Martin Tracey: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister of Justice for rising and explaining. I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee. Obviously the clauses that make these changes to clause 13 of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill did not go to the select committee which is unfortunate but I understand that. The bill went some time ago and it has taken a while to come back to the House. I appreciate her explanation because it is concerning to see what looks to a layman like quite a substantial change or insertion into the bill. So having only this part of the debate to truly flesh it out and therefore not having access to the same advice the Minister has it is greatly appreciated that she took that time so thank you for that. Up until that moment I was unsure whether New Zealand First would have been able to support the bill because it would have been preferable obviously—and I am sure we all agree—to be able to discuss the change and have submissions on it at the time with the rest of the bill but obviously that was not able to happen. So again thank you Minister for that. Certainly New Zealand First also supports the amendments to ACC legislation to allow for support for young people who are harmed by the actions of others in this way.Can I also pick up on another statement of the Minister at the second reading where she mentioned clause 13 and the other changes to clause 13. I quote from the Minister: “the bill creates a new Crimes Act offence of indecent communication with a young person and that means anyone under the age of 16. The new offence also applies where the person charged communicates indecently with a police constable”—we have been hearing this from Ms Curran—“believing that constable to be a young person. The new offence will be punishable by a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment. This offence aims to address a gap in the law that exists between objectionable publications offences which apply only where an offender records a communication and the sexual grooming offence which is only made out where the offender takes steps to meet that young person.” This is the bit I am particularly interested in Minister: “Indecent communication with a young person can occur in a variety of old and new media including text or picture messaging internet chat and of course the telephone.”We fully support the new offence. New Zealand First fully supports the new offence although my colleague Denis O’Rourke who sat on the select committee—and I am sure he articulated the point very clearly—did not believe that the maximum of 3 years was enough for this particular offence. He pointed out that compared with other offences inside the bill that he felt were not that different in nature where the possible outcome for the offender was that it went from 5 years to 10 years and in one case 14 years the 3 years for this offence was not he felt adequate. I think he articulated that quite clearly in his second reading speech.I want to pick up on the contribution around that particular last paragraph and the contribution from Ms Curran previously when she mentioned the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. I am wondering whether the Minister might take another opportunity to actually rise and speak to this particular point and her comments that these indecent communications with a young person can occur in a variety of old and new media including text or picture messaging internet chat and of course the telephone. I am assuming that this also means Facebook grooming. A real-life incident that I am aware of is a 17-year-old going on Facebook and grooming 13-year-olds to then meet them and try to have sexual relations. My understanding is that—and please I hope for some clarification Minister—this legislation could catch that internet grooming.I guess my question around the two bills is whether it would be more appropriate if what we are trying to capture in the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which has a sentencing provision I think that is around about the same—2 years or 3 years is the recommended sentencing around digital harm in that bill—was actually covered by that paragraph Minister. With regard to the digital harm legislation we have an approved agency and we have all these other ways to deal with it up to a point. Perhaps this legislation actually takes that point onward and this might be the answer to the impasse New Zealand First has with that piece of legislation. I am just putting it out there and looking for any sort of direction. We certainly do not want to minimise in that comment the impact of digital harassment.