Ngaro Alfred: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2763. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to take a call this evening on the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill in its Committee stage. I acknowledge the contribution by Tracey Martin because we did have some robust conversations and debates when the member Denis O’Rourke spoke. National members were surprised because we were part of that committee and there were no objections at that point in time with the advisers nor were any concerns raised—concerns you have just shared Ms Martin—with regard to what Mr O’Rourke discussed when he last spoke. It is heartening to hear that he has also come to the view that this bill is much needed and that it does provide provision even though it may not be to the extent that he or New Zealand First considers necessary. It is heartening to see that New Zealand First is now along with all the other parties supporting this bill.The bill is important because its purpose is to increase penalties. But the bill is not just about being punitive. It is about sending a message not only to ensure that it protects the rights of children but also with regard to a concern that has been raised. I want to just highlight this concern. It relates to Part 1 of the bill which is around protecting children from these objectionable materials.The New Zealand Herald this morning talked about online risks and the stress that that causes for parents. In fact The Parenting Place research done with Colmar Brunton showed that 72 percent of parents are concerned. So the issues that are related to this bill are of concern to wider parts of our community and we believe that what we are doing with this bill is ensuring that the penalties do relate to that which is important especially when we are talking about the different types of publications. The article also talked about the internet and the fact that technology has gone ahead of the legislation. So this bill will meet those concerns. It also talks about balancing those concerns. So although we talk about whether the role of the legislation is to ensure that we increase a punitive approach it also talks about the roles and responsibilities of parents in this case. So we think the article is showing that the bill is relevant to the concerns raised by our wider community as well.I will just touch on some of the key provisions again especially those in Part 1. The maximum penalty for possession and for the importing and exporting of objectionable material has been increased from 5 years to 10 years. We think this is in line with the advice given. We know there were eight submissions in all—three oral submissions. There were not a lot but what they did state was the importance of being able to send a very clear message. We believe that that is what bill is doing. It is increasing the maximum penalty for supplying and distributing—and I know that Ms Martin talked about this—from 10 years to 14 years. Again that is in line with the advice from the ministry and in line again with the submissions about the fact that increasing that level of imprisonment is sending a very clear message.The bill creates an assumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders and any forms of recidivism. Again we think we need to send a clear message because of the concern about recidivism. But at the same time we also agree that there need to be forms of rehabilitation. So along with the Greens and New Zealand First we think it is important that there is rehabilitation with support surrounding it because we want to reduce recidivism. We want to ensure that people can get on with their lives and most important we want to protect those who are most vulnerable in our communities.The other thing that we are doing in this Part 1 is making it clear in the Films Videos and Publications Classifications Act that the possession of objectionable material includes intentionally viewing. We know that there were some concerns and they were shared by Mr Clendon in regard to the unintentional consequences of people clicking with their mouse into a site. We believe that the tools that have been used to regulate this will ensure that those unintended consequences will not be punished. But we will be able to pick up on those whose choice not to download material is a way of putting themselves outside any provision of this bill. So we believe that we have got a good balance there.Section 3 of the Films Videos and Publications Classifications Act states that a publication is objectionable “if it describes depicts expresses or otherwise deals with matters such as sex horror crime cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.” We know that these things are important and we define them inside this definition and that is important because these are the publications that are of great concern to many in our communities. We know that today’s offenders can access material through technology in ways and speeds that were never imagined when the Act was enforced. We are making it clear that possession includes intentionally viewing. The amendment ensures offenders with particular technical expertise do not escape liability.