Andersen VirginiaVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I take the call to speak on the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. I wish to acknowledge Chris Bishop for identifying this anomaly in the current law which has given rise to the occasion quite unusually in New Zealand of a book being banned. That book was banned on the basis of there being inappropriate material for young people to engage with and I think that that's been a really appropriate issue to be taken up on by the member who has taken a good role within the Hutt South community to engage with young people and be advocating on behalf of their rights and interests making sure that they are well looked after in our society. That has been one of the underlying reasons that it's been an interesting course of action to see a book here banned.I support this bill as does the Labour Party for the reason that there is an anomaly that allowed the book to be outright banned when a restriction or more flexibility in terms of the censorship would've been far more appropriate. Unlike the previous member Amy Adams I have read large sections of this book and to be honest having children of my own in teenage years there are some sections that are reasonably explicit. There are questions about how children should be accessing material and how we deem that to be appropriate. This is particularly interesting in an age where kids are accessing a lot of information through the internet and that's particularly unrestricted. So while it's important to have clear access and to not be outright banning books we do need to keep in mind how we're making sure that children are safe through what they're accessing through social media and through the internet. We need to be as much as technology allows us consistent when we're looking at the type of material that young people are accessing.The Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for classifying publications such as films videos books games and audio recordings and I understand that this particular anomaly arose because of the nature of the material—because it was a book—and so it fell into a different classification. So I think again it's important that we change and modify as technology does. The question is: it is just because this item is a book that it was banned when other information available wider on the internet was far more easily accessible?One of the interesting points that came across in terms of the banning of the particular book Into the River that this whole member's bill arose from was that it actually generated far more public interest in the book. Far more people made an endeavour to purchase the book. Probably more kids went out and tried to access the book. So it's always important to weigh up how this type of action is going to be making an impact upon people's lives. The controversy the media coverage and the increased attention on this piece of literature ended up generating far more heat and light than otherwise.I think it's important also when we're looking at the type of material that children are accessing to acknowledge that society changes and adapts over time. In the history of books that have been banned there's always a lively debate when we look back and see the types of literature years ago that we as a society found to be unacceptable. To Kill a Mockingbird was banned because of offensive language racism and being unsuited to a particular age group. We've also seen Ulysses banned and when it screened at movie theatres we saw men and women having to enter at different times. I guess this is another point to show that over time society has changed. We've seen other books over time such as Where Did I Come From? published in 1973 banned. I remember that one quite fondly. It was well looked at on the library bookshelves in my primary school along with The Clan of the Cave Bear. So it's important to remember when we're looking at material when we are considering whether it should be made available or not—that we also keep in mind that society does change its judgments as time moves on.One of the key provisions in the bill which is intended to allow interim restriction orders to completely restrict access to a publication means that there's more flexibility and I think that's the great improvement here. That means that there can be taken into account that there is a certain age group that might be more suited to accessing the material; that they could belong to a certain class such as tertiary students; and that the accessing of the publication can be for a certain purpose such as a film festival. These are the three new types of interim restriction orders that reflect the classifications that may be imposed on a publication by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This commentary covers the main amendments that have been recommended to the bill but it does not cover the minor or technical ones.It has been good to see that the principal Act contains offence provisions that do not envisage the more flexible interim restriction orders proposed in this bill. It is important too that we enable the Office of Film and Literature Classification to be able to have the flexibility to look at material and respond appropriately as they are required to. Keeping in mind too that this is a small issue—this is the only book that I'm aware of that has come into this instance. So it will be interesting to see in the future if we have other instances coming up that require that flexibility that will be enabled by this legislation to be taken into account and be able to be utilised.The bill here will provide that the president of the board of review and the High Court have an expanded tool kit and they can be used when considering whether to restrict a publication. The bill will also allow the president to restrict a publication as already mentioned based on that more flexible ability of looking at age and considering whether that's appropriate or not.It is quite clear from all of the commentary that we've seen to date whether it be in this House or in wider media that Into the River should not have been banned. This change is a small one but this side of the House considers it's a useful one because we see that freedom of expression in New Zealand is important and we need to protect the ability for expression to go freely in New Zealand. Outright bans of literature are simply not acceptable in New Zealand if we want to continue to be a free society a democratic society and one that gives people access to the information that they are able to digest at that age. So I thank the House for the time and I commend this bill to the House.