Franks Stephen: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18650] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I appreciate that this is a small part and I appreciate that the call has probably been given in the spirit of the rulings of Chairpersons that where a genuine debate is occurring it be facilitated. But I did not get an answer from the Minister’s fulminating as to what kind of “objectionable” was intended in clause 43. The little schedule in clause 43 talks about making or supplying objectionable publications exhibiting to persons under 18 distributing in public places and having possession of objectionable publications but it does not do what the other parts of the part do and specifically say that the “objectionable” for that purpose is the “objectionable” that is completely prohibited. In other words it appears that this offence can be created when it has been deemed objectionable in the hands of say 9-year-olds or whatever the age restriction is that the censor is free to apply. 
It is therefore appropriate to ask whether that was intended or whether that was oversight. It is similar in relation to the two schedules that are to be inserted in the Summary Proceedings Act both of which refer simply to “objectionable”. It appears that following the amendments that have been approved in Part 1 the reference “objectionable” can include the Living Word video. It can include anything the censor decides makes some young persons feel bad about themselves. Well a lot of education makes people feel bad about themselves. It might be a video for example about fat people. It might be a video that the censor decides could promote anorexia because it is talking about overeating. There is nothing in the words that Mr Goff is promoting that protects us from any group of hypersensitive people coming along. It might be the Prostitutes Collective which does not like a hard-hitting advertisement against child prostitution. The Minister the Hon Phil Goff is doing nothing else to stop child prostitution. This Minister passes law gaily. This Minister raises the age of deemed childhood to 18 and meanwhile ensures that the police do not even have the power to ask the age of child prostitutes on the street. 
This Minister can foam. He can get his doormat allies in United Future to make great claims about ACT wanting to promote injury to children. We are simply asking that the existing law which already bans child pornography be properly confined as the Court of Appeal said to those kinds of offences and not misused to advance the agenda of the ruling cabal in the Labour Party. It should not be used to bring in what is effectively a hate-speech power in the hands of the censor before even the Law Commission has looked at it. 
The Minister tried to deflect attention when the Government Administration Committee first came back with its hopeless report. The Minister said no no he would send it off to the Law and Order Committee and that we should not do anything. In the meantime the censor has everything he asked for and the Minister has not taken the opportunity to look at the words of this bill. He has simply confined himself to what he would call rebuttal—by way of personal abuse—and false claims about what the ACT party stands for. 
We do not get votes by standing up for principle. We do not get votes here by standing up against the wave of emotion about doing something that looks tough on child pornography. We are doing this because this Parliament should not be passing bills that can be misused by a cabal that has already shown itself very happy to misuse its powers. This part appears from what I can understand to require the New Zealand Government to jump to the orders of overseas countries that call on it for assistance. Is that not what the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act requires? Well I ask the Minister what kind of “objectionable” allows overseas countries to call on us to enforce an offence. It may be that I have misinterpreted but the Minister did not choose to take his opportunity to correct the interpretation. Instead he chose to make a whole series of completely false assertions about what ACT stands for. 
We are standing for the right of parents and for churches of all kinds to teach their children as they see fit without the censor deciding that some things are beyond the pale. That was the purpose of our objection to Part 1 and that is why we are concerned that when that Part 1 interpretation comes into Part 2 it might have a far more sinister effect than we had expected—if indeed a foreign Government can use it.