Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start, I want to acknowledge the young people in the gallery of the chamber this morning and implore you to listen to what I have to say very, very carefully, because this will impact on not just you but also older people. There are some very salient lessons in what I'm about to say in relation to a bill which deals with the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This is a continuation of a speech I was making yesterday on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018, so it may not make sense because you are coming into it two-thirds of the way in.

Australians want immediate action on this bill. Those impacted do not want to wait for a lengthy criminal trial process. In general, their first priority is not a criminal conviction but getting wrongfully-shared images removed from public display as quickly as possible. And, if possible, they want to prevent the images from being posted in the first place—but, if you don't want intimate images of you posted, don't take intimate images of yourself or allow intimate images to be taken of you. As the minister has outlined in detail, this bill will achieve that with significantly expanded civil powers for the eSafety Commissioner, which will send a clear message that this behaviour—that is, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images—will result in swift and substantial penalties.

At every stage, without interfering with or disrupting existing state and Commonwealth criminal powers, this legislation will act to prevent offences and help to get content removed immediately. First, it will provide a significant deterrent for anyone considering sharing such an image, with penalties of up to $105,000 for an individual perpetrator and $525,000 for corporations. This is three times greater than the existing financial penalty for similar offences under the Criminal Code. Further, the government's amendments this morning will nearly double the maximum prison sentences for anyone who uses private sexual material in the course of menacing or harassing a victim online.

Second, where an individual has threatened to share an image of this kind, the bill allows a complaint to be made directly to the eSafety Commissioner, who can take action within hours. The commissioner would be able to issue an immediate remedial direction to the potential perpetrator, requiring them not to share the image as threatened. An infringement notice would be available as an option to be issued for even making the threat, while the bill also allows the commissioner to seek a court injunction to prevent the sharing of the images once and for all. Where an image has already been shared, the bill allows complaints to be made directly to the eSafety Commissioner and for the commissioner to issue removal notices not only to perpetrators but, importantly, to the social media services, websites and content hosts who facilitate the sharing. These notices would require the images to be taken down within 48 hours.

Finally, in the case of ongoing offences where perpetrators have multiple complaints, where they've ignored notices to remove the content or where the perpetrator has repeatedly offended, the bill allows the commissioner to seek a civil penalty order in the Federal Court for the full six-figure sums I previously stated. This is what Australians want. We know because, across months of consultation on this issue, they told us in no uncertain terms. Complainants want as many of these offences as possible to be prevented and, where they have occurred, they want the content taken down within hours. With a series of pragmatic civil powers informed by stakeholders' feedback and granted to the agency, which is already achieving great things in this field, that is what this bill delivers.

Yesterday, when I delivered the bulk of my speech, there was a lady in the gallery who was sitting and watching proceedings. She was a victim of these heinous offences. Where someone has been taken advantage of as an adult, in instances where they haven't taken a photo of themselves or allowed a photo to be taken of themselves—where the person is absolutely innocent or wasn't even reckless in their behaviour but someone took advantage of their particular circumstance—this is what this bill will do: this bill will counter that sort of conduct, and it will hopefully change the culture of some in our community by showing that this behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. We collectively—this parliament and the courts—will throw the book at these people and impose very significant penalties on them. This bill will ensure that that sort of content can be taken down very, very quickly, as is only appropriate. I commend the bill to the House.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. I want to thank the member for Fisher for his contribution. He had a good go there at explaining some of the reasons why this bill has bipartisan support and why we think this bill is such an important contribution to our federal criminal law.

It's terrific to talk on bills like this, because I find that so much of what we do as a federal parliament feels really remote from the lives of the people that we represent. I have responsibilities on my side of politics to speak about issues of federal criminal law and issues of financial services, and a lot of the legislation that I'm in charge of on the Labor side of things probably couldn't be understood by very many Australians. It's highly technical, highly detailed stuff. I think that a lot of the time, when I talk to my constituents, they look at our parliament and wonder why it is that we spend our time dealing with those things. They're really important and they're often really urgent, but it doesn't feel like they're going to the heart and soul of the issues for the people we represent. But the bill before us is very different to that. It tackles a problem that is affecting a lot of people in this country, and particularly a lot of young people. If Labor has any criticisms about the way this has unfolded, it's just that it's taken us a long time to get to a point where these four or so pages of legislation are going to create a completely different pathway, an opportunity for Australians to seek justice when a criminal wrong is done to them.

