Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18625] 
Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is pleasing to lead the debate for National on this very important legislation. We have supported it through the first and second readings. We will be supporting it through the Committee stage although during this stage we do have some concerns which the Minister in the chair I hope will be able to clarify and to articulate the Government’s position on for us. There are some areas that we do not think strengthen the bill at all but at the end of the day this legislation does improve the 1993 Act and for that reason we will be supporting it. I know that the ACT member Stephen Franks has an amendment. I have gone through it and looked at the points that he brings forward and I tell that member that National will be supporting his amendment. We will also be supporting the amendments of the Minister in relation to the penalties. When we look at the genesis of this bill we see it goes back many many years to the inquiry that was held on films videos and classifications. During that period a number of submissions were received which form the basis of the bill that we are debating tonight. 
I want to start by looking particularly at the meaning of “objectionable”. One of the points I made during the first and second readings was that what may be objectionable to one person may not be objectionable to somebody else. That will be a matter of choice. But it is very clearly defined in clause 4 what the word “objectionable” relates to. I think it is important that we consider the court cases that have come before us and in particular the Living Word Distributors court case which changed in some respects what the censor could do. The censor believes that with that Court of Appeal decision his job has become extremely difficult. I will in further debates articulate the reasons why that court case has in some respects actually not limited but has expanded the criteria. 
 If we look in the Act under section 3 “Meaning of Objectionable” at what that term actually means we see that it does fall within the scope of subsection (1) where the subject matter or the gateways are matters concerning sex horror crime cruelty and violence. One of the points that has been of concern to the select committee is that the Act talks about “matters such as”. That is where the definition can be expanded and broadened. The phrase “matters such as” does not actually specify everything whereas in earlier interpretations the use of the word “includes” certainly made it quite specific that sex horror crime cruelty and violence were included. There was much debate about that and it is not a new issue. That debate has gone on since way back in 1993 and it has certainly come through here. However we have to realise that this bill aims at effects not at the causes. It is the effect of objectionable material that is the concern. The bill is concerned with the effect be it of nudity language or publications. 
The bill also moves beyond that and in clause 4 tries to include under “a matter such as sex” a visual image of “1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude”. That is an area that Mr Franks’ amendment covers. I do not have his amendment in front of me at the moment but I think that it seeks to clarify clause 4 and to make it very clear. It will be on the definition of “young person”; the bill does not really define what a young person is. In its submissions the Law Society stated that term is not defined and although an appropriate definition of child or children may be readily discerned the phrase “young persons” is already used in the principal Act and it is not stated what the age for a young person is. However it is also in new section 3(1A) inserted by clause 4. The definition of a “young person” is important because of that. Is a young person somebody who is 18 years of age or younger or who is 16 years of age? During the select committee stage in the Government Administration Committee we asked the advisers for their interpretation of a young person. In terms of the intent of the bill specifically under clause 4 the Minister may like to clarify for us his interpretation of the very important term “young persons” because that is crucial to the whole argument. 
Another area that we should be very mindful of is what will happen with regard to the penalties regime. The penalties have been substantially increased and it is crucial that we look to make sure that the penalties reflect the crime. Penalties are covered specifically in clause 27. We need to be able to make the penalties so severe that there is a deterrent there that will stop somebody from infringing the law or from taking advantage of young people. If we look at what the penalties regime does we see that it brings in some quite severe penalties for that particular offence and that is important. I know the Minister will move an amendment to the penalties on his Supplementary Order Paper 326 because offences relating to the possession or importation of objectionable material that involve knowledge of that are areas that we have debated at some length. Those are important factors that we need to take into account. If we look at clause 27 we can see that it relates to the display of objectionable publications to someone under the age of 18 years. Under the new penalties provisions a person is liable for up to 10 years’ imprisonment. 
It is important in the penalties regime to bring it into line with those of other countries. Other jurisdictions around the world have different penalty regimes and we want to make sure that the reasons that we are imposing penalties will be in sync with those regimes. In fact we find that some jurisdictions—namely Canada the United States and some of the Australian jurisdictions—have enacted distinct child pornography offences with correspondingly high penalties. That is something that we discussed during the select committee stage but in our case we felt that rather than have stand-alone provisions we should have a unified censorship regime under which all publications are dealt with by one classification agency under a single set of classification criteria using uniform classification procedures. We felt that we did not have to move in the direction of Canada the United Kingdom and some of the Australian states. Amendments in this bill to the schedules to relevant Acts identify the penalties: the length of time for imprisonment and the fines that are incurred. That strengthens the bill quite deliberately. We know that people who are in possession of objectionable material and who have knowledge of that or who are trading in the business will be caught by that offence and that it is a very serious offence. The legislation allows for that. 
There is also the area of importing and exporting which is covered in clause 24. That is a serious situation. I want to acknowledge as I did in the second reading that the Customs Service is at the forefront in policing it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to advise that this bill which should be able to be supported by every party and every member in this Parliament is a highly objectionable bill—unless the Minister is prepared to use the Committee stage to remove its objectionable parts. The Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff knows that censorship is always a fraught topic. It is very difficult indeed to find a balance so that censorship powers cannot be misused by an establishment or by one group getting its hands on the levers of power to suppress the opinions of others. 
In this case we are amending an Act that everyone knows will always be problematic. We are amending an Act that the Court of Appeal interpreted—to tell the censor on three separate occasions that he was going too far in the direction of suppressing free speech and doing it for purposes not related to the purposes the community through Parliament had seen as requiring the intervention of the law. Those purposes would be pretty commonly agreed—horror torture exploitation of children and the kinds of things that a general consensus says represent objectionable material. In this bill hiding under the guise of being something to deal with child pornography we have the censor coming back and wanting to reverse— 
John Tamihere 
: What do you know about it? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Chairman I ask whether you could comment on that. I believe that the member had absolutely no foundation for making such a comment. I know of no reason. It is the sort of thing for which there should be an immediate request for the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear what the member said but if objection has been taken I ask the member to withdraw. 
John Tamihere 
: I withdraw.