O'Rourke Denis: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to support good Government legislation and the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill is one of a few such examples. We in New Zealand First welcome the increase in penalties that are signalled by this bill. We agree that there is a need for a clear and significant signal—strong deterrents—so I say beware to the Roast Busters and the others who are developing a culture of using the internet and other publications for illegal and indecent purposes. I welcome the provisions in the bill that clarify some of those offences and widen the net to catch a greater range of the people who are involved. New Zealand First welcomes the increases in penalties and the new offences that are specified in the bill.I will mention some of the most significant clauses. Clause 4 provides for an increase from 10 years’ imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment which is a very significant deterrent for supplying or distributing objectionable material whether doing so knowingly or having reasonable cause to believe that the material is objectionable. This needs especially strong deterrents. The social effects of such materials are significant. They encourage sex with under-age people street prostitution and a culture of sexual abuse generally and target under-age victims.Clause 5(3) inserts into the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 new subsection (2A) which states: “A person can have an electronic publication in that person’s possession for the purposes of subsection (1) even though that person’s actual or potential physical custody or control of the publication is not or does not include that person intentionally or knowingly using a computer or other electronic device to save the publication (or a copy of it).” This solves some evidential problems and as I have said widens the net to catch more of the people involved. It especially means that proof of possession where electronic means are used will not be needed and it will not be necessary for an offender to be proved to have saved an electronic document and there will be no need to prove the intention to do so. This is appropriate and necessary. Otherwise I think the evidential burden would be too severe. Possession per se should be enough because electronic material clearly has to be searched or at least knowingly accepted—otherwise the offender could not have obtained it.Clause 6 amends section 131A of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. Section 131A deals with offences relating to possession of objectionable publications and knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the publications are objectionable. The maximum available penalty now is imprisonment for a term notexceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $50000. The amendment increases that maximum from 5 years to 10 years but I think it should also say “both” so that both penalties can by imposed. I think the fine should be increased to at least $100000 because some people do actually make quite a lot of money out of some of these activities.Clause 7 inserts new section 132B into the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. New section 132B contains a presumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders. It applies only to a repeat offender who “(a) has been convicted of … a specified publications offence committed after the commencement of this section …” and “(b) before the conviction for the repeat offence was entered had been convicted of 1 or more specified publications offences committed before or after that commencement.” In deciding whether such a publication is objectionable the court must have had regard to the reasons in relevant classification office or board decisions. The offender must be sentenced for the repeat offence to a sentence of imprisonment unless the court considers the offender should not be sentenced having regard to the circumstances of the repeat offence and/or the circumstances of the offender including especially the age if he or she is under 20 years. That is a very important provision. These new provisions are appropriate and necessary. They are needed to provide the tools required by which it will be possible to break the cycle of offending in these ways by people for whom such offending often becomes addictive or for whom the financial rewards are too seductive.Concerning the amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 clause 10(1) relates to being knowingly concerned in the importation exportation or other unlawful transfer of an objectionable publication covering films videos and other such documents. The amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment from 5 years to 10 years. This is also supported by New Zealand First because we think that a strong deterrent is needed for that. Again some people make significant amounts of money out of these offences so a strong deterrence is required.Concerning the amendments relating to indecency in Part 2 of the bill clause 13 creates a new offence punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years. Clause 13 inserts into the Crimes Act new section 124A “Indecent communication with young person under 16”. New section 124A(1) states: “A person of or over the age of 16 is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years if he or she intentionally exposes a young person under the age of 16 years (the young person) to indecent material (whether written spoken visual or otherwise alone or in combination) in communicating in any manner directly or indirectly with the young person.”In a prosecution it is not necessary under the new provision to prove that the intentional exposure was for an identified purpose such as to obtain sexual gratification or to alarm distress or humiliate the victim the “young person”. But any identified purpose of that exposure may be considered in determining whether the material is indecent. New Zealand First welcomes this new offence and 3 years’ imprisonment will certainly cause an adjustment in attitudes. But New Zealand First does have some reservations about new section 124A(2) which ensures that “A reference in subsection (1) to a person under the age of 16 years or to the young person includes a reference to a constable … who pretends to be a person under the age of 16 years (the “fictitious young person”) if the person charged with an offence against subsection (1) when communicating with the fictitious young person and exposing the fictitious young person to indecent material believed that the fictitious young person was a person under the age of 16 years.”The problem here is that it raises rather too much of a risk of genuine cases of entrapment. This is a matter that I will be looking very closely at and discussing withmy colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee because there does need to be a balance between good legislation as I have said and some of the safeguards to personal rights which we all must be vigilant to protect. So we need to have a good look at that provision to see whether the balance is achieved. But overall this is a good bill and its referral to the select committee does deserve support. New Zealand First will be happy to vote for it.