Kuriger BarbaraDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I was a member of Justice Committee which has worked through this bill and so it is with great pleasure I stand. I remember our colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen who came to us originally with this bill and I honour the lovely woman Angie Warren-Clark who has taken it on most appropriately given her history of advocacy in this space. It couldn't have been a better switch from one wahine toa in the sexual violence and defence of the vulnerable to another.I think it's probably best for me if I just do a very very quick recap of what this bill is about. Essentially as I understand it Ms Andersen came to the realisation that there was a hole in the legislation so we've got this gap where you've got an offence in the Crimes Act in section 131A or section 131B—I can't remember but it's one of them—which says that if you groom a young person under 16 and then you travel to meet them or you get them to travel to meet you with the intention of doing something nefarious in the sexual offence arena then that is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years. The problem is: what about the person who is grooming someone in the online space and never makes that step to arrange travel—what if there is just this ongoing pattern of grooming? I think Ms Andersen was particularly struck by a case in which a teacher—and it was publicised at the time—had sent hundreds of text messages to a child with fairly disastrous consequences but nothing had happened between them other than these texts. So she wanted to cover that space. However what we realised when we dug into that and when we heard from the submitters was that grooming isn't just an online behaviour but grooming is a behaviour that takes place—and in fact the studies show it takes place—in most sexual offending. An offender will groom not just the child but also their family and their teachers to allow them access to the child then they groom them to trust them and then they groom them to accept inappropriate sexual behaviours incrementally until they get there. This behaviour happens around our community. So Ms Andersen wanted to expand the bill and that's where we came to the current space. So the current bill still doesn't require the actual travel but if you show intention through communications of any sort—online or in the real world—to facilitate sexual inappropriate conduct with someone under 16 then you're a goner. We also adjusted a few things around the penalty because the section 131 that we have—the one with the travel component to the grooming—has a seven-year penalty. This is a lesser offence. It doesn't go as far as starting to activate the offence. So we have brought that back to be commensurate with the harmful digital communications and that sort of an offence there which also doesn't involve the actualisation of it beyond the sending of the inappropriate messages. We've brought it back to the current three-year penalty.Grooming is insidious. It is pervasive. It not only enables the offending but also helps the person to cover it up because they generally persuade the child that they're in some sort of affectionate relationship so the child feels too guilty they feel too complicit and they feel too responsible for the ongoing happiness of the offender. Then when you get them to court of course the grooming helps again because in society we believe that sex offending is something that is done at force and that someone is pinned to the ground and they fight and they hate the offender and they run to the first person and they scream Help help—I've been raped!" It's actually called the hue and cry. If you are groomed you don't do any of that so it feeds into the myth that this can't be real rape. So grooming is three times insidiously horrible: one it facilitates abuse; two it enables the hiding of it because you persuade the victim not to tell; and three if the victim does tell it destroys their credibility in front of the court and in front of the jury. This is a well worthwhile little piece of legislation. It fills a gap in the legislation. I'm not saying it's going to be used in every sex offence. As a prosecutor I think it will become not a stand-alone offence but an adjunct to other offending where you can also prove grooming and I think it is one of the very few offences—very quickly before the House closes Madam Speaker—where it may actually have a deterrent effect because sex offenders like white-collar criminals but unlike most other offenders plan their offending. They think very carefully and they are incredibly strategic in who they target. This sort of offence may just—may just—deter behaviour that causes tremendous harm in our community. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Thank you. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 10 p.m."