Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm delighted to stand here to talk to the bill. The objective which I think we probably could return to is to update the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 to allow for urgent prevention and mitigation of harm caused by objectionable publications. What we're trying to do here which seems to be a point that might be being lost in rhetoric is we're trying to address limitations such as live streaming which doesn't currently fall within the scope of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. In addition the chief censor's decision on objectionable content risks being delayed because of the statutory requirement to provide written rationale within five working days. Now you'll all understand that we didn't have five working days when that material started to be live streamed. In addition the Government cannot require the removal of objectionable content from online platforms which I again think that across the House we would all agree that the content from that shooting that day should not be available on online platforms. Additionally the responsibilities of internet service providers and online content hosts are unclear and clarification is needed for their benefit as well as for ours. Also current instances of internet blocking are operating without a clear regulatory framework to guide their use. Now the important thing to look at here is that the bill makes live streaming of objectionable content a criminal offence. Objectionable content is something that I think we are not confused about. Objectionable" is deemed "likely to be injurious to the public good."—i.e. torture sexual violence terrorism and child sexual abuse. The slippery slope argument is not one that I find powerful. I think that we are all clear that incidents such as the acts of terror that we witnessed on that day are objectionable and I would really like to challenge anybody who feels that streaming information like that and images like that across the country without restriction or the ability to prevent them being spread as they do like wildfire is something we really need to have the capacity to do. We can't wait for five days. Now I'm going to take you back to 1993. In 1993 I was 26. Waco happened in 1993. Jurassic Park also happened in 1993. Nirvana had some pretty good songs going out in '93. But you can understand why the Act that we've got when you learn that the World Wide Web itself was born publicly—that software was basically put out in 1993 in the public domain. So you can understand why the Act as it stands is not fit for purpose. The world has changed a great deal since 1993. Most of us MPs are pretty familiar with social media and how it works. We use it extensively some of us use it more than others and the internet as we know can be an enormous power for good. Search engines are extraordinarily helpful things—for example where would we all be without Bing?—and the internet can bring us together. Now I'm from Christchurch and my electorate sits very close to the Al Noor Mosque. That the shooter could commit these hideous acts of terror was absolutely horrendous enough but what we knew when we were in lockdown on that awful day was we were receiving messages from our children who were in school under lockdown who were having this live streaming being pushed to their phones on auto play and they had no capacity to stop it. They were in lockdown—if you can imagine—terrified watching these images and powerless to stop them. Now I thank Mr Seymour for his actions in the University of Canterbury that day. My understanding is that he was supporting the students. I do hope that he wasn't sharing the video but I have no understanding—[Interruption]—of that. My understanding was that he was supportive. I am grateful to him for that—genuinely I mean that. Simon Court: Well you didn't need to say the last bit then did you? That is just ridiculous. SARAH PALLETT: Thank you. But what I would like to do is return back to the benefits and—Simon Court: Point of order Mr Speaker. I'd like that member to withdraw and apologise for that comment. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Carry on. SARAH PALLETT: Thank you Mr Speaker. Nicole McKee: Point of order Mr Speaker. The member made an accusation against our leader and I think it would be relevant that she withdraw and apologise. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I was in the House when that debate—I was presiding. I know what was said and the member accurately said what was—it was not out of order and that's my ruling. Sarah Pallet's time has ended. Rawiri Waititi—five minutes."