The issue that we're discussing today in the debate on the bill is called non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That's generally known to the public as revenge porn. We try not to use that terminology anymore when we discuss this issue, because it's seen to trivialise it in some ways, but I use that term for the benefit of people who might be watching at home or up in the gallery, because that's probably how they talk about and understand this problem. It describes something that's become incredibly common today, and that is people sharing intimate images of each other. It could be in the context of a relationship; but, when the relationship falls apart and things go sour, those intimate images are retained, and then they're shared without the consent of the person they are of. We see other examples of this. For example, there have been some very high profile incidents where intimate images of women have been captured without their knowledge and those images have been shared. What is crucial to understand is that up until this point, subject to various complications in the stories, people having criminal acts done to them have had no recourse under federal law to have these wrongdoers held to account. That is wrong. That is our parliament not keeping up with the way people are living their ordinary lives.

I enjoyed the contribution of the member for Fisher, but I want to pick up on a couple of points he made, just to clarify that I have a slightly different view about things. The member for Fisher stood up and said to the young people who were in the gallery earlier, 'You have to stop sharing these images.' That's not how we should be approaching this problem, because that is saying that the person at fault here is the person who shared the image. That's what we call victim blaming. It's also not appropriate because the horse has bolted on this one. Those of you who have teenage kids are probably having this discussion with them around the kitchen table. Young people are sharing intimate images in the context of a relationship. It is very hard for adults to stop that practice. Adults have been trying to control the behaviour of young people for thousands of years, to no real avail. We need to have a federal criminal law that says to those young people, 'Look, we don't really want you to share these images, but when you do and when your trust is fundamentally broken by a person who might have been in an intimate relationship with you, then the federal law is here to protect you, and we're not going to tell you that it's your fault and that you made the mistake by sharing that image to start with.'

Before I get into the substance of the bill I want to talk about two people in this parliament who I think have more to do with the fact that this bill has been brought on than anyone else. They are the member for Gellibrand and the member for Griffith. The members for Gellibrand and Griffith were both elected with me; we came into parliament in 2013. They understood that there was this problem out there in the Australian community whereby intimate images were being shared widely, peoples' lives were being destroyed as a result of their most vulnerable images being shared without their consent, yet there was no recourse available for the victims. This is an issue on which they drafted a private member's bill in 2015. For three years since that time we have been pushing the government to move forward with either that bill or a new piece of legislation that would help us tackle this problem that's affecting the lives of so many Australians. It's taken us three years to get to this point. The legislative process is not always as fast and furious as we'd like it to be. But I do want to pay tribute to those two members of parliament. I think they draw to light the importance of having fresh voices and fresh thinking coming into this chamber consistently. I think those two people had their ears to the ground a little bit more, were perhaps involved in more conversations dealing more frankly with constituents about these issues, than perhaps some of the other members of parliament who have been here for a bit longer. So, I really want to credit those two members of parliament, and I think it's appropriate that this chamber does so.

I talked about my role as providing a voice for law enforcement issues on our side of the parliament. One of the things I come upon frequently in this area is the complaint that this parliament is not keeping in touch with the way that our criminal law is changing. One thing that changed pretty much every aspect of federal criminal law was the advent of the internet. Technology has completely changed almost every aspect of crime, and the one that we're discussing today is no different. Can you believe that today we live in a world where just about everyone has a camera sitting in their pocket? In conjunction with that, social media has created this potentially limitless audience for the images taken on those phones and cameras. The path that this has led us to is that the problem of sharing non-consensual images has become prolific. Think about the extent of victims of crime in the community. Some pretty good academic studies would suggest that one in five Australians has been the victim of revenge porn at some point. So, one in five of the people living in this country at some point have had an intimate image taken of them. They've provided an intimate image to someone else in the course of a relationship and that image has been shared without their consent.

I think all of us in this parliament have watched a dramatic cultural shift occur on this question. I can remember people talking about the sharing of intimate images five or six years ago, when this problem really started to accelerate. At the time, it was treated as a bit of a joke almost. I think there's been enormous public discussion about how this is not a joke, and I'm going to talk about some instances—shocking instances—where people's lives have been destroyed by the taking of these images and the sharing of them, in some instances, with tens of thousands of people.

