Alexander Marc: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11465] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to indicate our provisional support for this bill. It is a long time coming. In particular child pornography has been accented in this bill and it is something that we have done very little about for way too long. There is no point going over and rehashing some of the points that have already been made in the valuable contributions from some of the other members. 
I shall talk here a little bit about some of the points in this bill. It expands the concept of distribution and supply. At present people who swap but do not necessarily profit from child porn are difficult to prosecute for trading child porn. Instead they often get the lesser offence of possession. I think this bill will go some way towards opening up that debate and addressing some of those issues. 
Another inconsistency in the past and something this bill will hopefully address more fully will be the distinction between importing and exporting of pornography. Until now it has not been an offence to export objectionable material even though importing was and that to me makes no sense whatsoever. The bill increases maximum penalties and I am happy to see that. We have been waiting for a very long time for this—far too long. The maximum penalty for trading making or distributing will then be 10 years. It is closer to how the public views pornography and child pornography in particular and its impact on people. 
The bill has a new offence—possession with knowledge. If a person possesses objectionable material and knows it he or she is guilty as sin. There is no excuse. That person should receive a harsher sentence than if convicted under the strict liability version of the offence. That is something this bill will look into as well. The court has the power to issue warrants in connection with suspicion of the new “possession with knowledge” offence as well. That is something that has to be looked at and expanded—exactly how that will take place and how it will be effected. 
Also there is the meaning of “objectionable”. The bill will remove doubt about nude or partially nude images of children that can be reasonably considered sexual in nature which fall within the censor’s jurisdiction. It was that particular aspect that got my member’s bill going in the first instance and which I have now pulled because this bill supersedes it and encompasses exactly what some of my initial concerns were. 
Stephen Franks 
: That’s stretching it a little. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well it does and the interesting thing is that we are getting support now from National which is great to see. I have to say that we were given a hard time particularly from New Zealand First for the bill that I had initially proposed. I do not understand why because one of the things I was focusing on was the surreptitious filming of children and the sexualising of children. I know that there was something going on in the background there with David Lane trying basically to squash the right of so-called “mockumentaries” that were deriding the right of homosexuals and so on and that was seen as a reason why surreptitious filming of children could not be barred. I could not quite see the connection there. However I am glad to see that this has now been addressed partially at least in this bill. It is something that I hope will be taken up. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Can I just say to members at the back that back-benchers interjecting on each other in close proximity has an effect on the microphone. It muffles them. It is a longstanding convention that it does not happen. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 57/5. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: There is a need to have a look at the distinction that is made between the privacy provisions and also this bill that ought to encompass the sexualising of children. It is important that that comes under this purview and I hope that during the select committee stage it will be embodied in the bill. 
Offensive language can now be classified to persons of specified age. Previously language by itself was beyond the censor’s jurisdiction. Again that made no sense particularly when one was talking about inflammatory hate-based language. However there are a couple of issues of concern. Why on earth urine and excrement are not considered objectionable in and of themselves and the use of such material in publications will now no longer automatically be objectionable I find to be rather odd; there iscertainly a need of enlightening and I hope that the select committee process will do that. 
The bill itself amends the existing classification criteria so that the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct will not result in a publication being deemed objectionable. Why on earth would that be? That makes no sense to me. The words are right there. Why on earth is the degrading dehumanising aspect and the sexual conduct not deemed sufficient reason to classify something as being objectionable? I question that. 
The other thing is Government indifference. Why has the Government taken so long to beef up penalties for child pornography traders? We get reports weekly from the Department of Internal Affairs on the latest round of convictions yet those perverts get community service or some other “slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket” type of penalty. It is time that we gave them jail and lots of it. We should not ever tolerate child pornography. 
One point one of my colleagues raised was just how much this bill focuses on children. The simple reason for that I guess is that although adults are quite capable of giving their permission to be part of pornography children cannot. We need greater protections for them because they are not of maturity to be able to determine such decisions for themselves. They need to be protected with the fullest sanction of the law to ensure that they are not offended against which is exactly what child pornography is. Child pornography is a form of child abuse and that should be spelt out in this bill a little more clearly as well. However I am hoping that the select committee process will be able to take these considerations in hand and with the opportunity of submissions make the bill stronger. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.