Clendon David: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2774. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): Can I just acknowledge the comments from the speaker we have just heard from Jacinda Ardern. I think in the context of what we are talking about here that there is a discussion to be had about age in terms of offending. The age that was not mentioned is that of students in terms of their eligibility for student support. Until the age of 25 I think one still considers the income of their parents as part of the criteria. So we have got an age range virtually from 12 or 14 to 25 and that does seem peculiar. Presumably the 16—I mean we have got an age of consent. It is difficult because between 16 and 18 often there is a significant development in young people. They do move almost from childhood to adulthood in those few years. So that is probably a debate worth having.In the context of Part 2 of the present bill we are looking at the Greens do support this inclusion of the specific reference to this offending the notion that improper indecent communication with a young person should be captured within the legislation. The example given in some of the conversations is that it may be for purely nefarious reasons and an individual’s gratification that they seek to address a young child to expose them to pornography or whatever it is. I think we need to be aware too of the more general harm that can be done.There are lots of evidence and research findings emerging that point to the significant harm that can be caused to young people who are exposed at an early age to pornography. It is pervasive. It is much more accessible than it has been in previous years I guess. We know from the research that young people who are routinely exposed to pornography at young ages often have trouble developing relationships in later life including sexual relationships but not only those. Their expectation about what is normal sexual behaviour between consenting couples is also sadly skewed. There is a lot of significant psychological and by extension physical harm that can be done to children simply through excessively early exposure to pornography. So I think it is appropriate that we do seek to put some boundaries around this having acknowledged the rather inconsistent approach we take to ages.I will leave that but the other significant part of this bill of course is this question of a constable who may act as a fictitious young person. Again the example given is that if the parents of a child of 12 14 or whatever age discover that their child is being exposed to some sort of approach online they can then inform the police and have somebody essentially pick up where that left off and just see how far this individual is going—whether it steps across the line and whether it is something that ought to be prosecuted in this way. There are issues about entrapment or potential issues about entrapment but I think we were given some comfort in the conversation at the select committee level that the police force and other agencies are very aware of the boundaries around entrapment and although this is a new environment the principles of that do carry over. It is in nobody’s interests for them to go out and try to stimulate this sort of behaviour to endeavour to get people to initiate this sort of behaviour but certainly where it exists I think it is entirely appropriate that these provisions should be there to enable police or other agencies to intervene in order to establish the boundaries of the offending and to respond appropriately.There were some concerns about this language about people taking reasonable steps to determine the age of a person they are communicating with—reasonable steps to determine whether they were above the age of 16—and whether they might believe them to be that on reasonable grounds. Again these terms are not defined clearly in this legislation but there is a body of case law on this notion of reasonableness. It is subject to context. It is subject to the time place and situation. Again I think that we are wise simply to let it lie as it is to trust in the discretion of the agencies and indeed of the judiciary to establish whether somebody might in a particular instance have reasonably and genuinely thought that a person was 18 or 20 years old or whatever when in fact they were only 13 or 14. So with those two comments I just continue to say we support this legislation and as we have indicated we support Supplementary Order Paper 67 from the Minister of Justice.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Objectionable Publications) Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise (Objectionable Publications) Amendment Bill the Crimes (Indecency) Amendment Bill the Accident Compensation (Cover for Mental Injury—Indecency Offences) Amendment Bill and the Vulnerable Children (Children’s Worker Safety Checking—Indecency Offence) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper483.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.