We also know from academic studies that the victims of these crimes are more likely to be the most vulnerable Australians. We know that one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians have in some way been affected by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. We also know that members of the LGBTIQ community are more likely to have been affected by this than the wider community. I also need to point out to the parliament the gendered aspect of a lot of this. We see this non-consensual sharing of intimate images as an integral part of a new way that domestic violence is being perpetrated against mostly female victims.

I want to speak about one case which was reported by the victim support service in the discussion about this bill. A woman was forced by her husband into having sex with a third person, which her husband recorded. The woman was in an abusive relationship. She felt that she was not able to refuse, and then her husband posted the image online and used it to blackmail the woman: he threatened to send that image to the woman's family and friends. You can see how these images are being used to control the behaviour of women who are in abusive relationships.

What is incredibly shocking about this situation was that, even though the woman was eventually able to report to the police this crime that had occurred—I say 'crime', because it should be a crime—at that time, there was no relevant law in place and her husband was not subject to any legal consequences for his behaviour. There we have the perfect example of where the failure of this parliament to keep up with the way this crime is being perpetrated in the community completely failed that victim, and it failed the community.

The non-consensual sharing of intimate images relates to another area that's of great concern to me in my role as the shadow minister for justice—that is, human trafficking. We know, through various studies that have been undertaken, that images and films of victims are often used by human traffickers as a tool to manipulate women—similar to that case of domestic violence that I referred to earlier. Project Respect has reported several such cases, including the case of a Thai woman who said her trafficker possessed a nude photo of her and threatened to use it to deny her access to her child.

These are some of the sharper edges of the crimes that are being committed using technology to create enormous distress and enormous hurt for individuals and the community, and the bill that's currently before us is going to help us bring some of these people to justice.

I want to address an important point about a disagreement that the two major political parties in this country have had about this bill, and we've managed to find a common solution. I want to refer to the importance of having criminal offences contained in the bill that's before the parliament. I mentioned that two Labor backbenchers, the members for Gellibrand and Griffith, originally proposed a law that would see the non-consensual sharing of images elevated to criminal offences in Australia. The proposal that was put forward by the government took a different tack, which was to keep the offences within civil law. I am very pleased to see that the government has decided to make a change to the bill and agreed that the offences that are under discussion today are indeed matters that should be dealt with under our criminal law.

I've waded into territory that, again, is not necessarily being discussed around the dinner table of Australians—whether something should an offence under civil or criminal law—but it is of enormous importance that we as a parliament make the statement that we see this problem in society. The difference between civil and criminal law is whether we see this as a private matter between two people where redress can eventuate through our justice system, or whether we believe that this is an act that deserves punishment—that is, a criminal offence—where something is not going to be fixed by some compensation being paid between one party and another. This is a crime; it is an act that is worthy of punishment. I think that it is absolutely the case that this should be a crime, and the federal parliament will shortly agree on that matter.

I say that because what is different about this to a matter of civil law is that there is a victim here and that victim needs to feel that there is some sense of justice in the system. There is a crime being done to society. What we're seeing here is not a civil matter. It's not a dispute between two parties, like an issue where they're debating who owns a piece of property. This is a crime: there is a victim here who is being violated in the most profound of ways. It is appropriate that we acknowledge that the crime is not just being done to the victim but being done to our whole society. When a person shares a non-consensual image, they are doing something that is completely unacceptable to this parliament and completely unacceptable to the Australian community. That is why we see this as a criminal matter. I'm very pleased that the government was able to get to the point where they saw this as a matter of criminal law.

I might just finish by speaking a little bit more about some of the victims and the impact that this has had on them. What we know is that when victims come forward, they're often intensely ashamed by the things that have happened to them. I'm lucky that this has never happened to me. I just can't even imagine the shame and distress that a lot of people, and particularly women, feel when the most private images of them are taken from them without their consent and shared potentially with the whole world. We've seen websites that have been created to facilitate this kind of conduct. These are websites that have been created where angry ex-boyfriends can take intimate images of their ex-girlfriends and punish them by sharing the most intimate images of them. It is despicable and disgusting behaviour. It is entirely appropriate that the federal parliament say so, and I'm pleased to see us doing that today through this law.

