Coddington Deborah: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18630] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 This is very difficult legislation. It has clauses in it that have sat around for a long time. A lot of child protection agencies have asked for and wanted this bill for a long time. But when it was tabled it was very disappointing to see that the penalties were not severe enough. They were not actually for possession of child pornography and they were not in line with those of other countries. I am pleased that the Minister has taken note of that because when I said I would introduce a Supplementary Order Paper increasing the maximum penalty to 5 years for possession he introduced his own Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. The message sent was that New Zealand was softer on possessors of child pornography than were other jurisdictions in countries like Australia Canada and the UK. 
The essence of this bill and the difficulty with it is that it is two pieces of legislation. We are dealing with two issues here. Someone who has libertarian beliefs who believes that the only time the State should interfere is when force or coercion is used and people are being harmed would have to balance that very carefully with the heavy hand of the State coming down on censorship and breaching free speech. It is always very easy for people’s freedoms to be eroded in the name of protecting children. That is often a way that is used to erode the freedoms of consenting adults. 
Clause 4 which proposes to insert a new section 3(1A) into the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act is very very ill-defined. I would like the Minister to explain why we are not taking the international definition into that clause. That is why I support Keith Locke’s amendment. As Sandra Goudie from National has just pointed out every parent in this Committee—every mother every father—will have photographs of their children in the paddling pool or in the bath. The Vietnamese girl in the photo was totally naked. Possession of such photos is not an offence if it is innocent possession and that is what I mean by “fine line”. Perverts can do what they like with the photos—they can turn them into something obscene and into a cause for harm—but we should not be introducing legislation that punishes everyone who possesses images or publications that have “1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude”. That is such a light barrier to call into this legislation. 
In fact why are we even bringing in this legislation when we do not even enforce the law with our existing legislation? A couple of weeks ago we heard that  
Time 
 magazine was holding New Zealand up as being a haven for paedophiles because the country had been provided with a list of 75 names of suspected possessors of child pornography who had been tracked through their credit cards—so there was enough evidence for suspicion of trading—yet to this day nothing has been done. 
I call on the Minister to explain why we have such a light meaning of “objectionable” in New Zealand. A common myth out there is that such material is harmless and that it is better that perverts and child abusers sit at home watching child porn on their TV than go out and abuse children. Well that is not the case. There is a victim behind every image of child pornography. If possessors of child pornography are swapping looking or trading in it then they are creating a demand and they are abusing children. Evidence has shown that many of those who just look do go on to offend so children are in danger. That is a real risk and a real danger. However we should not be passing a bill such as this one that as I said probably catches everybody in the country in its provisions.