McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well I find myself in somewhat uncharted territory again as the member Barbara Kuriger pointed out not only uncharted territory but of course when I was young if we wanted to see anything objectionable we had to go to the movie theatre—ha ha! There was no other way of seeing it because we didn't even have a TV and that just shows how the world's—SPEAKER: A blue-movie theatre!IAN McKELVIE: Ha ha! Oh I never saw one of those. That just shows though how the world's changed. And I guess the other thing that I've observed about how the world's changed is that when this bill went to the Governance and Administration Committee I don't think anyone but the governing party supported it. It's come out of select committee certainly with us able to support it and I think that's a tribute to the select committee process and it's one you don't often find happens in this House. I don't really recall a bill that wasn't supported at first reading coming back to the House and being supported by an Opposition party in the second reading. So that's certainly a tribute to the select committee.As the former chair Barbara Kuriger said Melissa Lee contributed a lot to that. Unfortunately because of the environment we live in the three Government members on that committee are locked down in other places than Wellington and that's just how it is. So you get to have a whole lot of people speaking on this bill who weren't necessarily part of the deliberation and all of the hard work that went into getting it to this point. Of course the only part I played in this bill was actually to be there for the very last part of it. I had no part in anything other than the final deliberation. But we were pleased to be able to support the bill because I think whilst it creates a lot of doubt and I'll get into that in a minute it also does make an effort to deal with what I think is one of the most challenging things we've got going on today. I just want to give a bit of an example of that because we've had one or two relatively contentious bills through the select committee in recent times in this House and it really intrigues me what technology the internet and Facebook's actually done to the way people submit on bills in this House. I think we're going to have to be very careful in the future how we manage that process and this bill touches on exactly that point because the publicity and the public exposure you get through instant streaming of select committee processes of submissions and submissions that are made in good faith often and the negative comment and the comment that comes almost instantly as a result of those submissions right in front of our faces and in front of the submitters' faces actually I think is intimidating people in a manner that I think is completely unacceptable. I think if we don't manage that process—and it's very relevant to this bill—in the future we're going to have people who refuse to submit to this House simply because they don't like the unfortunate attack I guess that takes place—they see it as an attack—on them. And we've got to remember that people who submit to this House are not—we put ourselves out there and expect to get a degree of criticism. I don't think people who come here to submit on things—they come here to submit here in good faith—necessarily expect to get criticised. So I think that's going to be a great challenge for us in the future or for this House in the future as technology makes things that used to take a long while to assimilate through and to get through to a point—it's instant now and so people are instantly getting criticised or getting attacked for things they believe in rightly or wrongly. I think it's at times toxic and highly unpleasant. So I think that we're going to have to manage that process as well as we go through this bill.So this bill—of course one of the things that intrigued me was the Chief Censor who I briefly referred to earlier because the censor has been around as long as I have. I remember in the early days of my life the contentious issue of what the censor cut out of those movies you were talking about Mr Speaker before we got to see them. But now of course the Chief Censor's job's much more complicated and this bill again includes him. But I was really intrigued by the fact that he argued that—and I'll quote him—We need to embed in such a potentially powerful tool fundamental protections around human rights and freedom of expression". I think that's the great challenge of this bill. One of the sections that I think is going to raise some doubt in the future is—if you look at section 119C in new Part 7A inserted by clause 9 this reinforces my point because it will be very interesting to see how that is implemented in the future. I think we need to monitor those kinds of things because the worry that the National Party initially had about this bill was the impediment it could have or imposition it could put on freedom of speech and expression. And I think that those particular clauses in this bill or sections in this bill are the critical ones that we'll need to watch closely what happens as it's implemented. I think this topic is a very big topic and needs a lot of discussion going forward. So this bill will be a bit of a test for it in some ways. I think it's been said already that the bill is not necessarily perfect. It's very hard to make it perfect. But I do think it's one of the real challenges that this Parliament will face in the next few years: how we manage this massive rush and the huge advancement in technology almost on a daily basis that enables things that we never would have dreamt of happening a year or two ago suddenly to happen. And so that's one of the things I think is going to be really challenging for the bill. The other thing that I think is challenging in the implementation of this bill will be how you judge what's right and wrong—and I know the Minister said that there was some pretty clear definition around some of that but there's always going to be grey areas around what the bill intends to be right and wrong and what actually is judged to be right and wrong and there's going to be some personalities come into that as well. So that's a challenge for the bill as it goes forward as well. I think that the select committee has done a pretty good job of this bill given as I said that not everyone in the House agreed with it when it started. So I'm pretty confident that going forward it will turn out to be OK. I didn't have the benefit of sitting on the select committee until as I said its deliberation and as it's reported back. It sort of becomes very clear when you read the bill what a minefield it potentially is. So I think the committee has done a really good job of it. I think we'll wait and see what the outcome long term of that is but none the less I think it's a pretty good effort and I've got no problem in commending it to the House and I look forward to the discussion in the committee stage of the bill. It's interesting that the Minister responsible for this bill is responsible for another bill that's before the same select committee at the moment. I notice a fair few of the select committee got changed before the next bill got to us but it's equally as contentious as this one could have been I've got to say. That's the one I was really referring to earlier when I talked about the divisive nature of some of the comments that are made as a result of what comes into these bills. So I commend the bill to the House."