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution in support of the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. The rise of the internet has by and large brought great benefits to our society. It's now more convenient to pay our bills, do the banking, find out what's happening in the world and keep in touch with family and friends. These things are all easier. I think, on balance, we are better off for them. Little more than a decade ago, we didn't have Facebook and we were just beginning to search with Google. A decade ago, the first iPhone was launched, and it transformed the mobile phone into an app-driven computer and connected it to a camera. Nowadays, people use their phones to capture images of every occasion. It's now more common for someone to snap a picture or shoot some video with their phone than it is for them to actually make a phone call. Capturing the moment, so to speak, has become the new normal and accepted form of shared communication and belonging.

Amongst the millions of images captured in Australia every day, many will be shared and enjoyed, some will be celebrated and, sadly, some will take on a far more serious meaning and could be the subject of threats, intimidations and bullying. The threat of regret and potential embarrassment, humiliation, shame or something worse is all the greater in the case of intimate or private images. Whilst some might suggest that people just shouldn't share images, the reality in the world we live in today is that this is what happens and this is what people do. As I've noted, these days everyone has a camera. Whilst people may have regrets when these images are shared, it's just a part of life. Unfortunately, video images and the stills can be very public and hurtful evidence of what happens when images are taken with or without consent, and they can be used against the subject of those images.

I'm no fan of the nanny state, but it is our job as lawmakers to evaluate where we as a society are with this issue and to act without prejudice to protect the interests of the community as best we can. Given that victims can't always rely on other parties to act in good faith, we have to create rules and mechanisms to limit the potential harm. A huge amount of damage can be wrought by the publication of intimate images. It can devastate someone for the rest of their lives. The consequences can be extremely serious and dire. It can devastate someone not just within their social circles but within the wider community. It can potentially cruel their chances of employment and dog them throughout their days—let alone the criminal aspect and the spectre of the use of these images for criminal purposes, blackmail, bullying or intimidation. This is something that society shouldn't tolerate.

I too am glad to see that the elements of this bill have been incorporated into the Criminal Code Act. I think it's appropriate, and the fact that the parliament is willing to legislate these elements into the Criminal Code sends the message that the Australian people do take this issue seriously and that there are serious consequences for flouting the rules. Society and the community demand it, because the humiliation and the hurt that can arise from this behaviour is something that you wouldn't wish upon anyone.

I commend all the parties who've worked on this bill and put it together. It is in the community interest that we've done this. It's a timely piece of legislation, because a perpetrator can publish harmful images in seconds, yet cause damage which can last a lifetime. This bill sends the clear message that, if you're going to do that, you'll be hit with the full force of the law—indeed, the full force of the criminal law. I think that's really important, and I commend this bill to the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Criminalising image based abuse and combating the rise of this new form of violence is a very important and overdue change. Labor welcomes the government's backflip and will support the amendment to the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 to introduce aggravated offences for the offensive use of a carriage service where conduct involves private sexual material, because it reflects Labor's clear and longstanding position. It's almost three years now since my colleagues the members for Griffith and Gellibrand introduced a bill into the parliament to criminalise the sharing, without consent, of private sexual material and images. Labor took a policy to the last election, over two years ago, that, within the first hundred days of government, we'd make image based abuse a crime. We said that it was urgent to make this change at that time and that there was no time to waste; however, the government, sadly, killed off Labor's bill. It was removed from the Notice Paper in May last year after the government refused for eight consecutive sitting weeks to call it on for debate.

Labor has continually called on the government to criminalise image based abuse, and the government has continued to make excuses that defy sense and fly in the face of the evidence. In April 2016 the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report including this recommendation:

To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.

Both the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police have supported the introduction of a criminal offence. The Director of Public Prosecutions said a Commonwealth offence targeting so-called revenge porn would 'fill a gap within the existing law'. The Australian Federal Police said 'Uniformity in legislation would be most helpful for the police so that they can investigate and charge perpetrators.' Family violence advocates, sexual assault services and law enforcement services have overwhelmingly called for the introduction of a specific criminal offence.

Four out of five Australians agree that it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. The only people who didn't think image based abuse should be a crime were the government. The former Minister for Women, Senator Michaelia Cash, insisted, 'People don't want to go down the criminal path.' Further, she said, 'The civil penalty regime is more attractive.' The government has repeatedly justified its failure to introduce a specific Commonwealth offence for image based abuse on the basis that there is an existing offence under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code for misuse of telecommunications services to menace, harass or cause offence. They have insisted again and again that a criminal offence is not necessary. I welcome the government finally changing its position with this amendment.

