Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It's a pleasure to take the last call on the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. It was also a privilege to sit on the select committee that considered this bill and I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Minister but also acknowledging my select committee colleagues in particular the previous chair and deputy chair Barbara Kuriger and Tangi Utikere who are no longer with us on that committee and also our colleague from across the House Melissa Lee who between us we did ask many questions of officials. This was complex and technical legislation and Melissa in particular made a very robust and useful contribution and I just want to acknowledge her here because it would have been wonderful to have her here to speak today; I know she would have liked to. I want to particularly thank officials because we asked many many technical questions of them and they were very very useful as we considered the bill and made some changes along the way.The purpose of the bill has been well-canvassed; I think we can all remember where we were on March 15 and the impact of not only those terrible events that occurred that day but the live streaming and the impact of the live streaming on those who saw that live stream and the impact of that that continues.I do just want to respond to some comments made by the ACT Party today because there were some questions around this in the committee of the whole House as well and I just wanted to make a few comments around the use of the term objectionable" because that was something that submitters did raise some concern around. But I think it's actually important that the context of that definition is put in place so that we can understand it some more. The meaning of "objectionable" states that "A publication is objectionable if it describes depicts expresses or otherwise deals with matters such as sex horror crime cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is like to be injurious to the public good." When talking specifically about the sex component the definition goes on to state that "The publication is or contains one or more visual images of one or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude."The point I want to make around "objectionable" is the threshold to meet that objectionable test is very very high and this definition is already as others have pointed out listed in statute. There's no amendment to what objectionable means. There's no addition to it. It's already outlined in the law. It has a very very high threshold and as the Minister mentioned in her response last night in section 132C(1)(b)(ii) of the—I could say the whole bill but I won't—it requires an intent. It requires an intent of that party to know that what they are putting into the public domain is objectionable. So I do take some issue around the comments from the ACT Party that this is somehow impacting on democratic life. In my view the objectionable incidents of March 15 they should be no part of our democratic life. So on that note I really want to just ensure that it's made clear to the public that there's no harm to us by having the use of the word "objectionable" in there.In finishing I want to acknowledge the victims of the March 15 mosque attack; remember those as we pass this law tonight. It is a historic night. Al salam alaikum. I commend this bill to the House."