Goudie Sandra: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18629] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to concur with my colleagues in welcoming the opportunity to support this bill but of course we do have some reservations—or some of us do certainly. None of us want to see our children put at risk in any way shape or form. I was privileged just this evening to watch a performance by some of our high school students in Play It Strange which was absolutely magnificent It reinforces the need to protect our children in order to see them grow to be productive young adults. 
But I have concerns. If we think of the photograph of the girl in Viet Nam in the context of subsection (1A) inserted by clause 4: “Without limiting subsection (1) a publication deals with a matter such as sex for the purposes of that subsection if—(a) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude;” we know that that young girl was nude. Therefore any publication that that photograph appeared in would then be required to be classified as a publication that dealt with a matter such as sex because that publication would have one or more visual images of a child who was nude or partially nude. So although it is quite clear that that was not the intention of that particular picture it could fall within the classification in the bill under the clause heading: “Meaning of objectionable”. All that the provision requires is that the publication has one or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude. 
I find that very interesting. I do not know about other members but many of us as mothers have photographs of our children where they are nude or partially nude. I have heaps. Often the boys would try to find them to screw them up and throw them away but that was in the old days. Now they do not seem to mind so much. Then if such photographs are seen paragraph (c) of section 3B(4) inserted by clause 4A states that it would: “encourage them to treat or regard themselves others or both as degraded or dehumanised or demeaned.” To “encourage them”?—I find that extraordinary in the extreme. I would love the Minister to take a call and explain why it is necessary to have such a subjective requirement in the bill that is really emotively based and how that will apply when we look at the previous meaning of “objectionable”. Essentially it could be anything. 
I recall also that some Muslims objected to a billboard with a woman in a bikini. That objection did not go anywhere but there was another case where women with burkas were going into court. I ask what that could mean. The arguments used for them to be allowed to wear their burkas were that for them not to wear them would place their safety at risk and that it was degrading and dehumanising for them not to wear them because of their beliefs. So this provision inserted by clause 4A is quite an interesting one and I do hope that the Minister will take a call. I think it would be very interesting to hear what he had to say in that regard. 
Clause 4B(3) contains another situation that is actually retrospective: “Without limiting section 42(3) of the principal Act the Chief Censor may be satisfied under that subsection that there are special circumstances justifying reconsideration of a decision made in respect of a publication if the Chief Censor considers that the decision may be altered because of the new provisions.”—the new provisions of this bill. Why? I would have thought that decisions in respect of all publications have already been made so why would we now want to go and retrospectively deal to any of them? I am sure they would have been dealt with appropriately so is this just some desire on the part of the chief censor to have another go at something he or she did not particularly like or is it an instance where the chief censor may have lost an argument and wants to have power later to get his or her own way? That needs to be very very carefully considered. I just wonder now at the broad powers of the chief censor and whether the accountability is there that should be there.