Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair for this opportunity to speak in the Committee of the whole House on Part 1 which contains the substantive provisions on this Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill of course brought in the name of Mr Chris Bishop. It is a very good little bill—a technical amendment—but one that is going to have great application in this area.In respect of clause 4 which of course replaces section 49 of the principal Act it does extend the tool box available to the films videos and publications classification team to be able to make more meaningful rulings in the interim in respect of publications. As the member rightly pointed out this came about because of the situation with Into the River where the president of the board of the review was left with very few options once an appeal was lodged. So the president had either the option of completely banning the publication or of course to—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member now and remind her that we are at the Committee stage debate. I think it becomes particularly apparent when the member is making a very similar speech to an earlier member which I probably should have warned that member not to do and it is also irrelevant. The member has got to talk to the Committee stage—the detail of these clauses—or not at all.SARAH DOWIE: Yes thank you. I was going to come back to clause 4 which does of course replace section 49 of the principal Act in particular section 49(3)(b) and come back to the fact that the tool box has been widened and more flexibility given to the president in respect of interim orders. And if I just go through that here—there are two subsections to allow an interim order with more flexibility to apply to (i) persons who have attained the age of 18 years or a specified younger age; or (ii) specified persons or classes of persons;".When we look at that when we are talking about banning publications or restricting publications in the interim when as my colleague has noted people have made an investment in a publication if that is suddenly ripped from them they need to have some sort of flexibility in the system—or we do; the classification team—to go back to earlier orders or to create parameters to protect people socially or economically maintaining that balance between protection and freedom of speech.I note that the member talked in particular about in clause 4 the insertion of new section 49(3)(b)(ii) in respect of creating "specified persons or classes of persons"—talking about tertiary study—as a range of people who could be looking at studying a novel or a publication in some way as part of their literature degree. So if they were somewhat through that it may be appropriate that they continue throughout that study. I do not think it necessarily applies just to tertiary institutions. We did have a discussion about this in the committee—that it could go wider. It could be high school children in respect of certain novels. It could be any group of people who may have the need to have an interim order upheld for them so that they can study that particular piece of literature. I do not think it is an elitist thing; I think it is protecting a group of people in the interim to continue that study all while the classification team balances freedom of speech versus the public interest. Thank you."