Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to first of all begin my contribution tonight by stating that National will be opposing this bill but I'd like to first of all congratulate the Minister in her portfolio and being elevated to her position—congratulations the Hon Jan Tinetti. I think in her speech she was perhaps suggesting that she looks forward to the continuing debate that we will have on this particular issue and I'm guessing she's alluding to the fact that this is perhaps not something that is fulsome in its delivery because this should really have been part of the wider media consultation—wider media review—that the Government was actually doing but this particular bill was cast off by the previous Minister to actually deliver to the House very quickly.I read the Minister's legislative statement and if I could share some part of it and my particular concern with members present here it actually says—I'll cut to the bit that I'm interested in. It actually quotes It seeks to address inefficiencies and ambiguities in our censorship system that were highlighted in the aftermath of the Christchurch terror attack on March 15 particularly in responding to objectionable online content such as the depicting of an act of violent extremism or terrorism." It actually lists the limitations that the Minister suggests—actually highlights or summarises why this bill is actually being presented to the House. Number one the highest ranking reason why this is actually presented is I quote "1. Livestreaming does not fall within scope of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993;". Guess what—it does and I would suggest to this Minister a brand new Minister that if her officials actually give her advice saying that it doesn't perhaps she should ask the right questions and perhaps she should do some research to figure out whether it is in fact covered off in the Act that she is actually quoting. The definition of "publication" under the 1993 Act which she says it doesn't cover and lists everything in section 2(a) says "film book sound recording blah blah blah …". It's got (b) it's got (c) it gets to (d) and I quote "(d) a thing (including but not limited to a disc or an electronic or computer file) on which is recorded or stored information that by the use of a computer or other electronic device is capable of being reproduced or shown as 1 or more (or a combination of 1 or more) images representations signs statements blah etc. etc." So it does actually cover off—and simply put a live streaming is in fact a "thing" according to the definition. It emanates out of an electronic file. It is being stored temporarily or otherwise on computers and other electronic devices and it captures images signs statements and words. What it really means is that this reason why this bill is introduced and the reasoning that the Minister has put forward for the House to consider—literally the argument falls flat on her face. This is censorship legislation. It's a farce at its worst. It's actually censorship legislation at its worst. And she should have asked her officials to provide her with decent advice. Obviously the former Minister didn't ask the same question either.The topic that the Minister actually raised—all of us in this House probably abhorred the live streaming that the terrorists actually did. When I was introduced to a particular video I chose not to look at it because I found it objectionable. Yes I think all of us did. But the thing is that there is currently a law that actually can prevent—and the chief censor can put in interim decisions to prevent it from being shared. And this legislation is not necessary. This is about the Government wanting to provide an internet filter: Government deciding what is objectionable and what is not. And once we start down that path I'm not so sure where we will actually stop. This is an overly invasive regime that encroaches on the rights of individuals. I mean the example that I like to quote is the example of the murder of George Floyd in America. If live streaming and the death of a particular individual could be deemed objectionable that live streaming that was actually shot by the public to show the brutality of the police action against an innocent man would be banned. And these are some of the concerns that the public also has as well. If I could actually quote some citizens who have shared their concern one of them happens to be Jordan Carter of InternetNZ. I believe he was a former candidate of the Labour Party. He says and I quote "Past filtering attempts have shown that a dangerous side effect is the unintentional blocking of sites that are not hosting objectionable material in at least one case blocking access to email and online collaboration tools." This is another example. Thomas Beagle of New Zealand Civil Liberties said "If you're a bystander live streaming an event that turns horrific how quickly do you have to stop before you're liable? What if that event is a policeman choking a man to death? Do you think you could weigh up the merits of a value of a video versus the possible object—objectionable"—I can't pronounce that properly—"objectionableness." And I agree with him. When someone live streams it could be innocent when they start but it could completely turn objectionable and it is the subjective decision of the chief censor. The very fact that the chief censor could actually empower authorise an inspector—and often it's a police officer. It could be a duty community constable who could decide that a particular thing is objectionable and that is very subjective. I personally might find something that is objectionable that somebody else one of the members of Parliament present in this House would not and that is what I'm actually concerned about. A blanket filtering of things that are subjective is not something that I would feel comfortable about particularly on the internet.This as I indicated should have been part of the wider work that the Government was doing in terms of regulation into the media. It should not be rushed and piecemeal legislation is a bad way to make law. I think the Minister should have taken heed of her senses where she was going when she suggested that this was going to be debated in select committee. She should have actually maybe listened to her gut that bad rushed law piecemeal law is not a good way to make law. I think when people like Jordan Carter InternetNZ actually raises concerns and I think there are other Government departments that have also raised concerns when they were being consulted—I think that should have actually raised alarm bells that this should not have been introduced. This will actually go to select committee obviously because Labour has the majority in this House. And so I shall have to look forward to the discussions in select committee but I raise my strong opposition on this.One of the things that happened after the terrible 15 March event was that there were no enforceable laws or regulations present but it was the platforms who took it upon themselves to remove those offensive videos. One of the issues about live streaming and internet is that it is fast. Can the chief censor stop somebody live streaming right now? If I happen to live stream right now can the chief censor stop it? No but the ability for the chief censor to deem that objectionable already exists. So what does this law actually do? I am a little bit unclear and hopefully it will be made clearer once we actually have some submissions on this bill at select committee."