Huo Raymond: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionHuo Raymond: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15104. Text is subject to correction.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a call to support the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. The main purpose of this bill is to increase the penalties for producing trading or possessing child pornography by amending three pieces of legislation: the Crimes Act 1961 the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 and the Customs and Excise Act 1996.The bill introduces new measures to achieve the key purpose and improve the legislation in respect of objectionable publications and indecency. As outlined in the speech of my colleague Mr Andrew Little the bill includes the new measures of increasing the maximum penalty for possession import or export of an objectionable publication from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment and increasing the maximum penalty for distributing or making an objectionable publication from 10 years’ to 14 years’ imprisonment.The new measures include creating a presumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders. So any person convicted of a child sexual exploitation offence for a second time will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.What is worth noting is that the bill’s amendments to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 make it clear that the possession of objectionable material includes intentionally viewing electronic material without consciouslydownloading or saving it. So intentional viewing without downloading or saving amounts to possession as far as the law is concerned.Times have changed and we are living in a very different world now thanks to modern technology and the lifestyle that is closely related to it. The creation of the new offence of indecent communication with a person under 16 is intended to reflect the ways in which offenders can use social networking sites online chat programmes and communication tools such as text messaging in order to communicate with children with abusive intentions. In Victoria Australia a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year called for the introduction of a “sexting” offence. However it also called for a new defence for child pornography offences to ensure that “sexting” teens are not treated like paedophiles.Times have changed. I recall that it was in 2002 also in Victoria Australia that the High Court of Australia delivered the most influential and probably the most controversial judgment involving the internet. TheDow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick case has so far remained the leading authority in defamation case law involving the internet and has led to significant legislative changes in the common law jurisdiction in respect of forum competence jurisdictional limitation period and single publication rule.The UK for example earlier this year passed the Defamation Act 2013 and codified common law in the area of single publication rules. Earlier this year Twitter was sued in Australia for defamation. But the role Twitter played was only as an intermediary providing a platform for relevant parties. That issue aside the case involves a question as to whether a disclaimer published by Twitter would provide a certain kind of legal immunity for Twitter.I go back to the bill. Social media has become a very important part of our lives. Our Crimes Act and other legislation in the area of torts banking law company law etc. will need to be updated to address new media or practices or norms that are novel to us. This bill is heading towards that direction.Child pornography offenders have particular characteristics that set them apart from other offenders. Legislation therefore needs to be developed that addresses these characteristics. The recent Roast Busters incident exposes holes in our justice system. We need to have a robust regime to protect children from sexual exploitation. This bill needs to work in conjunction with the Harmful Digital Communications Bill so that we will have clear and consistent internet legislation.Labour supports this bill because it has a significant purpose: to try to stop the threat and use of indecent material and child pornography which is a worthy cause. But National needs to develop a coherent justice strategy not just come up with legislation on a limb to solve issues as they arise. Thank you.