Brown Peter: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11467] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Initially I want to respond to what my colleague in United Future said. He seemed to imply that New Zealand First had been dictated to by some outside concern when it came to his own bill. 
Marc Alexander 
: No it was never the intention. 
PETER BROWN 
: He denies that now. I will accept the member’s word. I tell the member though that his bill was quite different from this one to an extent that was of concern. I do not think New Zealand First would have supported it had it been debated in the House. It seemed to legislate against what is termed “hate speech”—people speaking out about their concerns about homosexuality and those sorts of things. I do not know if the member really intended to do that but it was a by-product of the bill. Had his bill been passed by the House as it was written people would have been unable to express their concerns about homosexuality and the like. I got into very deep water once when in complete innocence I questioned the appropriateness of our having two censors who were homosexual. The world of officials seemed to descend on me. Bureaucracy went mad and officials came at me left right and centre but the public wrote an enormous amount of letters urging me to carry on speaking about that sort of thing. 
New Zealand First will support this bill. It toughens up the penalties for those who use the Internet to promote or get involved in child pornography—a disgusting type of— 
Judith Collins 
: Perversion! 
PETER BROWN 
: —perversion or “recreation”. I do not know how people can resort to or get involved in that sort of perversion. It is revolting in the extreme but apparently thousands of people in this country—and millions worldwide—get some sort of satisfaction out of watching young children undressed on the Internet and in various other areas. 
This bill toughens up the penalties for that and—hopefully—will have some impact. It responds to a Ministry of Justice review that was undertaken in 2003 which concluded according to the explanatory note that “existing penalties do not reflect the seriousness of some of the offending particularly that involving child pornography.” That is a worthwhile aim for any bill and New Zealand First will support the bill for that reason and for that reason alone. 
However we have concerns—which the honourable member from United Future did touch on briefly—that as stated by the explanatory note the bill “amends existing classification criteria so that the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct will not result in a publication being deemed ‘objectionable’”. I cannot think of anything more objectionable but this bill states that such acts are not objectionable. They “will instead be a factor that must be given particular weight in reaching a classification decision:”. Where the dickens does the Labour Government dish that sort of rubbish up from? I cannot believe what I am reading: if “the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct” is not objectionable what the hell is? What is the Labour Government trying to promote? The United Future member is nodding in agreement with me. I believe that issue is serious enough for United Future to say it will withdraw its vote of confidence. 
Stephen Franks 
: Hate speech is worse than that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have already taken Mr Alexander to task on his bill I say to Mr Franks. He assures me that he was misunderstood and I am prepared to accept the member’s word. This legislation causes me quite some concern and I cannot understand why a Labour Government which is being supported by a party that states it is family-friendly is prepared to allow “the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct” to be deemed to be something less than objectionable. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Stop going through the motions. 
PETER BROWN 
: Does the member think I am wrong? Maybe he will take a call and explain why the Labour Government is changing its mind on this issue. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will the member yield? 
PETER BROWN 
: I would yield if I could get a satisfactory explanation but I will not yield for a promoter of this sort of garbage. 
It is well known that people advertise on television and in newspapers in order to sell their products. If members of the public see something they may be attracted to it and want to buy it or buy into it. It is well known that if we fill people’s bodies with food that is garbage then their physical well-being will suffer. Nobody argues about that. Equally I suggest to the House that if we fill people’s minds—particularly the impressionable minds of young people or the warped minds of the weirdos and the wonder boys and I am wondering whether we have any weirdos or wonder boys on the Government side of the House— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: That is offensive. What a stupid thing to say. 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me refer the honourable Minister to clause 4. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It’s already illegal. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is saying it is already illegal? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Yes in the major Act. This is an amendment. 
PETER BROWN 
: This is an amendment to take those provisions and make them not objectionable in their own right. The member will have to defend that at the select committee. 
I want to depart slightly from the bill to compliment the censor. I have been on record in this House as castigating him for a number of reasons. I do not want him to get the idea I am totally on his side but I believe that in terms of the film  
The Passion of the Christ 
 he has got it right. I have his censor’s report here. I have not seen the film and I do not intend to see it because it is awful according to the report. I do not think anybody has ever said that the censor has produced a report that is not factually correct and this report is unpleasant reading. I say to the House that by making the film R16 he has done the right thing. I for one support his decision. I would like to put that in  
Hansard 
 because I know I have been quite critical of his decisions in the past. 
We need censorship. We need controls on what we see and who sees what—in many cases perhaps more than we realise. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee but we will do our darndest to have that clause that the Hon Judith Tizard thinks is fairly innocuous removed if we possibly can. We hope the National Party—as there are no New Zealand First members on that committee—will stick to its word as promised by Judith Collins who said she will do her darndest to get this bill correct. [ 
Interruption 
] The National Party is. We will support this bill going to the select committee but we will be watching its progress very very carefully.