Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18704] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The key feature of this legislation is that it implements tough sanctions against the production trading and possession of child pornography and objectionable material of a nature similarly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. Electronic technology has made the transfer of images of this nature around the world much easier and the volume of this material has multiplied over the last decade. Every image represents the actual abuse of a child and every trader and consumer of such images creates a market that encourages more such abuse. 
Child pornography and extreme images such as sexual torture and snuff movies are unacceptable in our society. The sanctions against it should reflect our abhorrence and intolerance of such material and should act as a deterrent against it. Consequently this legislation dramatically increases penalties for the production of trade in and possession of such objectionable material. 
For those producing trading and distributing these images the maximum penalty increases tenfold from 1 year’s imprisonment to 10 years. This brings us into line with comparable countries such as the United Kingdom Canada and Australia. For intentional possession of child pornography and like material the penalty increases from the status quo where there is no prison sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment. 
I moved a Supplementary Order Paper in Committee increasing the level of penalty to 5 years rather than the 2 years in the original bill and the 2 years recommended by the select committee. This was to recognise the desirability of consistency with like countries. Canada and the UK have had this level of penalty for several years and states in Australia not already at this level are currently moving towards it. 
The deterrent effects of course are not only in the level of the penalty but also in the prospect of being caught. In this respect I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Department of Internal Affairs and its commitment along with police and the Customs Service to stamping out this vile trade. The Department of Internal Affairs has an effective monitoring and investigation unit that has achieved a prosecution success rate close to 100 percent. Its work is recognised by Interpol and by its counterparts in other countries as being second to none. It rejects and I reject allegations by an ill-informed Australian journalist in  
Time 
 magazine that New Zealand could be a haven for child pornographers. That is sensationalist and inaccurate Kiwi-bashing that is simply not true. 
Aside from the major changes to the penalties that apply to objectionable material and the broadening of powers to exercise search warrants for it a number of small changes have been made to clarify what the principal Act prohibits. By and large no changes have been made to the scope of the material that can be found objectionable and that is therefore banned under the Act. The same gateway provisions are maintained in relation to what can be subject to censorship. Those are: “matters such as sex horror crime cruelty or violence”. The Act and the bill are not about exercising control over what people think and the opinions they wish to express as falsely claimed by the ACT spokesperson Stephen Franks. We live in a relatively liberal society in terms of what is accepted as an adult right to view or to hear but there are images that are and will remain unacceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders that we will not allow because of the damage done to individuals and society. In particular those are images that involve child pornography extreme violence and sexual violence. 
The bill makes explicit the decision in the second Moonen case before the Court of Appeal that sexualised images of naked children meet the gateway test for objectionable material. That does not and will not affect innocent images but will allow the censor to deal with material currently and frequently being swapped by child pornographers. The bill also allows the censor to restrict some further matters as objectionable if shown to or viewed by children. That does not equate to an outright prohibition but rather is a restriction to protect children. It has been accepted that some material that can be distributed to adults ought not to be put before children. Both publications and films currently have when deemed appropriate restrictions that do not allow access to them by those aged under 18. 
Restrictions placed in the bill relate to matters such as language that is highly offensive suicide infliction of pain and self-mutilation and physical conduct of a degrading dehumanising or demeaning nature. Despite the arguments of the libertarian ACT party to the contrary it is appropriate that we protect children against extreme examples of those things. 
It is also important to address what was in the 2002 Government Administration Committee inquiry report on the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act that is not included in this bill. Hate speech is not included because I do not regard that as an appropriate topic to be addressed by the censor. Given the fundamental importance of freedom of speech in our society it is a subject that needs to be approached with real caution and in a way consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was bipartisan agreement on the committee to hold an inquiry into hate speech. It is an appropriate subject for debate and analysis and I look forward to hearing that debate. There is however no predetermination of what the outcome of that inquiry might be. 
The other issue addressed by the select committee was covert filming. The covert filming of people without consent or knowledge in situations involving nudity or physical intimacy where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy frankly is unacceptable. Separate legislation will be introduced later this year consistent with the Law Commission’s report on that issue. 
Finally I thank the select committee for the job it has done in—I believe—a non-partisan way and most parties in this House for their support for what I believe is important and necessary legislation. I commend this bill to the House.