Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18428] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The principal Act was passed around 11 years ago and most of its fundamentals remain sound. However over the decade or more that has elapsed since there have been huge changes in information technology which have spectacularly changed the environment in which the Act operates. The 1993 Act was essentially a regime for regulating hard-copy distribution of publications. Child pornography at that time was limited to media such as photographs and videos and distribution was much more restricted than what modern technology now allows. 
 The Internet has become the prime vehicle for the worldwide proliferation of child pornography. Offending can and does take place in electronic form. At alarming rates offenders are able to download share and swap literally thousands of child sex-abuse images through their home computers. As a result there has been a need to change both the style of policing this abhorrent trade and to increase the resources for policing it. That has happened and I have to say that the Censorship Compliance Unit of the Department of Internal Affairs is second to none in the world in tracking down and prosecuting child pornographers. That fact is recognised by Interpol. It is recognised by organisations like End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes and by the Stop Demand Foundation. 
The prosecution rate of the compliance unit is close to 100 percent in its success rate. It has shown the ability to distinguish between hard-core child pornographers and curious teenagers inappropriately accessing sites and to respond accordingly in each case. The unit has universal respect amongst campaigners against child pornography and amongst parliamentarians who have taken the trouble as I have to examine its operation. The increase in its resources granted in last year’s Budget was well justified. I have to say that I utterly reject some ignorant Australian journalist writing for  
Time 
 magazine questioning whether this country is a haven for pornographers. I quote from one of the most respected anti-pornography campaigners in this country Denise Ritchie who said that it is simply sensationalist rubbish that is nonsense and Kiwi bashing and there is no truth at all to it. 
There is also the need to send a clear message to child pornographers that their aberrant behaviour is utterly unacceptable and that continued involvement in it will attract harsh penalties. As a result this legislation increases tenfold the maximum prison sentence available for the courts to impose on those involved in producing trading or distributing material ruled as objectionable. This in most cases will involve child pornography but it is not limited to that. Material such as snuff movies and abusive sexual violence in videos and on the Internet is covered under that definition. 
The fact that a publication deals with child pornography will also be a matter under law that the judge must take into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The maximum penalty of 10 years reflects the fact that although traders in child pornography may not themselves be directly involved in abusing children by promoting a market for abuse images they are in fact indirectly responsible for it. 
The bill as introduced and reported back by the Government Administration Committee increases the penalty for possession from the current maximum fine of $2000 up to 2 years’ imprisonment. However it has been brought to my attention that in comparable countries the penalty for possession has been or is in the process of being increased to 5 years. That is the case in Canada and the United Kingdom. There are currently proposals before the Parliaments of Queensland New South Wales and South Australia where it is proposed to increase existing penalties up to 5 years. It makes sense that New Zealand penalties across the board are consistent with like-minded countries. It is therefore my intention to introduce an amendment by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to effect this change during the Committee stage. 
A further Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled. It is of a technical nature and it clarifies aspects of the process for applying for a review of the decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Maximum penalties for possessing and trading objectionable material will apply in the cases of large-scale prolonged or systematic offending and also of course having regard to the nature of the material possessed or traded. Less serious offending will likely attract a lower penalty. 
The bill also introduces a new power to obtain search warrants when an offence of knowingly possessing objectionable material is suspected. Currently search warrants are available only in relation to trading in such material or for possessing it for the purposes of supply and this new search power will facilitate the role of the police in cracking down on child pornography. Under the bill the offence of distributing an objectionable publication will encompass all the different ways in which offenders arrange to share exchange and access material on the Internet. It will include distribution such as peer-to-peer sharing as well as commercial transactions. People who provide access to objectionable material either by actively sending material to another person or by allowing their computers to be used as virtual libraries will be caught by the Act’s offence provisions. On the other hand the amendments made by the select committee will make sure that a person is not liable when he or she unintentionally or unknowingly provides access to an objectionable publication. For example an Internet service-provider who provides access to the Internet will not be liable simply because the service is used by others to provide access to objectionable publications. 
I welcome the select committee’s scrutiny and very careful consideration of the meaning of the word “objectionable” in the Act. This provides the standard for prohibition. Placing new limits on fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of expression must be careful and deliberate. This bill maintains a clear focus on the censorship of sex horror crime cruelty and violence that is injurious to the public good. However during the committee’s consideration of the bill it became evident that more flexibility to impose age restrictions was necessary to protect children and young persons. Accordingly new section 3B inserted by clause 4A deals with a small group of additional matters where the nature of harm to young persons would be serious and justifies an age restriction. 
The bill also introduces a new provision new section 3A also inserted by clause 4A to enable the censors to age-restrict a publication if it contains offensive language that is harmful to children even if it does not deal with the classifiable material of sex horror crime cruelty or violence. The committee has recommended that the provision be tightened up so that it is not seen as a vehicle for restricting language that is simply insulting or offensive to particular groups or individuals. 
The issue of covert filming was brought to the Government’s attention by the committee’s 2003 inquiry report into the Act. This highlighted the inadequacy of legal sanctions against such behaviour. Again this is an increasing problem as new technology such as cellphones with photographic capabilities is developed. Separate legislation to address covert filming will be introduced into this Parliament within the next 6 months or so. The Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill will create a tough new environment and penalty regime that reflects the abhorrence with which the Government and the public in general view the production distribution and possession of child pornography. 
The final thing I would like to say is that invidious comparisons were made between the performance of police in New Zealand and police in Australia in following up lists of people trading in pornography from I think American customs agents. I have made further inquiries with the New Zealand Police and with the Department of Internal Affairs. The Department of Internal Affairs advised me that in fact the Australians received this material very early last year around February and that it took them 6 months to bring prosecutions. This material has been held by the New Zealand Police only since September. That information was provided to me tonight. I look forward to these measures taking effect on the passage of this bill.