Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18647] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Anybody who has been listening to Mr Franks’ speech would have imagined that this bill contains a draconian provision that in some way restricts freedom of expression or speech. That is patently wrong. Let me explain to those who are listening what Mr Franks is apparently against. Mr Franks has been railing against sections 3A 3B and so on which state that for children under the age of 18 additional protections are provided against behaviour or language that might be injurious to them. 
One would think that some new thing had come in whereby for the first time in this country children are to be protected against matters that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe they should be protected against. We have R18 restrictions for publications and films. I ask Mr Franks whether that is an expression of censorship of this country that is unacceptable. It is censorship indeed because we believe that children under 18 need protection beyond what we accord adults. What are we protecting them against? We are protecting them against foul language. Mr Franks thinks that it may be a fundamental breach of rights that children should not be subjected to the foulest of language. We are talking about swearing; we are not talking about expression of opinion. 
Stephen Franks 
: Where does it say that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Franks is wrong and every lawyer who is involved in this knows he is wrong. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. None of the issues the Minister is raising relate to Part 2 so why is he raising them in a context of what his responsibility is—to talk about Part 2? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is in rebuttal. That is not a point of order. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What else are we protecting children against? We are protecting them against exposure to images of infliction of pain self-mutilation and self-inflicted death—suicide. That is why members of the Government Administration Committee—National and Labour members—were unanimous in advising the House that these provisions should be put in the bill. 
 ACT is a libertarian party: anything goes. Well the member might think that anything goes but I want to see kids protected against some of the things that a bipartisan group on a select committee has said they should be protected against and I make no apology for that. 
Then we had Mr Franks saying that this bill is retrospective—and I will finish on this. Dr Worth is quite right in saying that this belongs to Part 1 but I am answering in rebuttal and misleading comments should not be allowed to lie in this Chamber. I refer Mr Franks to new section 4B(2) in clause 4 which explicitly states: “No person may be convicted of an offence against …” these sections “… in respect of conduct before the commencement of this section if the conviction would rely solely on a classification made under any of the new provisions.” That is not retrospective. That is explicitly prospective. Mr Franks does not know what he is talking about.