Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I was hoping that the bill had gotten its short name by now. I think during the committee of the whole House the Minister said it was going to end up being called the classifications bill". But yeah the Greens will be supporting the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill—it's Thursday afternoon; I may as well read it all out—and I think we've landed in a good place with this bill. For us the main reason why we were not supportive in the first reading was those concerns around the internet filter—but just sort of acknowledging that and also congratulating the Minister and the select committee for dragging this legislation out from 1993 and making it workable in 2021.This legislation when it was originally put together was during the time of VHS video cassettes I guess and then these new things came along which were called DVDs and when I talk to my children about those things they find it really really hard to believe. They always kind of sort of think that videos have always shown up on our phones and on computers and so on and so forth because they're digital natives and that is the world that they are living in. But we still have objectionable content—and I did appreciate the speeches made in the first reading as well and also the discussions during the committee of the whole House because I wasn't on the select committee. But just to hear that it was about trying to empower the censor to use the tools that are available in terms of the horrific events that happened with the live streaming of the killing of our Muslim whānau down in Christchurch and being able to give them those tools to actually act efficiently and quickly—and in that sort of case we support the censor to be able to do that.The objectives are to ensure that the Government and internet service providers and online content hosts can swiftly and consistently take action against objectionable material—and that's the role of the chief censor. Just to acknowledge that the bar for determining objectionable content is already really really high and it is a job of the chief censor to apply the test and in that legal test the chief censor already takes into account freedom of expression and so that once a publication or in this case a potentially live streamed video is considered objectionable it will give them the power to actually take it down and that's a good thing.There were some discussions around some "safe harbour" clauses as well and I understand that the select committee came to a good place with those as well—for me acknowledging the other speeches around the House that when we can sort of see the greater good in the work that we do around the Parliament we can arrive at some near consensus positions if not strong majority positions on these really really important issues.I was just reflecting on the discussions we had during the committee of the whole House because even though the internet filter has now been removed—because how could that be set up anyway to actually do the job that we actually want it to do and then of course looking at how those rights could be balanced properly and appropriately. For me it actually opened up a whole space and that's something I think—when the original intent was around what the internet filter could do or should be doing which was about of course minimising harm we've moved into a particular place where algorithms are actually running our lives now in really insidious ways from people that topple down rabbit holes because of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and the fact that different social media in particular at Facebook—there was a whistleblower just recently who with internal papers showed that actually keeping us on those social media platforms and making us continually engage in negative behaviour often that's the motive for them because that's how they get their money as well.So we have moved this Act from 1993 and made it usable and workable in terms of the very real potential harm that is out there as well. I just acknowledge what the speaker before me talked about when her son had actually seen that live stream as well and I know with all the parents around the House that is something I worry about and I am sure that we all worry about—that we will also need to I think eventually step into that space and sort of really take a look about what the algorithm is because that is something that I feel in terms of the discussions that we've had around the House about this particular bill will need more attention.So for me it's a reminder that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach. I think that there is no right to algorithmic amplification: with the algorithm there's thousands and thousands of bits of content on there but about a hundred of them will only show up on your newsfeed as well. Who determines what that is? Who determines the prioritisation? You can find whatever you want to on the internet but who prioritises the way that we access our media? Of course those of us around the House in many ways have to dance to the tunes of their algorithm so do the journalists as well and so those engagements kind of lock us into particular behaviours as well. Some of those behaviours I think kind of keep us in really circular arguments here in Parliament as well and by keeping us within those circular arguments that actually distracts from the real mahi that we need to actually be doing as well.So those are some of my reflections. I commend the Minister and the select committee for dragging this legislation into the 21st century but by dragging it into the 21st century opening up the consideration that there are a whole lot of other issues that we need to be focusing on and really investigating and really interrogating because the intention of the amendment of course is to minimise harm—minimise harm particularly to our children but also to vulnerable communities and allowing social media giants and techno-megalomaniacs to profit on negative engagement online is something that we should be really really mindful of as this bill passages through the House. On that we support this bill."