Curran Clare: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 02 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Well there is no doubt that the material that this legislation addresses is certainly objectionable and that there do need to be strong measures in place to deal with the perpetrators. Therefore Labour is supporting this legislation.I will make a broad comment in my comments in the final reading of these bills though and that is to echo the comments that Labour members have made right throughout the discussion on this legislation that the amendments to five pieces of legislation have a broader effect than simply on objectionable material as it relates to children. What we are doing today is a talking about a measure in the legislation that increases penalties and is trying to bring other legislation into line with the online environment but its impact goes wider. But this legislation does not—and this is I guess our main problem with it—fit into an overall strategy for dealing with objectionable material generally; that is child exploitation cyber-bullying and abuse particularly online which is affecting and also perpetrated by children. So there are a whole lot of wider issues within which this particular piece of legislation sits but the legislation does not fit within a strategy because there is no overarching strategy.I think that is our plea—that is our plea. A strategy includes legislation—we have another bill before the House called the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which Labour has significant problems with because the discrepancies that lie within it between the online and physical environments are such that we think it needs substantial amendment before it can get our support. A wider strategy also has to include education measures and awareness-raising—education measures that are wide throughout the community and that actually give some certainty and reassurance to the community generally that the Government is trying to address behaviours that can down the track lead to worse outcomes where we end up with people who are being prosecuted for these sorts of crimes. Why is this not fitting within a wider strategy? That is my question to this Government and to the Minister Amy Adams. Why is she as the Minister of Justice not working with the Minister of Education and the Minister for Social Development etc. in a cluster group to look at a wider strategy for behaviours that lead to harmful behaviours online and to do with child abuse and measures that particularly have an impact on children?The other part of the wider strategy that is needed is for these measures to be proportional in the online environment with the physical environment. By “proportional” I certainly do not mean exactly the same; I mean proportional—really proportional—and consistent across the different issues. I am going to address that in a minute when I talk about the penalties imposed in this legislation and also about the impact on age in this legislation. We do not think there is consistency and we think there are a whole lot of questions that arise around this.The final thing around strategy is that we should not be out of step with other jurisdictions—other countries with which we closely identify. I do not think that this particular legislation has major issues with that but the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which is another bill on the Order Paper that is coming back to the House certainly does. Therefore with all of these pieces of legislation there needs to be a wider look at how they fit within a wider strategy.I just want to turn to the penalties and the discrepancies that Labour members and I think other members have pointed out during the discussion on this legislation. There are two reasons for this—the first is the actual increase in penalties. There are two particular penalties that have been increased substantially in this legislation. One is for the possession of an objectionable publication where the penalty has gone from 5 years’ imprisonment and has doubled so it is now at 10 years. The second is the penalty for the making of an objectionable publication which is a worse crime. That has gone from 10 years to 14 years which is a significant penalty. These are objectionable publications penalties. I am not going to comment on the actual penalty but what I do want to do is draw a parallel with physical offences.In the physical environment sexual connection with a young person under 16 and an indecent act on a child under 12 carries a penalty of 10 years and sexual connection with a child under 12 carries a penalty of 14 years. So juxtapose that with the making of an objectionable publication and the actual sexual connection with a child under 12—both penalties are at 14 years. I believe that we are going to be hearing from the judiciary from the Law Society and from the general justice sector around the proportionality. There is a proportionality issue here and I think that needs to be noted in this reading.Also with regard to penalties it was pointed out by several submitters plus in the regulatory impact statement that increasing penalties for objectionable publication offences risks distorting relativities with physical offences which is what I have just said and that the effect of increasing the maximum penalty is difficult to predict. So although judges will view an increase in penalty as a signal from Parliament that this type of offending is considered serious the maximum penalty for the offence is only one of many factors that a sentencing judge considers and there is no evidence—there is no real evidence—that increasing these penalties is actually going to have the impact. This goes to my point about the wider strategy and the education awareness—dealing with the behaviours that lead to these sorts of crimes—which is where we should be turning our attention.I just want to quickly touch on the age issue. My colleague Jacinda Ardern actually raised this several times during the Committee stage. New section 132B inserted by clause 7 in Part 1 of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill before it was divided by the Committee is where it states the exceptions to offenders being sentenced. One of the exceptions in particular circumstances is if the offender is under 20 so there is room there for an exception for being under 20. This is an exception. We do not have an issue with that. What we do raise the question about is where the age of 20 came from. Why is it under 20?Then new section 124A(1) in clause 13 of the bill before it was divided states that a person over the age of 16 years is liable to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years if he or she intentionally exposes a person under the age of 16. Jacinda Ardern went and looked at the Crimes Act and questioned why it was 16 because the Crimes Act talks about 17 as being the differentiating age. The other discrepancy in here is that when you look at the Harmful Digital Communications Bill the criminalisation level is at 14 so you can actually be hauled up before a judge and can end up in jail for up to 2 years from 14 onwards. So the point is that there is a discrepancy between the ages here. What is the logic? There does not appear to be a great deal of logic and I am sure we are going to be having further debate on this.Overall this bill is meant to address some legislative gaps—some significant legislative gaps. We think that by and large it goes to address those gaps but we do have some bigger questions about this legislation. I hope that those questions are listened to that they are being taken seriously and that the Government will start to look at a wider strategy around this whole area of abuse and the impact on children.