Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the second reading of the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I have had the pleasure of hearing from the four submitters and I just want to make the following points.But firstly I just want to begin by saying that members' bills are really important in our democracy and that the prioritisation of the issues that we bring to this Parliament is based on our constituency work our passions and our commitment to resolving certain issues. These are not Government bills and they are also not executive bills. They are backbench bills and so you know the opportunity that we have to make legislative reform I think is incredibly important and I do want to congratulate Chris Bishop because sometimes bills are about one person one incident or in this case one book but they are incredibly valid and I think do merit this House's time.So in looking at this piece of legislation we really have to understand the Office of Film and Literature Classification and its role within our society. It is an independent Crown entity and it is responsible for the classification of publication in films videos DVDs Blu-rays computer games photos pictures books magazines newspapers letters apparel and computer files. What it is interested in in terms of those publications is matters that deal with such things as sex horror crime cruelty and violence. So the office in determining a classification has to balance a publication's capacity to injure the public—so in the public good—versus balancing a right to freedom of expression which is guaranteed to every citizen of our country in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.So it is really interesting to look at what the definition of public good" is. A "public good" is "A commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society either by the government or by a private individual or organization." So the benefit or well-being of the public is paramount versus freedom of expression which is the "Right to express one's ideas and opinions freely …"—but there is a caveat—"without causing harm to others' character and/or reputation by false or misleading statements."I read that to you because I do have the commentary from the Deputy Chief Censor of Film and Literature from the group that initially classified Ted Dawe's Into the River. He said: "The book deals with some stronger content. There are sexual relationships between teenagers encounters with possible child sexual exploitation the use of illegal drugs and other criminal activities violent assault and a moderate level of highly offensive language. These are well contextualised within an exciting fast moving narrative that has as its protagonist a young teenage Maori boy from a rural community who is finding his way through the strange uncomfortable environment of a boys' boarding school and unfamiliar social mores. The story captures the raw and real extremes of adolescence in teenage boys along with their yearnings and obsessions. The book is notable for being one of the first in New Zealand which specifically targets teenage boys and younger men—a genre that does not have great representation. The genre character is therefore significant. The content immerses the reader in action wit and intrigue as well as a level of social realism all likely to engage teen and young adult readers and with particular appeal for older boys and young men."So it was that that led to the initial classification of Into the River as M which placed unrestricted access on this book. What then happened was Family First applied for the book to be restricted because it contained sex scenes offensive language drug use—everything I have just read out. So what the Office of Film and Literature Classification then did was to classify the book as an R14. As my colleague Tracey Martin talked about earlier it was because of demand from Auckland libraries which went back to the Office of Film and Literature Classification and said they wanted the book reclassified as unrestricted which happened. So it was a bit of a ping-pong thing.Then what happened was that Family First went back and challenged the unrestricted classification but what it also did in that process was highlight section 49 which gives the book an interim restriction order and at the moment—which is what this bill is trying to change—the interim restriction order that was then granted by the president of the board of review to all intents and purposes banned the book because this book was treated as being objectionable.So then we should look at what the definition of "objectionable" is. "Objectionable" as defined in the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act of 1993 means it is a publication that "describes depicts or expresses or otherwise deals with matters such as sex horror crime cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good." All objectionable material is banned. So what this bill is seeking to do for books or other publications that are in this particular scenario is to not have them ruled objectionable and therefore banned but to actually have a restriction placed on them that limits who has access to the publication.So do I think this is a valid piece of legislation? Absolutely I do because at the moment I think that form of censorship actually does and could encourage people in our society who have got a particular moral perspective shall we say to do this not only to this book but maybe other books to come that just have not been written yet. As was highlighted not many people do engage in writing books for young teenage boys or for young people at all.I am really happy to have been on the Justice and Electoral Committee which has been through a process of calling for public submissions having those public submissions working with our officials and producing a piece of legislation that I think is going to benefit this area. It is also going to benefit the public so that we can actually have discussions and debates about real things which is what this book is all about.I do want to highlight that this book did win the 2013 New Zealand Post Book Award for the fiction category for children and young adults but it was also the Margaret Mahy Book of the Year. The reason it was picked for the book of the year was that it was about a young Māori boy from the East Coast who then went to an elite Auckland boarding school so it dealt with issues of racism of identity and of someone having to walk in two worlds. It was given the award because it was real and true and I actually think we need to honour that.We should not be afraid of real and true stories which is what this book is. I think that if people can use legislation to ban these real and true stories then we have a problem because actually we are a free and open society. We do not want to give people the power and tools to restrict and limit the real and true stories in our society especially if they are targeted at certain groups—particularly young men or young people—which I believe will assist them in dealing with and addressing some of the issues that they have.We have got big issues as we all know with youth suicide in our community and that is because young people for whatever reason can end up being isolated and hopeless and having no one whom they can talk to. I think it is through books like this actually that they can share their experiences and they do know that they are not alone because other people have experienced what they have. So I hope then in passing this bill it also encourages Ted to write some other books and also encourages other New Zealand authors to delve into issues such as are depicted in this book which will hopefully provide a resource and a sense of resilience for our young people. Kia ora."