McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Well I have to have a go at saying the name of this bill because everybody else has. I stand to speak on the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill.Hon Member: Well done.NICOLE McKEE: Thank you.At the first reading we had wondered what would this confusingly titled bill actually do. Will it improve online safety? Will it improve the harm? Will it improve the access? And we questioned do we actually need this bill? Don't we already have adequate censorship laws in place? During the first speech ACT's leader David Seymour retold the story of where he was on the 15th of March 2019 at the university down in Christchurch with 500 students locked in a hall with the Speaker of this House watching online what was unfolding and wondering whether it was going to come to them in the university hall. I myself recall actually driving down the road with my daughter and I received a text an urgent message that had a link on it telling me to look at it urgently. Because I was driving I actually gave the phone to my daughter and asked her to click on it and to have a look tell me what was going on. She told me to pull over and when I pulled over and watched some of the mayhem that was unfolding we quickly turned it off. I will never do that again where I ask one of my children to have a look at a link because I had no idea what was going on nor did I suspect it was going to be as horrific as what we actually watched. What I did do though is when I got home at that time I was with the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners and I tried to get that link and link it to an email to ask them if this is true. Is this going on? Is this actually happening? But the link that I attached to the link actually didn't work. It had already been taken down from that platform. I was confused as to whether or not this was actually happening. Was it a scam? Was it in New Zealand? What was actually going on at that time? I wonder whether there's anything that we could have done in retrospect on that day in an official capacity. Could we have stopped it any sooner than what had already been done?Well the Government thought we could do more and they came up with what ACT initially thought was a communist bill. We had grave concerns about the filter. The filter would have allowed the Government to censor what you watch. So we're very grateful to the 163 submitters who expressed their concerns in the select committee Governance and Administration Committee that stated that most submitters were against the filter. It seemed to me that the reason why was because the Government was unable to actually tell them what the filter was going to look like how it was going to work and what it was going to restrict. With that lack of detail we are of course going to get a large number of submitters wanting to know more precisely what they would be restricted in watching. The main proposal of course included a filter for objectionable online content. Again without the detail on what this filter would look like and how it would work it left submitters and the Opposition concerned as to how far this filter could eventually be used. So I'm really glad that the select committee listened to their submitters.Maybe all select committees should be led by Opposition members Ms Barbara Kuriger. We tend to work well when we have Opposition-led select committee chairs. So I'd like to commend that select committee for most of the improvements that they've made and I'd like to acknowledge the Minister as well for listening to the voices of the people and making those changes especially in regard to the filter and the fact that you deleted every reference to filters. Part 7A actually now only refers to the take-down orders. But again we've got to ask: why is this needed? Our legislation cannot be flexed internationally. Wasn't the Christchurch Call meant to fix this? So has that failed?The submitters raised concerns. They raised concerns about freedom of expression being impacted. They wanted to make their own minds up on what it is that they will access. They don't want to be dictated to by the State as to what they can watch and what they can't what they can share and if they'll get prosecuted for sharing posts. I note recently that a friend of mine shot a good-sized stag and he placed an image of it on Stalk book". It was covered because it could cause offence. But this is the way of life for many people and for many people when they look at what looks gruesome to them they have concerns that actually this is just the way that they live. So while it's gruesome for others it's a way of life for many. We wonder whether that could become objectionable in the future.In a democratic society we should be able to express our views with freedom. We should be able to share content and have it taken down later if it's deemed objectionable. I mean Facebook do it all the time. What ACT does have concerns about is a new offence in section 132C(1) which is sharing objectionable livestreamed material when it's not necessarily been made objectionable yet. We see this as just going after innocent people. It was actually noted by the select committee that the intent can be difficult to determine and it gave examples of where it would be OK to share certain types of objectionable material. It was warning people that a judgment needs to be made on background factors. Well it seems a bit to me like "You know it when you see it." It's not needed. It will potentially capture youth and the unsuspecting internet users. I am witnessing a few laws which are going through where the police or our judiciary are the ones that are being left to interpret what we mean because our laws are becoming so unclear probably because they're unnecessary.ACT understands the inherent need to keep our society safe and we also feel that this is important. What we don't support is unnecessary laws that will potentially criminalise everyday people going about their everyday activities posting unsuspecting objectionable material and being prosecuted for it before it's been made objectionable just because they shared it. ACT cannot support this bill while it seeks to criminalise potentially innocent people restricting our ability to decide for ourselves what we should not be watching and the laws that we already have that make that determination. So in that respect ACT cannot support this bill in the second reading."