O'Connor Greg; Kanongata'a AnahilaCRIMES (CHILD EXPLOITATION OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 19 October.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Paul Goldsmith has six minutes and 13 seconds remaining to speak—OK Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It's an honour and a privilege to stand here to make a contribution on the second reading of the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. I'd like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill Ginny Andersen. She also chairs the Justice Committee and I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee that has brought this bill to the House for the second reading. I'd like to acknowledge the work of the officials—the Ministry of Justice the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Office—for their contribution also. I'd like to acknowledge the 25 submissions that the select committee received and the select committee heard from six of them.Although I was not in the select committee in reading the information I am confident that the voices of those submitters are reflected in the report of the select committee. So the Labour Party supports this bill and it will help protect all New Zealand children from harm. This is especially important—especially with the online platforms' increasing use amongst our young people. With this opportunity also comes the increased use of the opportunity of harm from others. So as I said before Labour supports this bill and we are committed to protecting children from harm. The Prime Minister refers to New Zealand being the best place to be a child and that includes every sector of our lives and this is definitely one which is really important. As shared by the sponsor Ginny Andersen in her first speech she spoke about the surveys that have been conducted. One survey conducted in partnership with NetSafe and the Ministry for Women on the experiences of teenagers with online risk found that seven in 10 teens surveyed had experienced at least one type of unwanted digital communication in the past. Also it found that nearly 19 percent of teens surveyed had experienced unwanted digital communication that had a negative impact on their daily lives—most of which involved being contacted by a stranger by someone they didn't know. So 19 percent of young people surveyed had been asked to share images that should be private. The bill therefore introduced aims to protect all children who are at risk from harm of exploitation through digital communications.Following the select committee process the Justice Committee had decided that any new offences should cover digital harm as well as any other type of communication or conduct with a young person that leads to harmful prohibited behaviour. I refer to the experience in Blenheim where there was a teacher who had admitted to sexually abusing two schoolboys and was convicted in the Blenheim District Court for two years and six months in jail for offending. Because there were no offences that covered her grooming the teenage boys and communicating digitally and providing harm those charges were never laid—because there were no offences at that time. So what this bill does is that it actually makes it an offence to communicate digitally with young people. In the select committee as I will cover in my speech they talked about the inclusion of in-person grooming behaviours. We like to think that we live in a nice safe country here in Aotearoa and we like to think that we trust those who are teachers—or in a case in Whanganui there was a dance tutor who also had sexually abused young girls and was never charged for grooming. So what this bill does is it actually recognises that those harmful behaviours exist and the select committee has diligently covered all those points. In reading some of the submissions from the submitters like I've said before the submitters support this bill. They support this bill and they acknowledge too the ever-increasing threat of online harm. One submission spoke about the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children overseas which records data about referrals from agencies regarding online abuse—a huge huge number of abuse that has doubled since 2019. Actually the numbers are huge. In 2021 it was 9971. And it is ever increasing. I've mentioned the case in Blenheim where the teacher was first convicted and charged and the dance teacher in Whanganui who also was not charged for grooming but was convicted of other charges—and the reasons for that—and as I said before this bill would make it an offence. And I will go to the notes from the select committee where the select committee recommended replacing clause 4 of the bill with the committee's proposed clause 4 to insert a new section section 131AB into the Act. This section would make it an offence for someone over the age of 18 to communicate by words or have conduct with a person under the age of 16. So the Justice Committee recommended unanimously that the bill be passed and they recommended all amendments unanimously replacing two offences with a single offence and including in-person grooming behaviours. As introduced the bill focuses on digital harm. The committee heard from a number of submitters as I have said who define grooming behaviour as broad strategies to facilitate sexual contact which happens both online and in person. The committee believed that any new offences should cover digital harm as well as any other type of communication or conduct with a young person that leads to harm or prohibited behaviour. A sexual grooming offence should align with existing offences in the Crimes Act. The bill as introduced proposes that section 126A and 126B offences would be inserted in Part 7 of the Act under Crimes against morality and decency". As I've said before the committee had considered in depth that these proposed offences should be replaced with an offence that closely aligns with existing section 131B of the Crimes Act under "Sexual crimes". Just a reminder: section 131B is a sexual grooming offence that requires the groomer to meet or attempt to meet the young person. The new offence will similarly capture grooming for sexual conduct but would not require the groomer to meet the young person. So as I've said before the proposed new offence is in section 131AB and the committee found that much of the behaviour the bill intends to capture would be covered under existing legislation.I would like to move on to the convictions. A person convicted of an offence under the proposed clause 131AB would be liable to up to three years' imprisonment. So this would align with penalties for similar existing offences in the Crimes Act and Harmful Digital Communications Act—also deleting the proposed increased penalty under section 131B. As I conclude I want to acknowledge all the victims—young children and young people in New Zealand—who have suffered through trusting adults or communicating with adults or people older than them. In my experiences working as a social worker and as a manager at Oranga Tamariki I know that these harms continue on through generations and I want to acknowledge Ginny Andersen's attempt to make grooming an offence. I want to commend her on that. And again my thoughts are with those who have experienced harm through no fault of their own and I commend that they seek help. It is never too late to seek help—even in adulthood. And on that note I commend this bill to the House. Mālō."