Ngaro Alfred: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to speak on the second reading of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. I cannot help but make a comment in respect of Mr O’Rourke who was on the Justice and Electoral Committee throughout the process. There were eight written submissions and three oral submissions and throughout that process we had departmental input. We had advisers and throughout that process and not once did I hear some the comments that have been made today in the House. When it comes to the care and welfare of vulnerable children it concerns me that that member who often talks about being tough on crime has said on behalf of New Zealand First that it will not support this bill. He knows—he has been here long enough—that he could put forward a Supplementary Order Paper and try to advocate and lobby for some of the changes he has just talked about. It is shoddy. It is lazy. That is not the sort of behaviour that I think that members of Parliament should engage in.This bill is an important bill. This bill is about protecting young children who are exploited. To know that we have support for it right across the House bar New Zealand First concerns many people and I hope that the constituents of New Zealand First will take notice of that speech and of that member who represents the party. He is just nit-picking. He is not picking up on the important issues.So let us think about what is important in this. This Government saw it was important to address these issues and in December of 2014 over in London along with 48 other countries and international organisations we signed up to a statement of action at the We Protect Children Online summit in London. The aim was to address the issues of child sexual exploitation right across the world. This is an issue not just for New Zealand but internationally and globally. This is an issue that is important to the hearts of many people and to many communities that I am sure Mr O’Rourke will know about.The purpose of this bill is simply stated in the explanatory note as this: “A key purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s post-election action plan to increase penalties for producing trading or possessing child pornography.” That is about as simple as it gets. That is the clear purpose of bill. It goes on: “The Government’s objective is to ensure that sentences for child pornography offences reflect the seriousness of the offending and send a strong message …”—it sends a strong message Mr O’Rourke. We debated this at the select committee and the unanimous view at the select committee was a full recommendation not to change the bill that had come before the select committee.Unlike other jurisdictions New Zealand does not have a distinct child exploitation material offence. The material is the subject of publications that are objectionable under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 so we believe that it is important that the bill is an omnibus bill. It amends three different Acts where we need to effect a change and here is the reason why we think that is absolutely important. The Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for determining what is objectionable and ensuring that all publications are dealt with in a uniform and consistent manner. To that end we know that the submissions that came through helped to address these issues. I want to go through some of the clauses that I think are really important. Out of the eight submissions—and we had three oral submissions—there were three key focus areas that came to our attention.Denis O’Rourke: Tell us why the penalties are so weak.ALFRED NGARO: Maybe Mr O’Rourke was not awake at the time but here it is and I will read them for him: increased penalties possession of electronic publications and presumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders. Let us go through some of those Mr O’Rourke. First increased penalties because that is the issue of contention for New Zealand First. Again I am absolutely surprised at the member’s comments because we had a unanimous view and we were working collegially.Denis O’Rourke: It wasn’t unanimous for New Zealand First.ALFRED NGARO: This is an important bill Mr O’Rourke—an important bill to New Zealanders—so let us talk about some of the offences that were there. The bill increases the maximum penalties for objectionable publication offences as follows. Possession of an objectionable publication—under section 131A of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act the penalty increases from 5 years’ imprisonment which is its current state to a maximum of 10 years. We believe that is fair. That is an increase from 5 years’ imprisonment to 10 years. The import or export of an objectionable publication—clause 10 of the bill amends section 209 of the Customs and Excise Act by increasing the penalty from 5 years to 10 years. We believe that that is important.Here maybe is the contentious part—the supply distribution and making of an objectionable publication. Under section 124 of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act as amended by clause 4 the penalty increases from 10 years’ imprisonment to 14 years. We know that some submitters were concerned about this because of the anomaly that it seems to create when people think about instances of this offence compared with instances of physical abuse. What we drew on along with the officials is that the material that is often being exposed is material that is a physical offence and a sexual offence—and often against children which we know is abhorrent to all New Zealanders and to people all around the world as well. So we believe that increasing the penalties for these offences does send a very strong message as well.I just want to pick up on the point that Mr Clendon made in regard to incarceration and whether it has an impact an effect on rehabilitation. We believe that yes it does. It sends a strong message but the research also shows that that process of incarceration shows what kind of rehabilitation is important. This Government has ensured that we will put in extra resources support and help. I have even been down to see some of those programmes. I went down to Spring Hill Corrections Facility to see Saili Matagi which is a programme to help rehabilitate offenders—not with regard to this offence but other offences. But it is the belief of this Government working with the Department of Corrections that with incarceration and good rehabilitation we do see changes in the behaviour of those who are imprisoned for their offences.I want to pick up on another one of the key points that was picked up. Clause 5 relates to the possession of electronic publications. We know that that was a concern and as was mentioned by Mr Clendon the internet service providers talked about their concern about this. This amendment is for the avoidance of doubt and it was clear about that. We believe that that is really important because there was a loophole that allowed others to view the material but because they had not downloaded the material or saved it on to their hard drives they could find a legitimate way—illegally—of avoiding any form of imprisonment and any form of charges as well. So we believe that this was an important aspect of that.We did pick up on the point that Vodafone made—which was important—around its concerns about unintended consequences. In that negotiation or conversation and debate Vodafone did talk to us around the checks and balances that it hasin place to ensure that for certain time periods where that was there it is often scanning its material looking to see what is there and what is not acceptable. So for that submitter I think we came to a place where even it could agree that clause 5 was important. The clause should not be changed. It should be included in the legislation.Clause 5 is not intended to widen the definition of possession. Instead it simply affirms in legislation the approach already taken by the courts. As such internet service providers telecommunication carriers and network providers will not be subject to any laws under the proposed amendment.I want to also draw attention to some final comments and this is in regard to the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. There was some conversation by submitters who talked about the fact that we have got two bills and they asked why we could not include those amendments all into one. So in regard to the Harmful Digital Communications Bill we know that in particular the digital aspects of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill connect with the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. We would have preferred to address the issue in one large piece of legislation but for us the bills are different. One mitigates the harm around cyber-bullying and digital harassment. Therefore it is important that that bill provides a civil enforcement regime so that we can appoint an approved agency and a provider that is allowed to mitigate those issues. We believe that it is important to receive assess and be able to deal with the complaints that come through. The Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill has a broader focus than the communication of publications that occur in the digital realm but we believe that this bill is important to that issue as well.I believe that this is a good bill. I look forward to the Committee stage. I look forward to—Denis O’Rourke: SOPs.ALFRED NGARO: —Mr O’Rourke putting in a Supplementary Order Paper because I think that is important to this bill. We believe that there is support around this bill so despite the banter that we have just had I think what is important is that the key elements of the bill are supported right across the House. We believe that it will protect. We believe that it will provide a regime that is important in order to enforce a very strong message so that the crime sort of fits the offence that has been committed especially against children and those who are vulnerable. I commend this bill in its second reading and look forward to its Committee of the whole House stage. Thank you.