Little Andrew: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker—I am glad my name is not shortened because you would probably give me the longer version. That aside this is a serious matter. We of course naturally will support any measure that is going to assist yet again to tame the more anarchic and wilder elements of the internet and the world of digital communication and more so where it is used to offend against children and young people. We do not challenge the reason and the underlying purpose of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill and we will support it because we think it is worthy of examination by the Justice and Electoral Committee.As the Minister of Justice has said the bill does a number of things. It removes for example the requirement for the Attorney-General to approve the commencement of a prosecution in relation to an objectionable publication. We understand that because those prosecutions have been rising and we would expect that they will become even more prolific simply because of the volume of material that is now being broadcast and communicated through electronic means—smartphones and through the internet and on social media. So that change is worthwhile.We note the increase in penalties and draw the House’s attention—and we will draw the select committee’s attention—to the disparity that now seems to be emerging between these objectionable publication - type offences and lifting the penalties for them and the physical offences against children and young people particularly when they are sexual offences. Whereas the maximum penalty now for for example an indecent act on a young person under 16 or meeting a young person following grooming is 7 years in prison a person who imparts an objectionable publication through for example an image on a cellphone may well be liable to a maximum penalty of 10 years. I would have thought that a physical act would arguably be more harmful and more risky to the young person. So let us examine this legislation to see whether or not there are some basic sentencing and criminal justice principles that are applying.The other thing the bill does is create a presumption at least in relation to repeat offences that the sentence will be one of imprisonment. Indeed it goes as far as to expressly override the Sentencing Act in that regard for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment where there is a repeat offence under this particular provision. The bill creates the new offence in relation to indecent communication with a young person under 16. We agree and as I indicated in my earlier comments this is yet another time or another occasion when this House is having to catch up with the speed with which communication happens in the modern world and the extent to which young people are connected to it.You do not have to be particularly old now to have a cellphone as your primary means of communication—and not just your cellphone of course; your iPod touch canbe used to communicate through the internet. You do not have to have a phone number. So this legislation has to keep up with that mode of communication. I know that my own son is a regular—some would say frequent; I would say continual—user of this technology and we want to make sure and the legislation should make sure that there are some rules around it at least for the benefit of and the protection of young people. So we think this bill is well worth looking at and supporting in order to have that examination.I would however make the same plea I made in respect of the Parole Amendment Bill and that is: can we please have a criminal justice strategy that is coherent that is coordinated and makes overarching sense? I look at the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill and I wonder whether the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which was 6 months in the creation and had its first reading last week and I do not see why aspects of that bill could not be incorporated into this bill or the other way round—bits of this bill incorporated into that bill. But can we please not have little bits of legislation after little bits of legislation responding to little bits of problems—or actually quite significant problems—that in the overarching overall scheme of things are just one problem amongst many.Can we have an overarching strategy and can we have a Minister of Justice focused on a justice strategy or even a justice strategy for particular parts of the world in which we live? If it is about the internet social media and the risk of broadcasting objectionable publications can we have a strategy to deal with that and deal with all those issues? If it is about making sure that all of the penal provisions in our criminal justice legislation are up to date and reflect the mores of the day can we have something that deals with that as opposed to this haphazard ad hoc sort of approach that the current Minister is taking? That aside this legislation is well worth the time of this House and examination by the select committee. We will support it and we look forward to the debate.