Grigg Nicola; Rurawhe AdrianNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Speaker. As has been canvassed by many speakers tonight this is a bill with a very complicated name but I think it's also important to note it's very complicated by nature. By that I mean as many other speakers have referred to as well the speed and nature of change occurring in the digital environment the complexity of the multinational digital environment that most of us operate in these days is very very hard to police. But this bill is viewed as a necessity born out of that horrific terrorist attack on the 15th of March 2019 and I think it is important that we as members of this House do always bear that in mind: that is the reason why we are here.We must also remember the families of those impacted a number of which have actually moved into my electorate as a result wanting to get out of Christchurch City. So I do see the ongoing harm that this event has occurred on a very regular basis. The harm that the bill seeks to address is urgent and the intentions of this bill are laudable. National did oppose it at its first reading because we felt that the internet filter was too much of an overreach and it didn't achieve the bill's objectives. The submission that stood out to me the most was from InternetNZ which colourfully described the filter as a blunt tool which is a mile wide and an inch deep." and was "purely symbolic … which anyone can get around". I sat in on the select committee and we took the view that society needed to be protected from seeing the kinds of content that the bill was seeking to block but we also had to balance that with those critical rights and freedoms.Some of the comments made a little earlier in the House I'm not sure are entirely correct. This bill has been very very carefully drafted and redrafted so that it will not criminalise everyday users simply for sharing something. It's really important to note that it targets livestreaming of objectionable material. I think going back through the submissions that we as a select committee both read and heard it was telling and worth acknowledging that many of the providers—that's the ISPs and the platforms—were really quick to respond actually a lot faster than the bureaucracy of Government. Facebook for example almost immediately halted the autoplay functionality that it has and there were other multinationals like Microsoft that in responding to the inquiry pointed to work that they've already completed outside of legislation to develop technology that detects and removes known images of child exploitation and abuse.So given we as a party saw it as an overreach the removal of that filter was a really important step for us to be able to support this bill. It is really important I think in an environment like this that we do listen to the users the experts the user groups the stakeholders and they were unanimous in their opposition. The filter itself also was a key concern for many of the objectors to the bill.I think my colleague Ian McKelvie mentioned the Chief Censor David Shanks. It was quite significant for us to hear from him that the proposal initially offered too little detail and that there were too few safeguards around the usage a And so we're very grateful for the opportunity to go to the Department of Internal Affairs and spend some time with them and the officials to observe for ourselves the great lengths that they were prepared to go to satisfy the concerns of the committee and also for us to be able to see that very trying work that a lot of people in those positions in those roles are asked to do. We as a society I think should be very grateful for them for that work. They're effectively protecting all of us—I think sometimes at their own expense.So I just have to wrap up quickly. Obviously we as a party very much do support this bill but we also just would like to caution future Governments and the challenge for future Parliaments to ensure that legislations and regulations like this are written and enabled to keep up with that pace of change and we do commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Duncan Webb—five minutes."