See how Minister of Internal Affairs – Hon Rick Barker – defends Objectionable and Obscene Filth.
Saturday, 08 April 2006
See from the Hansard Record how the Minister of Internal Affairs – Hon Rick Barker – defends Objectionable and Obscene Moral Filth that degrades and dehumanises women………. OFLC Reports of sexually explicit R18 DVDs and Videos cleared by Chief Censor, Bill Hastings, tabled in House by Peter Brown MP, Deputy Leader of NZ First Party…….. See how Minister tries to excuse his failure to fulfil his statutory duty with respect to eight Film and Literature Board of Review positions that expired 22 months ago.
IN THE HOUSE………
FINANCIAL REVIEW DEBATE
Tuesday, 4 April 2006
http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Hansard.aspx
Department of Internal Affairs
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It with some regret that I rise to speak on this because I would dearly love to get involved in transport issues. I read the financial review of the Department of Internal Affairs—the report by the Government Administration Committee—and I recognise that some good points were made about the department. I will put them on the Hansard record: “For the 2004/05 financial year, the Office of the Auditor-General issued an unqualified audit opinion on the financial statements of the department. For 2004/05 the department received an ‘excellent’ rating for its financial control systems and its financial management control environment.” That is high praise, indeed. The report goes on to explain—and I welcome this because not many people understand it—why a passport has increased in cost from $71 to $150. A reasonable explanation is given in this report.
What concerns me is an issue that the Government Administration Committee did not pick up and that the Minister—and, I have to say, the Minister before him—failed to address: the reappointment of the Film and Literature Board of Review. Currently, eight of the nine members are out of time, not only by a day or a month but by nearly 2 years. That is more than an oversight—that is a reflection on the competence or the genuineness of the Minister and the ministry. I say to the Minister that this issue should have been addressed months ago.
What this country needs—because it is a very important board, which does not get into the limelight—is a board made up of decent, law-abiding, stable people who understand the ill effects on young people or on those with impressionable minds who get access to what I would call “garbage” movies. I understand that a number of people have put their names forward to the Minister and the ministry to serve on this board, and not one of them—if my current information is correct—has received a personal acknowledgment. The Minister is on record as saying that members will be appointed by April, but judging by the way these boards have been appointed in the past, he does not have a dog’s show. In previous times the ministry has sent out quite a comprehensive document to those who are interested or who have put their names forward to serve on this board. But, thus far, the current applicants have received nothing—not a single word, acknowledgment, or indication that they may or may not be considered.
The Minister might ask why this is so important. Well, we were told in the media only this morning, or maybe yesterday morning, that the rate of violence in this country is up. We were told by the Minister of Police this afternoon that the rate of violence has gone up principally because of domestic violence in this country. In my hand I have a number of censors’ reports on DVDs and VHSs that are readily available to people over the age of 18. I have not read these reports; they are sickening. I have glanced through some areas, and, without exception, they portray incidents and events that dehumanise and degrade women, and revolting scenarios. They are absolutely revolting. And these are getting past the censor. Frankly, the members of the Film and Literature Board of Review know that their time is up, and they are not showing the right amount of initiative. I seek leave to table a dozen or so censors’ reports on these DVDs and VHSs that have been released and that people over the age of 18 can get.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I think the points raised by Peter Brown require a response. Mr Brown correctly said that the appointment of the Film and Literature Board of Review was overdue, and I accept that. It has not been because of oversight or slovenly action; a sequence of events has brought this about.
Firstly, a review of the legislation was considered by Parliament in 2005. Whilst that Parliament was considering that legislation, the then Minister of Internal Affairs felt it was inappropriate to change the board at that time. Once the legislation had been through, we were then within the shadow of the 2005 election, and the Minister—quite correctly, I believe—said that because the election was so imminent, it would be inappropriate for him to appoint the incoming board. So we held it off until after the election. After the election there was a process of consultation, and things were held up by the Christmas break, but the process is almost complete. I did say to Mr Brown that we hope to have the matter concluded by April, and I am still hopeful of that.
The issue here is about what is objectionable and what is not. I say to Mr Brown, who has been to see me on this issue, that I accept the passion of his advocacy on these issues. I do not doubt for one moment his sincerity, whatsoever. But the point I have made to the member on a couple of occasions is that, despite the fact I am the Minister responsible for the portfolio, I do not consider myself particularly expert in making these decisions. I want to consider that we have a process that is robust, but I have also to accept my personal limitations.
There is a range of factors here. First, let us accept that the standards of what are acceptable and objectionable today differ from those when I was growing up in the 1960s. Things have moved on, and they will continue to move on. Second, when one is making judgments about things, one’s relative age comes into it. It has always been accepted that young people have a love of the new and that old people have a fear of the new. So there is tension in society between the attitude of the younger generation and that of the older generation. I can see this when I go to films with my daughter. Some of the films I do not particularly like, but she says to me: “Don’t be silly, that was just make-believe. Don’t be daft about these things.” I feel a bit uncomfortable about this, so I have to accept the limitations of my perspective on life because of the situation I am in.
We have to find the best people that we think we can. But, more important, we have to have a robust process and make sure it is well founded. I have been through the Office of Film and Literature Classification carefully and I have spoken to all the staff. I have found that one of the processes they use is to invite members of the public to come and review a film before it is given a classification. The censor then sets out what issues are to be considered and invites the public to make its determination on what classification the film should have. I think this is a very interesting process, and is one I was unaware of before. I have said to the board that I want to go along and observe indirectly for myself—I have offered Mr Peter Brown the same opportunity, and I would offer other members of the House the opportunity to go too—because I think it is important to try to figure out whether this process has got it right, and just to be convinced that there is a process.
I cannot allow my own personal views to cloud what others see, because the other fundamental point we need to make here is that we are in a democracy. One of the fundamental tenets of a democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is wrong for us to curtail other people’s rights and freedom of speech and their freedom to see what they choose to see—but, of course, there are exceptions. The exceptions are when the film is about exploitation, degradation, humiliation, and all of those things. We have to set a line at which point we say we will not go across, but we have to be very careful, I say to Mr Brown, when we set that line because, if we allow the line to be moved vicariously and at the will of an individual, we will then cut away from people their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We should always defend those rights, because it is absolutely fundamental to a democracy that people have freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
I make the other point to Mr Brown that I think he should congratulate the Department of Internal Affairs on the excellent work it has been doing on catching people who are forwarding objectionable material on the Internet.
Report noted.
Leave a Reply