O'Rourke Denis: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): At the first reading I said New Zealand First would support this bill because there is a need for strong deterrence to offenders who exploit children and I would have to disagree with Mr Clendon on this. He says that longer sentences do not necessarily deter offenders. To that I would say that shorter sentences certainly do not deter them either. The point here is that the deterrents must be sufficient to deal with the crime and I do not think that in this bill they necessarily are—but I will come to that in a moment. New Zealand First still welcomes the provisions in the bill that clarify some of the offences covered by the relevant legislation and that widen the net to catch a greater range of the people involved. I still welcome the increases in the penalties—some of which are being doubled and others added—but we now find that the bill is defective in several ways to the extent that although there is much good in it it can no longer be supported by New Zealand First.Part 1 amending the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993no longer lives up to New Zealand First’s expectations. Clause 4 increases the penalty for supplying or distributing objectionable material from 10 years’ imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment. The offence needs an especially strong deterrent and the increase is appropriate but the offence covers distribution by an offender to any other person or other persons generally. New Zealand First believes that there should be a further special provision in cases where the offence is against children under the age of 16 and we reject the arguments that were advanced by officials against doing this. The amendment should instruct the court that where the offence is against children under 16 that is an aggravating factor ensuring that the penalty imposed would be at the upper end of the scale which goes to a possible 14 years of imprisonment. We do not accept that it should be left to the court to achieve this by way of its general discretion. We want it to be mandatory and that is the principal reason New Zealand First will now oppose this bill. It just does not go far enough.Clause 5 relates to the offence of the possession of objectionable material and subclause (3) inserts a new section into the relevant Act which solves evidential problems and widens the net to catch more of the people involved especially proof of possession where electronic means are used so that it will not be necessary to prove that an offender has saved an electronic instrument and there will be no need to prove any intention of doing so. That we think is appropriate and necessary otherwise the evidential burden would be too severe. Electronic material clearly has to be searched for or at least knowingly accepted otherwise the offender could not in practice obtain it.Clause 6 relates to offences of possession of objectionable publications knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the publications are objectionable. The penalties are increased from a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years to one not exceeding 10 years or to a fine not exceeding $50000. But this amendment we think should also say “both” so that both the imprisonment and fine penalties can be imposed. And the fine is far too light. It should be increased to at least $100000. The reason for that is that some people make a lot of money out of these offences and the deterrents—the fine and the possible imprisonment sentence—need to be severe especially the fine. It is just too light we think.Clause 7 inserts an important new section new section 132B which contains a presumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders who have been convicted of one or more specified publications offences. These offences include the sexual exploitation of children. The offender must be sentenced for the repeat offence to a sentence of imprisonment unless the court considers that the offender should not be so sentenced having regard to particular circumstances. That could include his or her age if he or she is under 20. These new provisions are appropriate and would be quite acceptable to New Zealand First. They are the sorts of sentences that are needed to break a cycle of offending because some of these people become addicted and for others the financial rewards are just too seductive. So those sentences are satisfactory.Concerning the amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 clause 10(1) relates to being knowingly concerned in the importation of an objectionable publication—films videos and suchlike. The amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment from 5 to 10 years and again New Zealand First sees that as appropriate. However Part 2 concerning the amendments relating to indecency no longer lives up to New Zealand First’s expectations. Clause 13 creates a new offence of indecent communication with a young person under the age of 16 years. A person of or over the age of 16 years is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years if he or she intentionally exposes a person under the age of 16 years to indecent material in communicating in any manner with the young person.Although New Zealand First fully supports that new offence we do not think that a maximum of 3 years in prison is anywhere near adequate. Compare that sentence with those I have just mentioned for other offences being increased from 5 to 10 years and in one case to 14 years. These offences are not very different in nature and for this particular offence to specify a maximum of 3 years is clearly in our view grossly inadequate. This is the kind of provision that needs to deter the sort of activity that we saw with the Roast Busters—pretty disgusting stuff. Those people need to be sent a very clear signal and if they persist in that sort of offence they should look forward to a sentence in some cases where it is justified of well over 3 years—in fact probably well over 5 years if there is going to be an effective deterrent.So although there is so much to be commended in the bill and I have mentioned some of it there are also far too many inadequacies to enable New Zealand First to support the bill overall. I have also mentioned some of those inadequacies. We think in the end that the bill is just too weak to ensure that where the offences are against children the penalties for offenders must be at the high end or close to the maximum. Otherwise people who are addicted to these activities or who just make a huge amount of money from them will not be adequately deterred and that of course is what the objective is. So New Zealand First for those reasons can no longer support the bill.