Martin Tracey: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2550. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Earlier just before this debate began I moved a motion that sought to send this bill the Harmful Digital Communications Bill back to the Justice and Electoral Committee. New Zealand First did that not because we oppose the intent of the bill and not because we believe that steps need to be taken but because we have concerns around one particular part of the bill which we were seeking to have the select committee look at again in the light of new legislation that has come into play internationally since the select committee passed this bill back to the House. I accept the Minister of Justice’s statements—I think they were interesting—around international organisations such as Google and so on and so forth. Certainly in this bill appropriately there are requirements for the service providers. There are takedown notices and there are pieces of this bill that directly go to their responsibility around protecting the users of that environment. We 100 percent support that—100 percent support that. So if the suggestion is that somehow New Zealand First has been purchased by Google no that is not quite right.What we have concerns around is this. If I go to the purpose of the bill the main aim of the bill is to “mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications and (b) provide victims of harmful digital communications with a quick and efficient means of redress.” This will be achieved by first creating a new civil enforcement regime to quickly and effectively deal with harmful digital communications; second make some small amendments to existing legislation to clarify its application to digital communications and cover technological advances; and third create new criminal offences to deal with the most serious harmful digital communications. It is the third one that we are seeking more confidence in. It says here: “In respect of the offence of causing harm by posting digital communication a person who is convicted of that offence is liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of two years.” There is now no fine penalty provided only imprisonment. This is the concern. Are those settings right? Do we have it right? That is all New Zealand First was asking for. All New Zealand First was asking for was for the bill to go back in the light of other legislation that has been passed in other nations to make sure that we are not taking that step too far in the first instance.It is very emotive to use the Roast Busters case. It is very emotive to use it. The reality and I think what was interesting in the Minister’s statement was that she acknowledged that a criminal act had taken place and yet with all the laws that are there nobody has been brought to justice. So to say that this is the answer to Roast Busters is not fair and to say that this was a criminal act and that this bill would solve that is not fair. It is emotive and it is inappropriate. The Minister has also been quoted: “However Minister Adams says children—or those under 14—cannot be charged with the offence.” She is absolutely right. The Minister is absolutely right. We acknowledge this but I want to give an example of a real-life situation. A 15-year-old male was at a sports day and took a photograph of a 15-year-old female jumping over the high jump. He pasted it on his Facebook page. The father of the 15-year-old female—she was wearing shorts she was in her PE gear—took offence at that photo and contacted the school and wanted the young man stood down and put into the discipline process. The young man was horrified and in this instance took down that photo immediately once he was brought in by the principal and spoken to. That father was not happy with that response by the school and he wanted that child pursued through the discipline process of the school to be made an example of—made an example of.Jono Naylor: Does he go to St Bede’s?TRACEY MARTIN: Exactly. A member of the Government has just shouted out “He should go to St Bede’s.” That is exactly what my point is—that is exactly what my point is. That parent at that time had no legislative ability to make the school do anything lay any charges or go any further.Let us talk about the approved agency. Is the Government confident—and the member Mr Naylor read out about the powers of the approved agency. They are not actually powers. They are a very good idea. Let us just get this out in the open: we 100 percent agree with the approved agency and we believe that this work is possibly the answer without this next step. It is the next step we are wondering about. Miss Dean’s contribution made the suggestion that the approved agency would decide whether the case could go forward. Actually the police decide whether a case goes forward and those are the Minister’s own words. The decision to prosecute anyone rests with the police who are required to ensure prosecution is in the public interest. I would challenge the fact that if a father showed up with a very high-priced lawyer and pushed the point whether they could use this legislation as a tool to take that young man forward. That is the concern and all we were asking for was an opportunity to discuss it further in light of the other legislation that has been made.NetSafe for example is currently filling the role of the approved agency as best it can without any formal structure or funding. In 2014 it assisted over 800 people dealing with harmful communications even though it does not advertise or promote that service. It has also been liaising with Australian politicians and their partners at the Australian Communications and Media Authority as they established the Children’s e-Safety Commissioner function under the recently passed Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act which has many similarities to the Harmful Digital Communications Bill—many similarities. This puts NetSafe in a unique position to describe the current situation and provide insights into what difference this bill could make. All we were asking for was the opportunity to go back and hear from people like those at NetSafe who are working in this environment to make sure we have got this right before we put in another piece of legislation that can turn people into criminals. Absolutely we must address this but are we addressing it correctly and that is where New Zealand First is coming from.New Zealand First will oppose this bill at this reading. That does not mean we will oppose it all the way through. What we are seeking is further assurance. What we are seeking is confidence that we are not going to criminalise children. We are confident with many of the other things inside the bill.Hon Amy Adams: Should we remove all criminal offences against young people? Is that your position?TRACEY MARTIN: The Minister shouts out “Should we remove all criminal offences?”. Unfortunately this is where we have ended up. We have ended up where the Minister will not discuss. The Minister goes on the defensive and the Minister starts to shout out. At this time New Zealand First has made no political statements about this bill. New Zealand First has made no political marks about this bill and has not attacked the Minister in any way shape or form but the Minister interestingly enough for a bill that is about anti-bullying has chosen to decide to be defensive and start to abuse. So what is very very interesting is—Hon Amy Adams: Tracey you never asked to meet me. Why didn’t you just ask to meet with me?TRACEY MARTIN: And the Minister knows that I sent her an email yesterday along with all the other people and the Minister had an opportunity to come back to me around those concerns and around that bill but the Minister chose not to. The Minister has chosen to go on the defensive. I hope that the Minister is that confident. I hope that the Minister if this should catch any of our young people or any of our citizens is that confident that these settings are right. But New Zealand First at this time is not confident that these settings are right. We would like more confidence that we have—that the select committee actually had the appropriate information given to it. In light of other countries other organisations and other nations going to a place without any criminality in it we would like to think that possibly we may need to just take a breath and have a look at it but I am not going to hold my breath on that. I wanted to explain that for those not watching the cricket and I explained it in an email to the Minister and every other member of this House yesterday. I sent them a two-page paper explaining our position but not a member of the National Party bothered to contact me or ask anything about it so I explain it now and perhaps they might go and read their emails to double-check on that.