Making image based abuse a specific Commonwealth crime will make a huge difference. It's important because we will no longer need to rely on a patchwork of different laws across the country. It's important because it will make it easier for victims to go to the police and to have their complaint taken seriously. It's also important to draw a line in the sand and acknowledge that this is criminal behaviour. It's essential that the Australian parliament send a clear message to the community that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is not acceptable. Sharing intimate images of someone without their consent is a horrific violation of that person's right to privacy. It's an action absolutely designed to humiliate and attack. It's a form of sexual violence, and it's a form of abuse. It's a way that people are exercising power and control over their partners and former partners. So-called revenge porn websites or messaging groups circulating intimate images of young women against their consent are an abhorrent sign that attitudes towards women in some parts of our community are still hopelessly outdated and even malign.

The impact on the victim can be terrible. This violation and invasion of privacy can affect people's reputation, their family, their employment, their current relationships and, of course, even their personal safety. Queensland woman Robyn Night found out from a friend that her head had been photoshopped onto the body of a naked woman surrounded by men. Attached to her photoshopped image were her name, her address and even a picture of her home. She called the police. Because they didn't have these powers, they told her that they could do nothing. The fraud squad never called her back. It took four years—four years of strange men turning up on her doorstep—before she got a positive response from police. Mrs Night told her story through the Senate inquiry investigating Labor's image based abuse legislation. She wanted a criminal offence and jail time for perpetrators. Over 60,000 people signed Mrs Night's petition calling on the government to change the law.

Image based abuse has become scarily widespread. Most of us look back with some wistfulness to our younger days but, when I think about the new challenges that young people today face that we didn't have to face when we were younger, this is near the top of my list of the things that I'm really glad I never had to think about or deal with. In 2017, a study suggested that one in five Australians, both men and women, have experienced image based abuse.

We have to make it perfectly clear that this sort of violation and abuse is criminal behaviour. We need to make it clear to people who are contemplating taking this kind of action that they could be sent to prison for it. Creating a specific criminal offence sends a clear message that this behaviour is not okay, that it's not acceptable and that it has the harshest possible consequences. Labor supported this bill in the Senate because a civil regime was a step in the right direction, but we did so, at the time, noting strong concerns that a civil regime did not go far enough in recognising the seriousness of image based abuse, which should be criminalised. Labor is deeply committed to keeping Australians safe online, and I'm very pleased that we can support the bill, now amended and improved, in the House.

I want to thank all of the stakeholders in the community—all of the groups who fight every day against violence against women and who have campaigned for this change. I want to particularly acknowledge my Labor colleagues who have fought so long—for years!—for this change, including Terri Butler, the member for Griffith; Tim Watts, the member for Gellibrand; Clare O'Neil, the member for Hotham; and Mark Dreyfus, the member for Isaacs. Each one of them has made a strong contribution to seeing this legislation now.

The Turnbull government wasted more than three years insisting that Australians didn't need this protection, that Australia didn't need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse. So I'm very pleased that they've finally accepted the evidence, listened to Australians' views and followed Labor's lead. I commend the bill to the House.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We obviously strongly support this bill given that it was first introduced into the Senate at the end of last year. The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 will facilitate the quick removal of intimate images that have been shared without consent, which is the primary concern of victims. The government is strengthening Australia's laws against technology facilitated abuse, and this bill will complement and extend existing criminal offence provisions at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels, and provide victims with another option for timely and effective redress. It will send a clear message to the community that the sharing of intimate images without consent is not an acceptable practice. This bill is the result of extensive public consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group.

This is something that many people in this House, regardless of their political persuasion, do support. They think it's necessary. Our communities are calling for it, and hence the parliament is acting. There will be a civil penalty regime to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner, and there are a variety of measures that will be available to address the instances where there has been the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This will include a formal warning, infringement notices, a civil penalty order from the relevant court, enforceable undertakings or the seeking of an injunction. The commissioner will have the option to issue removal notices to perpetrators, social media service providers, and website and content hosts. These removal notices will mean that the intimate image must be removed within 48 hours after the notice has been given, or, if the commissioner allows, there may be a provision for a longer period. Penalties of up to $105,000 for individuals and just over half a million dollars for corporations can be incurred for the breach of the provision, prohibition or failure to comply with a removal notice or other remedial action.

