Goudie Sandra: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18719] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 National members are pleased to support the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill because our children are our future and it is our job to protect and support them as they grow in order to ensure that they become well-adjusted contributing adults in our many communities. Our children should not be subjected to the abuse that produces child pornography or vulnerable to the availability of child pornography. 
It is a tragedy that approximately 20 percent of those viewing child pornography are aged between 14 and 18 years of age and these statistics came from the Department of Internal Affairs. End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT New Zealand) is also very concerned about those statistics and it gave a substantial submission to the bill. While supporting much of the bill ECPAT New Zealand was concerned that home detention should not have a presumption in favour of the offender. In my view home detention is the soft option. If people do the crime then they should do the time. In fact I believe that home detention should be scrapped. 
However the strengthening of the penalties in this bill is welcomed. One can only hope that they are enough to stem the tide of an activity that we can only guess at the scale or size of. We have to recognise the changes in technology that provide for the ready availability of pornography throughout the world and recent advances in mobile phones add to the problems—even more so when mobile phones are becoming the norm not just for teenagers but also for more and more primary school children. 
Television advertising is using children acting as adults to sell this new technology and that means the task of protection is even more problematic. My understanding is that further legislation is to be introduced to address the issue of covert filming and that has been exacerbated by the continual advancement of mobile phone technology. If child pornography has risen fifteenfold since 1988 with the antiquated technology of those times it does not take much to guess that accessibility is now likely to be barely controllable and that was illustrated by Stephen Franks. So I wonder if there has been any study on whether there is any correlation between the advancement of technology and the increase in child abuse. I ask the question because there is a strong link between viewers of child pornography and child abusers. 
My learned colleague Richard Worth expounded on US statistics. Of the 2000 men arrested in the US for possessing child pornography 35 percent were also child abusers. So with greater accessibility—members should do the maths. I have no problem with labelling publications with an age restriction and while parents are the first line of defence with this bill we are making sure that we further protect our children and that we adopt a range of methods by which we do that. We also deal to the perpetrators of crime against our children by increasing the penalties in this bill and I applaud that. We just have to make sure that we use those penalties and we get into more enforcement. But I have no doubt that given the fine line between the protection of our children and young folk from becoming victims of pornography and the right to freedom of expression the definition of “objectionable” as outlined in clause 4 will be tested in the courts. 
Amendments to address concerns for a number of matters were lost. I have no doubt that they too will be tested in the courts in due course particularly in relation to freedom of speech. Censorship is a reasonable and justified limitation on the freedom of expression when it aims to protect children and young people from any harm inflicted by the publication and display of child pornography. However censorship of any kind is a limitation on the right to freedom of speech. While the bill correctly attempts to address the pervasive problem of child pornography the test established in clause 4 is both broad enough and vague enough to encompass more than just child pornography. The definition of “offensive language” encompasses a range of possible usages. Offensive language could also include insulting language. 
Censorship on the basis that a publication is insulting to a person or group of persons is very broad indeed. While the bill actively aims to strike the right balance between protection and freedom of expression it is questionable whether that has been achieved. It just so happens that tonight was the occasion of an excellent presentation by the New Zealand Film Commission. Creative genius with which New Zealand is greatly blessed does I am sure value freedom of expression. New Zealand is a pluralistic and democratic society and as mentioned the freedom to express opinions and ideas is central to the conception in such a society. I shall read members an extract from  
Handyside 
 v  
United Kingdom 
 where the European Court of Human Rights clearly stated: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to”—some of its articles—“it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of difference but also to those that offend shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.” That underscores and reinforces the concerns of Stephen Franks. The European Court stated further: “Such are the demands of that pluralism tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.” 
So this bill has some very serious unintended consequences and that means amongst other things that “every formality condition restriction or penalty imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” I reiterate that I can see that there will be recourse to the courts to test some of the definitions that are evidenced in this bill. 
The second amendment that was proposed was designed to protect freedom of speech. These are the amendments put forward last night that were overturned. It was stated that contentious propositions are often highly offensive to the public in general. The amendment makes it plain that it is the language that must be offensive not the argument. As I have just read it is ideas that challenge us and help to shape and direct our societies over time. It would be a tragedy indeed to see any restriction on our freedom of speech or freedom of expression. 
One amendment in particular that I would like to read is the fourth amendment. It is designed to ensure that the censor cannot use these amendments to go back and reinstate the disgraceful decision on the Living Word video by claiming that it would upset teenagers who are wondering whether they are gay. I am concerned about the retrospectivity of the particular clause that gives the censor the unbridled power to do that. That should be a major concern to us all and I cannot understand why that retrospectivity was continued in the bill. I did ask the Minister to take a call to give an explanation but it was not forthcoming. So there is a concern around that. 
There was an amendment designed to ensure that freedom of speech for ordinary people is not put at risk in the hands of a censor with his or her own political or social agenda claiming to protect a small disturbed overly sensitive group—for example those raised with rigid religious views or indeed minority groups such as the homosexual community. This concern has been expressed and while we are supporting the bill and its intention which I am sure everybody commends there are some serious concerns. I have no doubt that those concerns will be tested over time in the courts.