Williams Poto: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1886. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I am pleased to take a call on this bill. I want to raise a couple of points that I do not think have been fully explored by the other speakers. This is a very important bill. Protecting our children from exploitation—supporting the safety of our kids—is one of the most significant things that we can do as a House. But what I am a little disturbed about is the timing of this bill in respect of its passage through the various stages—not actually giving submitters I do not feel sufficient time to actually prepare submissions be aware of the bill and actually make submissions on this bill. I hear from other contributors to this bill that there were fewer than a dozen submitters.When we think about the work that has already come to this House—for example on the Vulnerable Children Bill or on the funding for sexual violence services—this is a bill that has the calibre to protect our children in the same vein that those two other bills do. I am disturbed and confused as to why there were not more submitters. I feel that it is unfortunate; it is because of the timing of this.I know that there are groups that would like to have had the opportunity to present submissions on this. This is a significant issue. It is an issue that goes to the heart of protecting our children and it is an issue that tends to go under the radar. A lot of the activity that this bill addresses happens in the privacy of one’s own home away from the eyes of the wider public but we all know that it occurs.This is a serious bill about the offences relating to child pornography. Let us not dress this up. The bill does go some way to looking at the maximum penalties for the manufacture possession supply and distribution of this material but it really relates to the fact that if there was no consumer there would be no manufacturer. So as I said in my previous piece tonight we also have to look at what we are doing to prevent the harm from happening in the first place. I know that this bill does not deal with that but the wider issue is that we need to look at prevention before we actually deal with the harm that is caused. Earlier tonight in the Parole Amendment Bill debate we talked about the impacts of offending on victims. We need to remember the victims when we are working with and dealing with bills such as this.I want also to look to the discussion that was had. There has been quite a fruitful I guess discussion across the House. The report that came back from the Justice and Electoral Committee was about the majority view. New Zealand First has taken a slightly different view in terms of penalties. I agree that that is definitely an issue that we need to look at.One of the matters that was raised was around the relativity of this offending to physical harm. I understand that someone has already made the comment that the production of this material could also result in the physical harm of children. So I agree that there is some discussion to be had around the relativity of penalties imposed around the development of this objectionable material and regarding the physical harm to children. I agree that there is more discussion needed on that.With regard to clause 5 and the possession of electronic publications I also look at some of the contributions that were made that want to also include discussions around the Harmful Digital Communications Bill because we are looking at material that could potentially sit in both areas. It concerns me that we do have legislation that possibly can cover both situations. Would it not have been more sensible to look at overarching legislation that captures all of those experiences and situations rather than to have two? I think that there is an opportunity for us to discuss that.I notice that Vodafone made a submission around the possession of electronic publications and I think that is right. It is interesting that it was the only internet service provider to do so. I know that within the electronic publications arena there are also modern applications that we all have access to on our smartphones and other devices that potentially throw us into a position of having that material on our device even though we may not have initiated it. We all know about Snapchat and the material that comes to us unwittingly and there have been several high-profile people who have been caught out with material that has been forwarded without their knowledge.Clause 13 which creates the new offence under the Crimes Act of indecent communication with a young person closes I agree a very big gap in terms of the issue around the grooming of children. It is a very useful addition to our arsenal in terms of supporting children. The grooming of children and then taking the next step and actually arranging to meet them was discussed I know in a bill that came before the House last week I believe. It is an interesting issue again. I go back to the point that we have part of the concern here in this bill we have it addressed in another part in another bill and we should consider really tidying up the issues rather than having part of the offence in one bill and a part in another bill.I notice too that there was some discussion around the actual definition of “indecent” and a discussion that it appears often in the Crimes Act. There was a note made that there is a well-established body of case law around the definition of “indecent” but modern times should cause us to rethink that. I want the work that continues on this to actually consider that.I also want to refer to what I said earlier about prevention. It seems to me that the wider context about many of the bills that we have seen recently speaks to the social mores that this modern world brings to us and how we can actually protect people from this offence in the first place. I look forward to the discussion where we are able to look to those matters of prevention rather than dealing with the offence in the first place. Thank you.