Brown Peter: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18709] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that New Zealand First was not represented on the Government Administration Committee but we have been following the bill as best we are able with quite some interest. I was a little bit concerned about the select committee’s report back and the member who has just resumed her seat has highlighted that concern even more. This bill came back to the House with a meek and mild penalty regime. It was only the Minister in response to a letter or some urging from a Denise Ritchie of the Stop Demand Foundation who brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that brought the penalties in line with those in Britain and Canada which have had such penalties for some several years. Australia is currently examining its penalty regime. So New Zealand First was concerned that a bill went through the select committee process and clearly the members on that committee did not take any notice or do any research into what the penalties were in other countries. 
New Zealand First supports absolutely tougher penalties for people who want to trade in pornographic material—particularly child pornography. We are in no doubt about that. We refer to such people as “people” but I have another word for it although I do not know whether it is parliamentary. It is something along the lines of “scumbags” or something like that. I like to think I am too polite to refer generally to people in that way. But I do compliment the Minister on having the fortitude to say that the penalties recommended by the select committee were not good enough and his Supplementary Order Paper would bring them in line with Canada and Britain 
and with what Australia plans to do. We are talking about an international trade in pornography and it is traded internationally; make no bones about it. Frankly I would like to throw the book at these guys and some of them I would not let out again but that is just me. 
I want to touch on a little concern that I had about the way the debate was handled. I know that ACT will oppose the third reading— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What for? 
PETER BROWN 
: No doubt the honourable member will hear an ACT speaker and learn why. In fairness to ACT Stephen Franks put forward six amendments in the Committee stage last night and I looked at them as closely as I could and I thought he made some very good points. In fairness to ACT which I know will oppose the bill although I cannot understand why I think Stephen Franks wanted to tighten up on the legislation not change it. From what I have read he did not want to change the intention of the bill he wanted to tighten up the powers of the chief censor. 
There was one issue that touched me and I know that Stephen Franks will highlight this or at least I hope he will. It relates to clause 4B(3): “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.” That is giving this guy—the chief censor who I personally believe is not doing his job very well to be honest—the power to look at decisions retrospectively. A video was produced a few years ago by I think Living Word 
. 
 I had heard so much about it that I thought I would watch the thing. It is a good cure for insomnia! I struggled to keep awake. It is as boring as can be but shows people in the background as I recall expressing their concerns about homosexuality the spread of homosexuality and the effect it has on people. I cannot recall it in detail and I do not want to but it revolves around a crowd of people mainly homosexuals saying how they were going to change the world sell their cause and so on. The censor banned that video— 
Sandra Goudie 
: It’s in New Zealand. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is. The censor banned it only to have the decision overturned by a higher authority. Now under clause 4B(3) I think he can ban it again. I have a genuine concern that this could lead to the banning of people expressing views particularly on moral issues. I agree with the Hon Phil Goff that we should be able to debate such things. I am talking about hate speech. I think it is ridiculous to have legislation banning hate speech to be honest. It is one step from banning “think speech”. Some people have nasty thoughts about other people all the time and we cannot change the rules to deal with that. But this seems to be an insidious way to open the door on that sort of thing. 
I sat here last night in the Committee stage and listened to every speaker. The Hon Phil Goff made some very very good points in his contribution and I like Phil Goff; I think he makes good sense. But I was disappointed when he turned to Stephen Franks’ amendments because he became somewhat hysterical— 
Judith Collins 
: Emotional. 
PETER BROWN 
: He became emotional and hysterical as he sometimes does. But my admiration is so great for the man that if I had a bottle of Valium with me I would give him a pill. I would not give it to many of those members opposite but I do admire Phil Goff and I would give him a pill to calm him down if I possibly could. But last night I did not have any pills with me and nobody could calm him down and effectively he got stuck into Stephen Franks quite unfairly and Stephen Franks was not given the right of reply. Although I disagree with Stephen Franks on many of his views I think he has made some sense here and should have had the right of reply to explain what he stands for and what it is all about. Clearly he has put a lot of work into these amendments and as I say they sat comfortably with me and my New Zealand First colleagues in the short discussion I had with them to ask them whether we would support the amendments. We did in fact support them. It disappoints me and I say this sincerely that if we are going to have debates where somebody can raise something and then not give the member a right of reply after he or she is attacked then we are not doing justice to ourselves we are not doing justice to Parliament and certainly we are not doing justice to New Zealanders. This is a hot topic in the minds of very many people. 
I personally think the interpretation of the censorship legislation in this country is so loose and liberal that it is almost useless. From time to time the censor in my view does a good thing—about once in every hundred. I have read many of his reports. I would not have the gumption the fortitude or whatever to read his reports out in this House. They describe so many disgusting and degrading actions that occur in films. I have seen one of the films—only one. I will never go to another. I was asked to go and have a look at it and see what it is about— 
Simon Power 
: This member has been on the wharves! 
PETER BROWN 
: I have seen and heard things on the wharves but they pale into insignificance compared with some of these movies that are coming through. I have not lived a sheltered life. I might look like that but I have not lived a sheltered life. I have seen this world the seamy side of it in all places but this stuff that we are allowing into this country and the censor is allowing in is absolutely disgusting. I am of the view that if we feed our bodies with lousy food if we feed ourselves on hamburgers and chips every day and night we all know that our bodies will suffer. I say to the honourable members that if we feed this sort of garbage that is going through the censor’s office day after day— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Have you given this advice to Gerry Brownlee? 
PETER BROWN 
: I give advice to anybody I can but whether they listen I do not know. It is not for lack of trying. If young people are subjected to this sort of garbage they turn out worse for wear. I have sincere regrets that Stephen Franks did not get the opportunity to talk to his amendments last night which is only fair and democratic. As a result they were defeated. But I think he probably could have made a point whereby members opposite could have said they were worthwhile. They listened to Denise Ritchie. They could have listened to Stephen Franks with some sincerity and I think this bill would have been better for it. Nevertheless New Zealand First is going to support this bill because in large part it covers a very very serious issue.