Tisch Lindsay: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18634] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to bring up a number of points. The first one relates to what I call the tidying-up of the situation where a film is to be screened at say 9 o’clock at night but prior to that time in the earlier part of the evening trailers are shown of some of the images in that film—a film that has been restricted for later viewing. I think that would certainly cause concern. 
A constituent of mine from Cambridge has written to me and I shall read out what he said because it illustrates what some folk find in terms of violent adult programmes. On Television One on Saturday 27 November before  
The Inspector Lynley Mysteries 
 there was a preview of an adults-only programme prior to its screening at 5 minutes past 9 that carried the warning that some viewers might find the violence disturbing. The preview used the words “trail of death” and there was an image of a large knife immediately followed by a clip of a woman screaming in terror. 
Dianne Yates 
: Put in a complaint. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I understand that and we are pursuing those sorts of avenues. But the point is that this legislation does move to rectify that in clause 5A “Submission of films by labelling body”. It does provide that protection and I think that is a significant change to what we currently have. Where a film or video is to be shown later in the evening because it is classified as restricted—let us say it is adults-only—then the trailer that precedes it should have the same classification. It is certainly National’s view that that would take care of some of the issues that came up during the select committee proceedings when people complained about trailers prior to the screening of the main film showing violence. With that in mind National supports the change. 
I also want to bring to the Committee’s attention the use of search warrants. Some interesting information on this was supplied to us by the Ministry of Justice. I will quote straight from its notes which articulate quite clearly what the position is. The ministry stated: “A search warrant is not available for the current strict liability possession offence. Although people are able to acquire large numbers of images over the Internet and store these on their computers investigating simple possession offences is hindered by the lack of a search warrant power for these offences.” 
We have heard of examples where images have been available and nothing has happened—there seems to be inaction. What has happened is that the Department of Internal Affairs has advised that it has evidence including information from overseas investigations that would be investigated further if search warrants were available for a possession offence. So we cannot place any blame on the department As the Minister mentioned and as I mentioned in the second reading debate it is doing a sterling job. 
The Government Administration Committee had an opportunity to see the work in which the Department of Internal Affairs is involved. That was my second visit to the department; I visited its premises when we conducted the inquiry into films videos and publications classifications. So I respect the work it does. I also respect the work the censor does because there is no way that I could sit there all day looking at those degrading publications and seeing the offences that are occurring and the images that exist. The points the Minister made were I think valid and National certainly endorses them. 
The final point I want to make about search warrants is that the legislation now gives that opportunity. If people have been trading images or if people knowingly possess information or images whatever they may be—