of censorship around different forms of publication.In clause 4 I think there are some really good pertinent words that actually have been brought out in the drafting of this legislation. For example in subclause (2) it says that once the president has received a written submission from somebody regarding this the precursor to what the president must do is in these keys words for me: The President must as soon as practicable—". I think that is really important because if you stick a specific time like within 3 days or 5 days or something like that that is not appropriate either. But what we would not want is for it to be open-ended in such a way that it could be dragged out. Mr Bishop in his opening remarks at this Committee stage touched on this as well.In particular circumstances where there are either publications or film festivals or the like that are taking place—there is some time sensitivity attached to those festivals. For example if somebody brought a film into the country for a festival where it had only a week-long screening and then somebody asked for one of these restriction orders to be put in place because they did not like the classification the film had received I think we would all agree that the promoters of the film—if say for example the film had initially been given an R13 rating if it was just completely withdrawn because of the blunt instruments that are available now the promoters would be economically and realistically quite disadvantaged by the situation of not being able to show it during that one week of the film festival.So for the president then to need to actually act quickly and to bear that in mind—that can mean that actually it is quite possible for that film to still be shown albeit with a revised temporary classification. The president as we see in subclause (3) has an ability to put in place particular classifications. So that film that may originally have been rated R13 or R16 perhaps—the president can say "Well clearly it's not so objectionable that it needs to be banned and the worst possible scenario would be that it will be R18." So he could perhaps change it to R18. That would allow the promoters of that said film festival to proceed anyway and be able to—perhaps without the 13- to 18-year-olds attending it they might have some economic disadvantage but they would not be completely wiped out because they were unable to show the film.I think on balance particularly around clause 4 it is very good that we have got this timing issue for the president to make his ruling. But what we also have is this sort of variation in the types of interim orders that can be put in place.I will just skip over clause 5 at this point but clause 6 I think is also very important because actually there needs to be some sort of disincentive for people who might breach those interim orders. What we do not want is if the president has actually put in place something that says "Look this is what we're going to do now." people turning a blind eye to that. Clearly there needs to be some ramifications for that some consequences for that action.In debating what level of fine would be put in place it is indeed in a committee something that you have to wrestle with because any number that you pick is ultimately an arbitrary number. Obviously when setting the level of fine one has to be trying to figure out that balance between what is a reasonable response to a breach of this kind and also what would be a sufficient deterrent. In this case obviously as outlined in clause 6 what we have actually outlined as a committee was that in the case of an individual $3000 seemed to be an appropriate fine for that situation. It strikes that balance between—you would certainly have to be grossing a fair amount off some publication or film for it to be worth your while to simply thumb your nose at a $3000 fine. Obviously of course in the case of a body corporate there is the $10000 fine.I think ultimately in clauses 4 5 and 6 in Part 1 of this piece of legislation it has been clear to me actually that that balance as I said earlier between the timing and the flexibility available to the president in being able to put different classifications in place on an interim basis clearly shows to me that the current legislation is broken. It did need fixing and this amendment bill goes a long way to fixing those issues."