Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is interesting when a member gets up and gives a less-than-a-minute speech in the third reading when I think the members on the other side of the House spent quite a lot of time canvassing the issues in the Committee stage.Hon Simon Bridges: That's the point.CLARE CURRAN: Ha ha! I certainly think from the Labour Party's perspective that this is a small bill. We agree with that. We agree that it has some use. We agree with that and we support it but I think it is also important to make a couple of points. One of the points is that given that this may be the member Chris Bishop's last contribution to this House I would say to him that if you are going to bring a member's bill to the House try to make it count.He made some points in the first reading about the wider issues around censorship and around the role of the Film and Literature Board of Review and its processes. I think that it would be good for him to reflect on making a more substantial contribution around not just its role in making the interim restriction orders but its role in general which he actually alluded to in the first reading and also to the film and classification process in general which is currently in a situation of being an anomaly in New Zealand because we have films that are classified under one Act television programmes that are classified under another and digital programmes that have no classification regime.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member. While it might not be particularly easy for me to do it I do want to make clear to the member that what she is asking cannot actually be part of the third reading debate. We are now debating the bill as it has emerged from the Committee of the whole House and the debate in the select committee stage that occurred previously. It is not a general debate on the bill or on the area.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Those points are still quite relevant and there is still no legislation that applies to them. This is a bill that corrects an anomaly—a very small anomaly—in legislation. Small can sometimes be quite important and I think that given the fact that it did result in a book that was written for teens out of the water" being banned temporarily and unable to be taken out of the library it does matter. That does matter.I do want to acknowledge the fact that the member actually did attempt to address that anomaly. But in addressing that anomaly he did not look beyond and I think that is—you know if you are going to come to this House—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Just improve the tone slightly please.CLARE CURRAN: —it is important to actually think a little bit in a big-picture way because otherwise what is the point of being a member of Parliament if you are not trying to make substantive changes? I would advise the member that if he actually has any future in the Parliament when he brings a member's bill he actually seeks to address more than just a tiny little anomaly.We do support your bill. There has been quite a lot of debate about the bill. There are much bigger issues in New Zealand than the bill that this member has put before the House tonight. It is almost 10 o'clock on a Wednesday evening and if any members of the public are listening to this debate they are probably asking: "What on earth?". But we do support it. We do think that the interim restriction orders under the parent Act did need to be revised. We did support the change. We have questioned the wider issues around classification of content online. We do think that the contesting by Family First which resulted in this book being banned was an out-of-date and out-of—you know in 2017 it is a method that should not be allowed to occur. The decision of the film classification board should have been able to revert back to some sort of existing or previous classification and that is what this bill essentially does.The upshot of this is that we do support this bill. We are sorry that the member could not have thought in a slightly bigger-picture way about the classification system generally because the Government has not gone down that path in its 3 years. Looking at the convergence regime there has been no legislation come from that Government—no legislation in this space at all—which shows that it is a backward-thinking Government in terms of convergence and the convergence between all the digital platforms.There is a huge gap in legislation in terms of the classification of content in New Zealand. It is negligence by this Government. At least this member Chris Bishop has tried to fill a tiny little gap in legislation. It is a bit sad but we support it and we hope that his legacy in this Parliament—well his legacy in this Parliament is now before the House. I commend this bill to the House."