Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3978] 
2.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he intend to increase penalties for the possession and supply of child pornography? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. Recent convictions of individuals trading in child pornography have resulted in sentences only of community service which I believe are inadequate for people distributing material that shows children as young as 4 years old being sexually abused by adults. Penalties for both possession and distribution of such material should reflect the fact that to create each image a child is sexually abused. Collecting the images creates the market and encourages the crime. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the problem of child pornography getting worse; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I believe that the problem of trading in child pornography is getting much worse. The key factor in that is the use of computers and the Internet. To give the House an international example in Greater Manchester in 1995 there were 12 seizures of child pornography—photos and videos. Four years later there were 41000 seizures and all but three of those were from the Internet and from computers. 
Richard Worth 
: Why has the Government not moved to punish those who engage in so-called “child grooming” for sexual abuse where paedophiles go online in Internet chat rooms to “groom” or build up a relationship with children with a view to meeting them in person? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the Government has moved in that area. The member may not have seen the publication put out by the Government in association with ECPAT which is the organisation that is designed to prevent that sort of thing. No it is not simply a question of a law change. It is illegal to do that but what is necessary is that we also create the means by which families and children can protect themselves against the activity that the member is talking about. 
Dail Jones 
: Why has the Minister taken so long to act in this area bearing in mind the comment of Auckland barrister Denise Ritchie the chair of ECPAT which is a group fighting pornography that: “New Zealand has been lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to these penalties.”; and will he be amending both the Crimes Act and the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act when he considers new legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are several questions there. Firstly the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act was only 7 years old at the time that I became Minister. It is not usual to amend legislation after such a short period of time. However I have looked at it closely and believe that because of the changes I referred to in my answer to Mr Fairbrother those changes are now needed. In relation to ECPAT the member will be pleased to know that the organisation has put out a statement praising the Government for its actions in this regard. We will be amending the Crimes Act because I am proposing increasing the penalty for possession from a $2000 fine to up to 2 years’ imprisonment and a tenfold increase in the penalty for the offence of distributing and supply from 1 year’s imprisonment to 10 years’ imprisonment. It is more appropriate that such penalties appear in the Crimes Act than in the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. 
Stephen Franks 
: If the Minister is a genuine convert to the idea that tougher punishment for pornographers works why not extend that to all criminals instead of dribbling out announcements on high-profile crime; why not end parole force criminals to pay the fines they have been given and make sure that a sentence of up to 2 years is not automatically cut in half which allows the pornographer to be on home detention 4 months before that and back at his computer? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is no one in this country who is not aware of the fact that penalties for serious crimes have been dramatically increased and that is shown by the recent non-parole period of 33 years given for a serious murder and the fact that this proposed legislation will increase tenfold the penalties for distributing and trading child pornography. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Minister think the penalty increases will lead to increased apprehension of child pornography traders and what effect will that have on the overall child pornography industry in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The change in penalties is important for its own sake both to show abhorrence and to send a clear message to those indulging in such behaviour. But it will also have an effect on apprehension. At the moment it is not possible on reasonable grounds for suspicion that a person possesses child pornography for the police to get a search warrant. That is because the penalty is not a penalty of imprisonment. Under the new penalty of imprisonment the police will now have that power. That should lead to a clear increase in apprehension of people possessing such material. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Does introducing the penalties the Minister mentioned bring our penalties into line with those of comparable jurisdictions in the Western World? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. I looked at jurisdictions that New Zealand would normally compare itself with—in particular the United Kingdom and Canada. In both those cases there is a maximum penalty of 10 years for the supply production and distribution of child pornography. I have aligned New Zealand penalties with those of those jurisdictions both because they are comparable and because that penalty is the maximum penalty that they apply. 
Marc Alexander 
: What factors did the Minister take into account when deciding to increase penalties and what weight did he give to them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of things. First I was personally concerned about the low level of penalty for what I regarded as participation in a horrific crime. Secondly I have talked to groups around the country including ECPAT. I have talked to the member himself who I know is very keen that penalties in this area should be brought into line. The other factor is the factor I mentioned earlier: Internet trading means that a crime that was quite hard for people to participate in a decade ago is now relatively easy to participate in and we need to respond to that situation.