Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this incredibly important piece of legislation. I think I can say that I reckon just about every single New Zealander remembered exactly where they were and what they were doing at the time when the news broke of what had happened in Christchurch at the mosque attacks. I think we can all recall that and I think we can all recall how we felt. I remember personally when the news came out piece by piece and the dust settled from the events in Christchurch the fact that this had been live streamed to the world and I remember how I felt. And somehow it made the crime or the horror inflicted somehow seem worse to me. I felt angry to be honest that New Zealand had been used as a platform for terrorism and I still do.So I believe that it is important that today we spell out the case for change to remember why we are putting in place this legislation and hearing it today. The perpetrator of the Christchurch terror attack sought to exploit online platforms to promote acts of hate-based violence. The footage of the attacks once uploaded and online spread rapidly. They went through social media and it was unclear at this time whether the live streaming of the attack even constituted a criminal offence simply due to the fact that it was a live stream rather than a recorded video. It's at this point that I would like to clarify some of the points raised by the previous speaker as for the necessity for this legislation to be enacted because technological advances in the way that we have access to the internet and we interact online to me means that we also need to change the way we tackle objectionable material online. Things move fast incredibly fast. Technology changes and we as a democracy that is caring and responsive need to change as those technological advances speed up.It is vital for New Zealand to have the tools and the ability to respond swiftly in real time when these events occur. It is also important that we do this without compromising our essential freedoms. The internet can be a force for good as well as of darkness and it's important that we get this balance right. But to clarify some of the points that were raised by the previous speaker it's important to note that live streaming does not fall within the scope of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 and therefore it is in fact unregulated.The chief censor's decision on objectionable content risks being delayed because of the current statutory framework. It's a requirement to produce a written rationale for the decision within five working days of giving their decision. Because written decisions are complex legal documents that give limited resources of the classification they can take longer than five days to prepare adequately. This can cause the chief censor to delay publicising their judgment and providing clarity to the public. In the meantime people are sharing content online. We know how many shares or how many likes can be delivered in a number of minutes. So waiting for over five days for a censor's determination is simply inadequate to be able to rapidly respond to incidents such as what happened in Christchurch.The Government cannot require the removal of objectionable content from online platforms such as social media or other websites. This is part of what the Christchurch Accord was and what the Prime Minister has set out and this bill is a key deliverable in a domestic programme that is being progressed as part of that work that the Prime Minister initiated under the Christchurch Call to Action. It has discreet legislative regulatory updates to address those specific gaps particularly such as the ones identified through the Christchurch attacks.The responsibility of internet service providers and we heard some quotes there from internet service providers and online content hosts for removing objectionable online content is unclear currently under the existing legislation particularly in respect to the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 for hosting that content and that's where greater clarity is required. Current instances of internet blocking such as a filter as mentioned for use in blocking child sexual exploitation are operating without a clear regulatory framework or guide to their use and are dependent on those internet service providers opting in on a voluntary and that currently happens now with child exploitation. Approximately 85 percent I understand have opted in. So that's the case for change. That's the shortfalls within the existing legislation. This bill is important because it is designed to reduce the inefficiencies and the ambiguities in our current censorship arrangement. This bill will allow for urgent prevention and mitigation of harms caused by such objectionable publications by providing additional regulatory checks and tools to combat the spread of objectionable violent extremist content online. Under this bill it will be an offence to make possess or supply or distribute objectionable publication and the bill does this in six main ways.We've already heard some discussion around the point the member has made in relation to the establishment of a filter. I take that on board and I would like to get to that point by stating that the filtering provision in the bill may attract a lot of discussion and rightly so. That is the process and that is why this bill will be receiving a full parliamentary process and a full ability for submitters to come forward and to make their views known.There are concerns about ensuring sufficient legislative safeguards to prevent the improper use of a filter system. The bill it's important to note only gives the Government explicit statutory authority to explore and implement the mechanisms for a filter through future regulations. It does not automatically establish a filter. We currently have a filter as I've mentioned for child sexual exploitation. This is only applied on an opt-in voluntary basis. We believe the bill does explicitly provide for appropriate checks and balances relating to the filter. This includes lifting several provisions from regulations into the primary legislation. For example clarifying that the filter only applies to objectionable material and identifying the full range of stakeholders who must be consulted. And we expect to hear from those stakeholders during the select committee process which we welcome everybody who is concerned to submit on.The establishment of a new offence is important. But in addition to that this bill also enables the chief censor to make an interim classification so that we can quickly respond to content once it is uploaded. Also authorised inspectors will be able to issue a takedown notice to combat the posting of objectionable content online. That is consistent with the powers they have for physical copies of the same objectionable material. It basically brings online content in line with hard copy. Online content hosts that do not comply with a takedown notice will be subject to a penalty of up to $200000. So this enables New Zealand to be able to respond to emerging international trends of more harmful content available online. As a parent as a New Zealander as a mum as a member of this House I believe that we have a duty to protect people from being exposed to objectionable material and I welcome the select committee process just going forward to that day. I would like to commend this bill to the House.