Ngaro Alfred: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4659. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National):It is an honour to take a call on the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Speaking after the honourable member David Seymour I have to say that though we are in a coalition or partnership every partnership sometimes has its rocky roads and this may just be one of those. In hearing that speech it had the smell of paper flowers from the policy garden of the ACT Party. But in the streets the reality of what happens out there in our communities—I would like to remind the member that actually this bill has been a thorough process for quite some time. It has been well researched in regard to the intent and to the need.I think that the Law Commission was really clear that one in 10 New Zealanders is impacted by cyber-bullying and harmful digital communications. This legislation is nothing new—I know that—but it improves the intent of what we are trying to do. Through the submissions it was really clear that the purpose of the bill to deter prevent and mitigate was taken on board. Therefore Supplementary Order Paper 91 by the Minister Amy Adams clearly indicates that we have heard we have listened and we have ensured that we have amended the law so it does deter prevent and mitigate.The other part that I think is really important in the bill is that it also provides victims with a quick and efficient means of redress which was not in the legislation previously. So though the member talked about bad law I think that this is actually good law. It is a good start. It is actually making the ends that we think are important. So while we talk about the policy and we can dream about what the intent could be we—David Seymour: Principles and things like that yes. Yeah.ALFRED NGARO: Absolutely but principles have practice to them and with this legislation we think that that is absolutely important. Here are some of the areas of practice that I think are important. The member David Parker talked about the safe harbour clause that is here: clause 20. I think that what is important in the safe harbour clause—and we heard about striking a balance between this and in a sense providing provisions for freedom of speech. We think that that is important. The clause is allowing the opportunity for those who are hosts to remove the content and to inform those who actually have had content that is offensive. We have made sure that the balance is there by inserting a new clause to require the online content host to notify the author as soon as possible and within 48 hours of receiving a notice of complaint. We have inserted a new clause to give the author 48 hours to respond to the online content host with a counter-notice as well. We did hear submissions Mr Seymour when they came through and we talked about the importance of having the provision that is there as well. If the author agreed or did not respond the content would have to be removed or public access to it would be disabled as well.The other thing that is important is the civil enforcement regime. A new civil enforcement regime was one of the Law Commission’s key recommendations in its report. We think that that is important. National agrees that when it comes to digital communications we need to have better legal options for addressing complaints and taking actions. Court cases can take some time and often the damage has already been done. We know that speed to redress those issues becomes critically important as well. Previously people have been hesitant to lay a formal complaint with the police but with this ability we will able to investigate and prosecute such cases as well. Victims who are most important in this case in this bill may not have the money or the desire to make a civil law claim such as suing someone for defamation. This legislation provides the ability to better provide for them as well.The approved agency is also I think a provision that is quite critically important. The approved agency will receive complaints regarding harmful digital communications and the agency can then decide whether there are grounds to proceed with an investigation. For example it would not investigate a trivial frivolous or vexatious complaint—and we know that that would take up time—but it would advise people on steps they can take to resolve a problem. We think that it is really important to get that information out there so that again victims have the ability to be able to respond appropriately. Where the approved agency investigates substantial claims it will attempt to reach settlements between the complainant and the person responsible as well. The agency will liaise with web hosts internet service providers and other internet intermediaries to request them to take down harmful communications because many corporations operate outside of New Zealand. It will be important for the agency to establish good relationships and protocols to work with these companies as well.We believe that at the moment the provisions that are in this bill are a step in the right direction. I know that Mr Seymour may not think so. The bill does address the intent and the harm that has been caused both in the safe harbour clause that is there and also by having an approved agency address this harm. Thank you.