Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5304] 
9.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he consider the present offence provisions under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 for the illegal distribution of objectionable publications adequate? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 My main concern about the adequacy of the Act relates to the levels of penalties for trading in and possession of objectionable materials—in particular child pornography. However concerns have also been expressed about whether the definition of “objectionable” is wide enough. The Ministry of Justice is considering the Government Administration Committee’s report in that regard. 
Marc Alexander 
: When Lower Hutt painter Anthony Johansen who was convicted of distributing child pornography received only a $6950 fine why is it that at most he could have received only a slightly bigger fine of $20000 when in other jurisdictions—such as the UK and the US—he could have received a maximum of 10 or 15 years in jail; are we out of step with other nations that do recognise the severity of crimes dealing with child pornography? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We are out of step and those penalties are inadequate—which is why I have foreshadowed officially in my statement that the maximum penalty for trading in child pornography and objectionable materials will rise from 2 years to 10 years and why the offence provisions for possession will rise from a $20000 fine to 2 years’ imprisonment plus an appropriate fine. That will be introduced in legislation later this year. 
Tim Barnett 
: Does the Minister regard the proposed changes to the levels of penalties as being an effective deterrent to offences such as trading in child pornography? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first reason for greatly increasing the penalties is to express our abhorrence of the act of child abuse that occurs every time such a video is made but I believe it is also quite possible that they will have a deterrent effect. With others I had the chance to visit the Department of Internal Affairs compliance unit. Immediately after the announcement of the increased penalties and before they came into effect it registered a marked decrease in Internet porn trading and child pornography within New Zealand. Clearly they will have an effect. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister not consider it laughable that the fines imposed in such cases barely offset the profits made from trading in child pornography; and what steps will he take to remedy that situation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not consider it laughable. I consider it quite unacceptable that I have cases in front of me such as that of Martin Silby who was convicted in 2002 on 12 charges of distributing objectionable material including material showing 4-year-old girls being sexually abused by men. His penalty was 200 hours of community work which was not the fault of the judiciary but of the inadequacy of the penalties imposed by this House. That is why we are making the change. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister tell us how the Government intends to implement the recommendations of the Government Administration Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act and related issues? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The select committee report is currently before the Ministry of Justice and a formal response from the Government to the Government Administration Committee will be tabled in this House within a couple of weeks. I do not want to pre-empt that report but a range of recommendations has been made by the select committee. We will give serious consideration to all of them but I doubt that we will implement all of them by way of changing censorship. Some things could be better done for example under the Human Rights Act.