Henare Peeni: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHenare Peeni: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2767. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair and thank you for allowing me to take this short call. Just before I start I want to congratulate you because every time you resume the Committee or the House in your role as Chairperson or Deputy Speaker you always welcome everybody back in Te Reo Māori and it is more than just a “kia ora”. It is actually something very appropriate for the time and for the occasion. Nō reira ngā mihi nui ki a koe. [Interruption] Ha ha!Just to the bill at hand the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee at the time but I am fortunate to be on that committee now and I did have the opportunity to speak in the second reading so I am excited to get up now just to flesh out a few more of the thoughts that I had then in the hope that some clarification can come about. My colleagues have mentioned an overall strategy around justice and whether or not there is a coherent approach to dealing with such matters especially for such an abhorrent crime. I think the recent report released on the Roast Busters case certainly highlights a few questions for me. One of those is around how in Part 1 of the bill it talks about increased sentences from 5 to 10 years and I think the other one here is from 10 to 14 years. One is for the importing—that is 5 to 10 years—and for the distribution it is 10 to 14 years.I just wonder in light of the Roast Busters case whether if those penalties were about they would be deterrent enough for those young men who were involved in that particular case. Some of the statistics and my colleagues have mentioned some of them this evening perhaps question that. I cannot see the direct link to it being a clear deterrent especially when we know and the report says here that of the 131 offenders that have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment approximately 50 percent have been sentenced to less than 20 percent of the maximum sentence available and 89 percent have been sentenced to less than 40 percent of the maximum sentence available. I am just trying to find a link there between why harsher penalties should be an absolute deterrent for such a crime when I think that more important what the report did was highlight some deficiencies in the ability to be able to police such terrible crimes. Some of my colleagues in the Committee have already mentioned just how hard and difficult that will be in the fast-changing times of modern technology what with the internet and the ability to access it at any time and at any place.For the avoidance of doubt and I am speaking about section 131(2A) in clause 5—it targets technical expertise and the definition talks about not consciously downloading or sourcing. It has already been mentioned this evening about just being able to view objectionable material—it is just being able to glance at it and just being able to see it. I notice having a young son myself who involves himself in a young scene how easy it is just to wave around cellphones to show Facebook feeds and to be able to share an internet page just by turning round a laptop or a cellphone. The question is whether or not that makes his friends culpable or whether that falls under this bill—whether or not they can be prosecuted or whether or not they fall under this bill and could find themselves in a heck of a lot of trouble.My esteemed colleague here Clare Curran mentioned how the proposed sentences distort the relativity with physical offending sentences and it has been highlighted already but I want to continue on that point to talk about how it does distort the relativity between physical offending and of course the nature of offending that this bill proposes to sort out or to squash or certainly to be able to bring pertinent penalties to those offenders. We notice that by increasing the penalty time from 5 to 10 years and from 10 years to 14 years my concern—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry I have just come into the Chair. I will consult the list. I call Peeni Henare.PEENI HENARE: Oh tēnā koe Mr Chair and just as I heaped praise upon Mr Borrows in his time in the Chair before you I do so now and I thank you for the opportunity to continue. I was talking about how it distorts the relativity between sentencing for physical offending and the kind of offending that this bill proposes to deal with by increasing the imprisonment time from 5 years to 10 years for importing and 10 to 14 years for distribution. I wonder whether and I hope that the Minister or certainly those who were part of the select committee during this bill’s passage can explain or at least provide a bit of clarification around the relativity that it is talking about there. In order to impose harsher penalties just for the mere distribution or for the importing of such terrible images and what have you—I am concerned that it is still such serious offending when you consider that the actual physical act of offending of sexual abuse of young children of minors is sort of lumped in as one and the same thing as distribution when quite clearly the evidence and indeed some of the submissions and the kōrero that I hear around this particular bill is very very clear and it highlights the ongoing effects and the mental effects that it has on the victims and their families and their friends.So that is just for a bit of clarification around that—about how it distorts the relativity with physical offending. Some of the terms in here are very technical and probably far too technical for this individual. But there are some—and Mr Clendon has already touched on this—about the vagaries of some of the words that are being used. I also—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!PEENI HENARE: No I will not speak about that. That is in Part 2. I will stick to Part 1. Bear with me Mr Chair. I cannot find the term. However I do know that Mr Clendon spoke about there being some vagaries around the very technical terms. What we are hoping in this bill that is being proposed is that some clearer definition can be given to allow the proper processes to take place with the judiciary and to give the judicial system the right framework to allow it to make sure that this bill certainly squashes the kinds of behaviour and activities that it intends to. Nō reira kia ora e te Tiamana ā kāti rā tēnā tātou. [So thank you Mr Chairman. I end here with acknowledgments to us.]