Yates Dianne: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18433] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Although the previous speaker said she was supporting the bill she certainly did not let facts get in the road of a good argument. I will point out some of the things that happened at the select committee. I want to thank two select committees—the Government Administration Committee before the election and after the election. The first select committee’s inquiry came up with a report on the Films Videos and Publications Act and there was also work done by the Ministry of Justice but the second committee did an excellent job of looking at the legislation. The first Government Administration Committee did a very large inquiry and came up with an excellent report. That report was presented to the Government and the Minister of Justice has responded with this bill. We note that the committee was generally unanimous. It was a very good committee. The two Government Administration Committees that have worked on this legislation worked very well together in a spirit of consensus. 
Stephen Franks 
: I wasn’t on the committee. It was a pathetic report. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I hear the member who was not on the committee interjecting. He cannot afford to comment on the processes that the committee went through. The committee as I said worked very well and was unanimous about objectionable material that included child sex-abuse images. The committee also went to visit the Chief Censor of Film and Literature and looked at the work that is done in his office. It also visited the Department of Internal Affairs and looked at how the problems of monitoring an alarming problem—the trade of child pornography through the Internet—are dealt with by the department. The bill aims to address that trade in some measure. 
The committee also looked as has been mentioned at the issues of hate speech and covert filming because they were brought up by submitters. The submitters asked us to look at these issues. We did not consider that they came within the scope of this bill but once again the committee was unanimous that we needed to look at these issues in greater detail. This was not because of events that have happened since we reported back to the House. I hope the member for Piako Lindsay Tisch will take a call because he had evidence of hate speech that was directed against Roman Catholic people in his electorate. Many of the submitters gave examples of hate speech that they felt should have been dealt with by this bill but which did not fall within its ambit. 
That is why the committee unanimously agreed that we should continue to look at the issue of hate speech and get a balance between the freedoms that are guaranteed already in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the possibility that New Zealand differs from some other countries in our ability to vilify sectors within the community. 
The present legislation deals with certain freedoms in relation to ethnicity nationality and race but it does not deal in some aspects with religion and other situations where certain people in our community could be prevented from having and acting within the same democratic rights as others. Although we all uphold freedom of speech we also need to get a balance with freedom from discrimination. That is what the terms of reference of the hate speech inquiry have suggested. I am surprised that the previous speaker has not looked more fully at the report and the terms of reference of that inquiry because if she did so she would understand in greater detail what it was about and the sincerity of the committee in looking into these issues—[ 
Interruption 
] That is condemning other people of one’s own ilk as well. 
The committee also received submissions on covert filming as has been mentioned. We thank the Minister of Justice for committing that issue to legislation and for his commitment to further legislation on that matter. 
The committee had to deal with some very difficult issues—the issues around nude images of children. We did not want to condemn nappy advertising on television; yet on the other hand it was pointed out to us that many images are overtly sexual. We believe that the legislation as it is now has struck a good balance in enabling issues that are injurious to the public good and the sexual exploitation of children to be dealt with. I point out that some of these are very very difficult issues to deal with and that there is often a fine line between what is sexually provocative and what some people might consider to be innocent depictions of children. The committee looked very very carefully at those issues. 
The other issue was the matter of penalties. The committee advocated that the penalties be increased. We have looked at certain anomalies and the Minister has indicated that he will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that we are consistent with both Australia and Canada in terms of the penalty for possession. As has been mentioned right through the whole process—both the inquiry and the bill—we have had submissions from people such as Denise Ritchie of ECPAT New Zealand and other people who are concerned with the welfare of children. They have made extensive submissions to ensure that we are dealing not only with the child sex-abuse images but that we protect the children who are used to produce these images. We think that it is right and fair that the penalties should be increased. 
A number of other issues came about with regard to the labelling of publications as has been mentioned. There are issues about age restrictions. That has also been mentioned by the Minister and has been supported by the Opposition. Once again I thank those members who are on the committee—Shane Ardern Steve Chadwick David Cunliffe and Lindsay Tisch—and those who were on the previous select committee which at various times included Richard Worth Pansy Wong and others involved who contributed both to the inquiry and to the bill. 
As I said the committee worked very carefully and very cooperatively to come up with what we believed would be improvements to the Films Videos and Publications Act—improvements that prevent the exploitation of children. This committee was certainly unanimous that in no way did we want exploitation of children and that we absolutely and positively did want restrictions on the trade of child pornography that is on the Internet. So I thank again the committee members for their cooperation and for the way in which we all worked together so well.