Martin TraceyTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the bill and we do so for the following reasons. Firstly it has been said here today that this bill is not about Into the River. Well if I was the author of Into the River I would be making sure that I sent letters of congratulation and thanks to Mr Bishop because this gentleman Mr Bishop mentioned this book five times in his first reading speech alone. What Mr Bishop may not realise is that because this particular book has probably gained so much notoriety and so much popularity because of a 6-week ban the author might not want the law to be changed any more. We need to go back to where this started. This is a knee-jerk reaction to a book that made history. It is the only time that this has happened and Mr Bishop then went and put a member's bill in under the guise of this somehow limiting freedom of speech. It was a 6-week period of time after which the author probably got more book sales than he would have got at the beginning of the 6-week period of time but that did not stop this book then going out into the public domain. We have had several members of the Justice and Electoral Committee say that they have never read the book. We have had several members of the House stand up and contribute here and say that they believe in protecting children and in protecting the vulnerable from certain inappropriate pieces of writing film footage or whatever. I want to just talk about paragraph 1.19 from Family First's submission which reads: Other concerns with the book but ignored by the Censor were the issues of having sex under the legal age illegal drug use child sex exploitation and the sexual relationship between the student and the teacher and violent assault." This book started its life as the winner of a children's book award. That is where this started. It was a children's book award—not a teen book award but a children's book award—and I have heard a couple of members of the National Government say this evening that librarians requested that the restriction be lifted. I understand from my friend Louisa Wall here that the Auckland Central City Library librarians made this request because they had had such demand for the book. It had grown in notoriety by then of course. But what I know to be true is that in secondary schools because this was a children's book award winner it was instantly purchased by a whole lot of secondary schools and placed on to the shelves of their libraries. Then the librarians started to read it and honestly people you need to go and read it before you decide that this book did not need to be brought back in front of the courts in this way. Chris Bishop: Oh Tracey. TRACEY MARTIN: See and now Mr Bishop says "Oh Tracey." but he has not bothered to read the book. He had 6 weeks when he could have gone and read the book. He has had more than the period of time that the book was banned to actually read the book so that he could be talking from a place of knowledge but he did not do that. He speaks from a place of ideology and yet all this is doing is removing—is removing—a completely valid way of saying that we do not think that the censors got it right and that we think that there should be a pause for a short period of time—Jono Naylor: It's a better way. TRACEY MARTIN: —while it is reviewed. I will admit—yes Mr Naylor is waving around the fact that the select committee spent its valuable time on this piece of legislation as a knee-jerk reaction to one book in the history of the country or whatever for a 6-week period while everybody sorted out what the best category was. So the poor old select committee—I mean I give its members credit. They have tried to do a mate a favour probably. They have had this bill come before them. They have realised what it is. They realised it was unworkable in the way that Mr Bishop had originally put it into the House. So they have now added to red tape. They have added to red tape. They have added to the process by which these things can be considered in another three areas. To "restrict access only to people"—there are three more choices. There are three more choices that have now been provided so that there are another three sections that have to be thought about as opposed to what we had before and all because one book was not available for Mr Bishop to buy for a 6-week period. I mean as somebody mentioned before it is a First World problem is it not? If you cannot get a book for a 6-week period just while people decide which age group is appropriate that it can be provided for we have to suddenly run off to the House and slip it into the members' ballot. And if the Government felt so strongly about this why on earth did it not bring it here? Why did Mr Bishop have to stand alone so outraged about this situation—he could not buy a book for 6 weeks—that he had to put a member's bill into the ballot? If this was so important then the Government should have taken it up Mr Bishop but it left you on your own to then go and have to put it into the members' ballot. It would not have anything to do with trying to fill up the members' ballot with bits and pieces of little paper so that that minimises the Opposition's chances of getting really substantial issues out I do not suppose. What we have got here is Mr Bishop getting all upset about the fact that for a little period of time he could not go and get a book. He is also very very upset that it was Family First that created that situation by using a quite legitimate process to say: "We disagree with the censor." If you go back and have a look—Jono Naylor: Even they think we should change it. TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Naylor you did not read it either. Have a listen. If you go back and have a look at the situation the censor took into account only the swear words—the foul language that was inside the book. That was the point that Family First was trying to make which is that there are other themes in here that as a Parliament we deal with every day seriously—seriously. Child sexual exploitation sexual relationships between students and teachers violent assaults sex under the legal age—these are all themes that we deal with in this House in a serious way and yet this Government is standing up trying to legitimise why this book should not have had a pause in its publication and in its release to the public while another discussion was taking place. It was not that onerous. It is not that onerous. This bill wastes the House's time. It removes an opportunity for New Zealanders to raise quite legitimate issues against the censors and New Zealand First will not endorse Mr Bishop's indulgences by supporting the bill at this stage. We will continue to oppose the bill. We will continue to try to get sense to reign across the House but at this stage we will not support the bill."