Foster-Bell Paul; Borrows ChesterPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): What an absurd and outrageous contribution from the member who has just resumed her seat Tracey Martin. She is a member whom I have some time for and she usually makes I think a reasonably well-constructed argument and actually advocates for the right position on many issues. But this is clearly not one of them. To stand up in this House and defend the banning of books or a system that allows for books to be banned rather than other more moderate and sensible measures is absolutely outrageous in a free and liberal country like New Zealand. I think Chris Bishop should be commended for bringing this bill. It may be a relatively small and boutique issue but it is a very important one in a country such as New Zealand which values freedom of speech.This bill may have been spurred into action by the unfortunate banning of an individual book and I am referring to the book Into the River the sales of which were suspended for 6 weeks in 2015. But equally for any piece of literature I think there actually has to be a very high bar proven that this piece of literature may be injurious to public safety and public order and cause widespread offence and harm and not to have available to the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review or the High Court an ability to impose a classification that is one of the normal classifications that might be available but being given only two options which is an outright ban—something that should be treated very very seriously—or completely unrestricting the literature. Again this is something that could be problematic if the book did contain mature content or controversial content. So introducing a mechanism and a means by which the president of the board of appeal for literature review has that ability to make a sensible decision and reinstate a classification pending proper reconsideration as part of an interim restriction order is incredibly sensible.The member Tracey Martin was talking about just one book Into the River but let us think about some of the implications that such a ban could have for any sort of publication be it films or books. Some of these are not necessarily pleasant reading or viewing. Some of these are films or books that members of this House may have no interest in reading. But in a free society where freedom of expression is valued I think we do have to be very very careful before we impose a ban.I will give a couple of practical examples of how the status quo is unacceptable and how it cannot be allowed to prevail. We have situations—for instance in the case of film festivals. We have films that are highly controversial in subject matter for which special permission has been obtained to screen them for educative purposes—for instance those that university students might go along and watch as part of their film course. We are not necessarily talking about pleasant viewing but these are films that the public does have the right to see in certain restricted settings.If a group that was opposed to that film was able to seek an interim order and interfere with the running of that film festival for a period of weeks this is providing a commercial problem for the organisers of that film festival. Even if they get at the end of that interim period an order that allows them to screen that film either to the original designated audience group—so it could be restricted for instance to students or academics who are studying that field of subject matter. Even if they get that order by the time that 6 weeks has passed or the 12 weeks or however long it takes to consider the commercial imperatives are very clear that the film festival probably will not be able to go ahead. It is simply I think a commercial tool used by those who would wish to silence certain kinds of literature and certain kinds of films fully in the knowledge that if they can get that interim order it becomes somewhat commercially unsustainable to proceed with either publication or sales and distribution of the book or the eventual screening of the film or the visual content.Whilst this may have been brought about because of the case of one individual book Into the River—and this needs to be not confused with Up Shit Creek" which is the story of the Labour Party's camp in South Auckland for foreign students who have been imported to campaign. I think that story is going to be exposed very soon in the media and let us hope that that will not face any interim banning—Matt Doocey: Without a paddle.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Without the paddle as my colleague Matt Doocey points out.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We do not want to go down that track. Just concentrate on the bill. [Interruption]Kris Faafoi: Shall we talk about the Clutha River?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No we will not.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: As I said whilst this bill may have been spurred into existence by the unfortunate banning of Into the River there are a wide range of books and films that it may apply to.I think of some of the films that I went to see as part of festivals as a student at the University of Otago.Jono Naylor: Please don't tell those stories.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Well actually I am pleased to admit that I went along with a group of my colleagues—anthropology students and French students—to see the film Baise-Moi in the late 1990s which was a very controversial graphic and violent depiction of the underbelly of French life that milieu of degradation in Marseille that existed in the late 1990s. This was not pleasant viewing but it was I think necessary for us who were studying that field to appreciate and to achieve a wide understanding and a proper understanding of the subject matter that we were studying.I for one may be a liberal—even verging on a libertarian—and I would not want to see a film like that which was highly graphic very violent and contains sexual violence available to children available on free-to-air TV channels before a certain time of day for instance. So it is right and proper that we have a censorship and classification system in this country that allows such literature that has the potential to be harmful to those if it falls into the wrong hands—it is right and proper that we have a censorship regime and that those receive a classification that is indicative to parents such as the mature classification so that if parents or caregivers are going out to the bookshop with their young person they can make sure that there is an easy system in place so that the parent can assist in making an informed decision as to whether that book is suitable for their young person or not. But moreover when there is an R rating access is actually restricted—such as for those films such as Baise-Moi which had a restrictive rating that not only reflected an age classification but made them available only to groups such as tertiary students and academics to be screened in supervised settings for the purpose of an educative film festival.So we do not want to have—I personally do not want to empower groups such as Family First to make objections in the hope that they can secure an interim order an interim order that is unreasonable. I am perfectly happy with an interim order that is reasonable. So if an interim order was granted that imposed an R14 age limit for instance on the book Into the River that in my view would have been reasonable. If the interim order had said "This is a book that should be read only by mature people and it is injurious and harmful if it falls into the hands of younger children." then I would be all in favour of putting an M order on that book pending further consideration of that book to ensure that the original decision was correct or to overturn the original decision. But I am certainly against the idea that any group should be using the seeking of interim orders as a mechanism to—through commercial pressure—jeopardise the sales of a book or the screening of a film or the running of a film festival particularly where these might serve an educative purpose however controversial or however unpleasant the subject matter is.So I want to commend my colleague Chris Bishop for bringing a small but I think significant and important issue to the House. It is worthy of consideration and the idea as Ms Martin brought up that it was not worth the time of the Justice and Electoral Committee is outrageous. We have some very important issues come to the Justice and Electoral Committee. For instance at the moment we are dealing with the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. That is a very restricted but I think worthy issue for this House's attention. I think this is a free and open country where people should be able to read or view whatever they want particularly if they are informed consenting adults and I think that the restrictions based on public order and the ability to cause harm should be used only in situations where harm or threat to public order occur.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Poto Williams."