Adams Amy: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2771. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I did want to take just a brief call to respond to Supplementary Order Paper 67 which Ms Curran talked about in her first call on this part of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill because I do think it deserves a little bit of time to reflect on how it got to that point.The Supplementary Order Paper as the member has pointed out contains a number of reasonably operational changes to legislation but the one that I think Ms Curran talked about and that I think is worthy of spending a little bit of time on is new clause 14of the bill added by the Supplementary Order Paper. It does create a very clear provision about the liability of New Zealanders when they commit offences as a party against a child internationally. It did come about as a result of the Supreme Court decision in a case called LM v R that was issued by the Supreme Court late last year.In that case it was a very sad fact pattern as many of these cases are where a New Zealander was found to have been involved in taking sexually explicit photos of their 7-year-old stepdaughter in Russia. The issue before the appellate court was whether in fact the legislation permitted a New Zealander to be liable for an offence committed in another country where the principal party carrying out the offending was not a New Zealander. In that case the finding was that in fact New Zealand law had a gap in it which was that if the offender was a New Zealander then all parties to the offence who are also New Zealanders could be liable but if the offender themselves was not a New Zealander then the fact that a New Zealander was a party to that offence could mean they would escape conviction.That is certainly not the intention of the legislation and it would be quite wrong I think and against the will of most right-thinking New Zealanders to allow a New Zealander in that sort of situation taking sexually explicit photos of in that case their stepdaughter to escape conviction merely because of the nationality of the principal offender. Luckily in that case liability was not escaped because the court concluded that the offender was liable as the principal offender. None the less it raised a very serious matter that officials advised me should be addressed in this bill and I agreed with them to ensure that we do carry out our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and what is called the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children Child Prostitution and Child Pornography to ensure that there is full and effective criminal liability for transnational offending in this space.This is one of the categories of offending that I think it will not surprise anybody to know is seen to be of such seriousness and such severity that it should attract transnational liability and it has always been the intention—my intention and I think the Government’s intention long before I became the Minister—to ensure that the liability of New Zealanders should be comprehensive. Certainly when this gap was highlighted through the decision in LM v R the advice I received from officials was that this bill should address it. I agreed with that advice which is why we have in the Supplementary Order Paper before the Committee now this new provision that makes it very clear that no one can escape liability merely because the principal offender would not have been a New Zealand citizen at the time the offence was committed.I think that makes good sense. I do accept the point that that was not part of the bill when it came before the House but I would not want to have it resting on my conscience that a New Zealander could escape liability merely because their partner in crime—quite literally—was an offender of a different nationality. That was never the intention. I think it would be an unwarranted hole in the legislation and that is the basis on which the Supplementary Order Paper and the addition of that new provision are in front of the Committee.The other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are reasonably prosaic addressing the Accident Compensation Act to ensure that the new offence of indecent communication with a young person and the existing sexual grooming offences are included in schedule 3 of the Accident Compensation Act to ensure that appropriate support is available. Similarly the new offence of indecent communication is added to schedule 2 of the Vulnerable Children Act so that anyone found guilty of such offences can have the appropriate restrictions placed on their employment in core children’s workforce roles.With the indulgence of the Committee if I can just mention the technical amendment to clause 7 which we have already covered in the first part which just makes it clear that that recidivism has to be an offence that both occurred and they were convicted of which I think is an appropriate safeguard.I just wanted to take that call to take the Committee through the matters in the Supplementary Order Paper very clearly and the rationale for them. If the Committee wants to debate that I would be very interested in hearing it.