Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I look forward to standing and speaking in support of the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Actually it is quite a privilege to follow Louisa Wall's contribution. As I have listened—I am the last speaker on this bill this evening—I think to be honest hers would have to be right up there as one of the more considered contributions to the debate that we have had thus far this evening.If I could have a moment's indulgence and just pivot away for 30 seconds I will just acknowledge the America's Cup win of yesterday and in particular the performance of not only the team but Peter Burling. He is a fellow Tauranga Boys' College fellow and it was absolutely fantastic to see him guide Emirates Team New Zealand to that victory. Actually just as an aside there is a big picture at Tauranga Boys' College of three of its most famous old boys and they are Sam Cane Kane Williamson and Peter Burling. Every time I drive past there I hope that perhaps one day my picture will be there too but they all seem to have a sporting focus.Can I firstly acknowledge Chris Bishop for not only his luck in terms of having these bills drawn out but actually his ability as a legislator. As Louisa has just said part of the import of Parliament is to have a day for members' bills when all of us as non-executive backbenchers or Opposition members have the opportunity to put forward issues we think should be resolved. Some of them are more philosophical and profound and talk to the direction perhaps of the country; some of them reflect our own individual priorities. Some are just small but needed interventions to make the law apply more effectively.Not only is Chris an effective local community representative MP but he is also in my view a very effective legislator. He saw this as an anomaly and researched himself the mechanisms to be able to address that anomaly and that is essentially what we are reflecting on here this evening in the second reading. Can I also acknowledge the extraordinary Sarah Dowie for her chairmanship of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I do not have the privilege of sitting in on that committee but I hear from everybody else you do a fantastic job.These will just be some comments from my perspective on what I understand this bill is about but particularly on the contributions that have been made by various speakers thus far this evening. As people will know this is a bill that is designed to fix up a particular anomaly around interim restrictions. It is not a significant change. It is a small but as I said needed change to improve that balance between our freedom of expression and the appropriate application of a framework that assesses the risk to children and young people and adults of certain objectionable material being made available.As we have heard the current framework was applied in respect of Ted Dawe's award-winning novel Into the River which essentially meant that when the review board was to assess the classification decision that was on the table it really had no choice but to make it either completely available or completely restricted. There were no other tools in the tool box if you like to be able to reflect alternative more nuanced interim restriction orders that could be made. So that did result in the somewhat surprising arguably decision that it was completely banned. We know from experience that the moment something is banned—obviously there is the restriction of freedom of access but that also somewhat bizarrely heightens public interest in the book itself. Others have said that it became in many ways a slightly self-defeating process particularly for those who wanted the book less freely available.Actually that reminds me of when I was back at Tauranga Boys' College. You would go to the library. We all knew that there were certain books there that were perhaps more risqué than others—Hon Members: Ha ha!TODD MULLER: —and invariably they were the ones that were taken out more often. They were taken out more often. There is a humorous side and I appreciate I put myself up for that but seriously there is a key point there: that on one level you have a framework that is trying to restrict access but actually the community of people whom you are seeking to talk to know the kind of material that they would like to understand and reflect on and often those attempts to constrain actually do not work. In that scenario the adults were thinking they were running a process that was supposedly protecting people when actually all the students at the school found out which books were better to read than others. That is the reality here of trying to get the balance right between a framework of protecting people and the reality of making information available for people that suits their understanding of life.In terms of the departmental report as has been well canvassed there were four submissions—two oral—and general support. It is interesting that submissions were either on the path that more constraint is probably useful—versus a more perhaps libertarian perspective—or focused on broader policy around the value of interim restriction orders generally amendments to the appeal process vesting discretion to grant an order in the board of review as a whole and the expediting of reviews to speed them up. I found that particularly interesting.There have been quite a few solid contributions to this debate this evening. I think Chris Bishop summarised his intent when he talked about the importance of accurately calibrating the interim classification to give obviously more tools to the review board itself and making a small change that assists freedom of speech. I thought Sarah Dowie's contribution reflecting on the balance that is sought between public good and freedom of speech was particularly interesting and also her acknowledgment of the extraordinary efforts that the board of review has to go through on behalf of the community. This is not black and white. These things are grey and this society is a different society in 2017 than it was in 2010 or indeed 1990. The review board has to move with the appetite and the expectation of the broader community and I think it does it well.Can I acknowledge your support Maureen for the West Coast and particularly your strong advocacy for the availability of libraries and some of the challenges libraries have around getting the balance right in terms of availability and access to material such as this. Barry Coates' contribution talking specifically around the wider availability of objectionable material particularly what is available online I thought was quite measured and fair. I think certainly as a parent of a 9- 11- and 13-year-old these issues are very front of mind.In respect of some of Tracey Martin's comments and even I think in respect of some of Poto Williams' comments there has been a view from some here today that because this is a narrow bill because it is a narrow change it therefore lacks merit. I think as Louisa Wall quite well articulated that this is the day for both broad philosophical debates and at times relatively narrow interventions that do not meet the threshold of something that would be a large Government bill. I do think it is appropriate and I think some of the reactions to that being discussed here are a bit overstated.It has been a fascinating debate. It is a very very good contribution by Chris Bishop to have this debate and it is great to see that with the exception of New Zealand First this bill has support. It is a shame those members cannot support it. I think in their hearts they want to; it is just that they want to deny Chris the second opportunity for a unanimously supported member's bill. I certainly support it and I know 90 percent of the House does too. Thank you.