Faafoi Kris: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1882. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): We quite often say it is a pleasure to take calls in this House on pieces of legislation but it is not in this case because I think anyone who has spoken on this bill would prefer that they did not have to. However it is a necessary piece of legislation given the kinds of times we live in and given the access to content that we have now by people of all motivations. As the previous speaker said this piece of legislation has widespread support from around the House. Up until recently I thought it had unanimous support from around the House. But obviously New Zealand First has the right to have its objections to the bill and it will have the Committee stage to make any amendments that it sees fit.Can I deal with some of the practicalities of this bill before I talk at another level. I think we are seeing piecemeal legislation coming from the Government in terms of dealing with online content how we police it how we monitor it and how we control it. The technological changes are happening at such a fast rate but it is quite clear that our legislation at the moment is not fit for purpose. I will come back to that in my very short contribution. The increase in sentence from 10 years’ imprisonment to 14 years for the possession import and export and supply and distribution of objectionable material is something we obviously have supported. I do note there was some objection at the select committee from both the Law Society and the Legislation Advisory Committee to the assumption of imprisonment for second and third offences. Despite their reservations—and I think we may have had some sympathy with some but not all of their submissions—we will continue to support this legislation because of the nature of some of the material that we are talking about here. For second and third offences the judges will have discretion as to whether or not they use their discretion to put people away behind bars.I think Alfred Ngaro also referred to clause 5. I guess this is a classic clause as to where the material facts might be different for someone if they actually have possession of a tape—VHS in the old days or a DVD these days—and view the material whereas someone online views it but does not have possession. They have essentially committed the same crime. They have viewed it and have possession of the content. But under the old law the person who has simply watched it online and does not download it or copy it would not have been held accountable for an offence. I think clause 5 makes sure we are moving with the times. If you intentionally watch some content online that you should not be watching under this law you are captured—you commit the offence.I also acknowledge the submission of Vodafone New Zealand. It was concerned that the bill in its primary form said that if you were in possession of the material you would be committing an offence. I spent 2 or 3 days with Vodafone. I am not a techie but basically if someone searches for something on the internet on Vodafone’s network and that content is overseas Vodafone holds that content here in New Zealand. It saves the money from getting the content from overseas. So technically if someone on Vodafone’s network had searched for the objectionable material Vodafone would hold it inside their server here in New Zealand. That would technically mean it was contravening the law as it stood. I think it is wise and clever that we have made some amendment to the bill to make sure the likes of Vodafone Spark and any other internet service providers are not found guilty of possessing this material if someone on their network is going out and getting it. It is the person who is actually in possession of it has downloaded it or viewed it who is the one who is going to be held accountable.This is necessary legislation but I think the Government needs to think in broader terms about how it deals with the deluge of content that New Zealanders are soon going to get their hands on when this ultra-fast broadband system comes online. Basically households around New Zealand are going to get their hands on much more content and we need to make sure that there are penalties for people that are uniform right across the spectrum for any offences they commit. So far we have got this piecemeal approach which I do not think has been working and that I think is something that New Zealand First has brought up.