McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm not going to start off by saying the full name of this bill because I did that already in the second reading so I've done my bit there. But I would like to begin my speech first of all by acknowledging the victims of the 15 March 2019 mosque terror attack and also those people that were affected by the live streaming of that event. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the select committee and the way that they interacted with the other parties especially in getting rid of the filter from this Act because that was one of the things that the ACT Party were very conscious of. Again I'd just like to appreciate the work of the National Party and Melissa Lee in getting that through. But nevertheless the ACT Party still opposes this bill and the reason why is because it comes down to our freedoms. It's not just about freedom to reach; it's also about freedom to speak. It's about freedom of thought and it's about freedom to be able to share some of the things that happen.Now while I realise that some of this is objectionable I think that when we start using or utilising bits of legislation to in a way filter what we do see anyway then it becomes an issue and we start to remove some of those freedoms from our democratic society. ACT think that this is important. We are worried about that and that's part of the reason why we oppose this bill. My good friend—my good relative next to me—Mr Ian McKelvie said that the National Party found no reason to oppose this but we have found a few.I'd like to start off by talking about restrictions that we've already seen in publication and actually specifically go back to the 15 March terror attack. The terrorist at that stage had released a manifesto. I actually read that manifesto before it became a censored item. And what was revealing for those within the firearms community is how the terrorist had actually detailed what he expected to happen as a result of his terror attack. And as it is everything that he expected to happen in regard to firearm owners actually played out. I think it's important that people should have been given the opportunity to actually see that and be able to react to that as well because that's one tick for him. That was one win for him and he did not deserve any wins at all. But the rest of New Zealand are left to say Well actually we don't know what he wanted because we're not allowed to read it."So I think it's really important that people are given the freedom to choose. But again we have to balance this on being mindful about what is objectionable. And so in that respect I understand exactly what the Government and the Opposition party are trying to do. That balance of course is quite fine. But when we start eroding our freedoms in that way then I think it's a slippery slope.In the committee of the whole House stage I raised questions regarding new section 132C(1)(b) and that was about the sharing of live streaming events. So while the ACT Party can say if there's an objectionable live streaming taking place we understand the ability to charge and possibly convict a person who is live streaming but subparagraph (b) there actually talks about the crime of live streaming and then sharing that live stream. And when I looked up what is "objectionable" for the purposes of this particular Act it is a publication that 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 likely to be injurious to the public good then we understand exactly what "objectionable" is.But the scenario that I have for you is: think of a situation where perhaps say there was an illegal car rally that was taking place and somebody was live streaming it and people were sharing off that live stream. And during that car rally which ended up being criminal because it occurred during lockdown a poor person gets crushed between two cars and the police end up getting their car bottled. Now at that stage the person sharing perhaps the person live streaming may not actually realise that the event that they are sharing or live streaming has become an objectionable event. Now the law itself and the Minister had expressed and read out to me that the person is committing an offence if they are "knowing or have reasonable cause to believe that the content is objectionable;"—well they may not know that at the time—but more importantly the Minister said "and" as opposed to section 132C(1)(b)(ii) "with the intent of promoting or encouraging criminal acts or acts of terrorism." So when we have an objectionable event such as a crime taking place the intent of promoting or encouraging criminal acts could be easily obtained in the scenario that I just gave you because if we're doing loss of traction burnouts or something like that that is a criminal event and therefore it becomes a criminal act. So it actually meets the criteria. And the select committee themselves have made the point that the intent is really hard to ascertain and describe. So I think that there's a flaw there and I think that it actually opens up an area for innocent people to be prosecuted. So we do have these major concerns about what this means.So to wind this up the ACT Party think it's really important that we continue to allow people their freedom of speech their freedom of thought their freedom to share and that it should not be compromised by the thought police. There is concern about whether or not people will know something is objectionable—whether they may know it when they see it. We just don't think that this sort of thing is clear enough for the citizens of New Zealand to be able to successfully abide by. We think there needed to be a better balance and we also believe that peoples' rights to a democratic way of life is essential so the ACT Party will be opposing this bill."