This is important legislation. It will make a difference to our community and will ensure that the community's interests are protected and enhanced. I'm glad to see that there is bipartisan support for this piece of legislation.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to get the unexpected opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. This bill is a really important step in the right direction. Like the member for Sydney, who spoke earlier, something I did not have to deal with as a young person was the difficulty and some of the challenges posed by having a phone, a camera and the internet. Of course, there are a lot of benefits with the internet, but there are also some risks, and one of those risks is having intimate images of yourself shared when that is out of your control. I've spoken to a number of people to whom this has happened, and they've said that they felt so disempowered. That lack of control has a really big impact, along with shame and along with humiliation—I think those are the right words for it. It is very, very distressing.

So, this bill is an important step in making sure that shame, humiliation and some of the dangers that come along with the internet and the ability to share these types of pictures are addressed. It is important that our legislative framework keeps up with technological change and keeps people safe and protected. I think anything this parliament can do to make sure that happens is an important thing. This is a new phenomenon. When I speak to people in the school setting they raise it as an issue. The sharing of images in a school environment, which particularly impacts young women, is deeply concerning. Therefore, we need to do everything we can. As other members who have spoken on this bill have said, we need to do everything we can, and an individual who has privately shared their image, for private purposes, should not be shamed. The problem is when control over that image is taken away and the image is inappropriately used to humiliate and control and a range of other things, and we need to be very vigilant as a parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really wish we didn't need this legislation, the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. I wish it wasn't necessary. I wish everyone using devices would choose not to use the internet to share intimate images and videos. I wish people didn't choose to photoshop other people's faces onto pornographic material. I encourage everyone who's using a device to think very seriously about how they use that device, irrespective of their age, given that much of the material can and will be there forever. This is something people need to think seriously about before they hit 'send' or 'post'. I hope and encourage both individuals and the police to use the laws that we're enacting through this legislation.

According to the Deloitte Mobile Consumer Survey, 88 per cent of Australians own a smartphone. The internet is a vital tool for education, research, entertainment and social interaction. But the internet is also being used for the wrong purposes, and it leads to very tragic circumstances. One of those wrong purposes is the non-consensual sharing of intimate images of other people. Creating a safer online world involves various platforms. Everyone who uses the internet is responsible in this space—the industry itself, schools, parents, children, support agencies and government. We need to do, as this government is, everything we can to ensure that Australians are safe in their online activities, as much as is possible.

As members of this House know, for many years I've delivered cybersafety presentations to schools, the community and businesses. I can tell this House from firsthand experience that image based abuse in its various forms is rife. And I can tell you that it ruins lives, which is why the legislation before the House is so necessary. Around 20 per cent of Australians have been victims of image based abuse, regardless of their age, their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, their education or, indeed, their bank balance. There are young people in my electorate and elsewhere in Australia who have actually attempted suicide after someone they thought they could trust with those very personal, intimate images, chose to share them without their consent. The under-18 age group caught in this space are covered by our child pornography laws.

The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 reflects part—just part—of the government's ongoing commitment to keep Australians safe online. It deals with a very specific form of abuse when private, intimate, nude or sexual images are shared without the consent of those pictured. It also includes those that are photoshopped, deep fakes and morph porn. This happens sometimes when a current or an ex-partner shares an intimate image of you on social media without your consent. Perhaps it's to hurt or humiliate you. Perhaps it's just that they don't care anymore. Don't forget that, even if you have sent someone an intimate image of yourself, it does not mean that you have agreed that this image can be shared or be sent viral on a social media site.

Image based abuse can also be referred to as technology-facilitated violence, cyber exploitation and intimate image abuse. Threats are made as part of this. They're made in an attempt, often, to control, to blackmail, to coerce, to bully, to punish and sometimes just to hurt the victim. Sometimes it's just because we can, because we've got those photos. According to a recent RMIT research paper, images are being used in highly diverse and complex ways as a form of control, abuse, humiliation and gratification that goes well beyond the jilted ex-lover scenario. There are revenge porn websites that actually encourage users to upload nude or sexual images of others, and personal information along with it, such as names, addresses and links to personal profiles. The victim can then be forced to pay to remove the images. This is blackmail or what's known as sextortion. The most well-known of these websites are hosted overseas, and they may not be willing to take down the images. This is a really important reason not to do it in the first place. Please don't do it. They've got a business model, and it is based around hosting this type of image that you, as the market, their market, provide. Think of the consequences if you were the one in the photos—the damage to your reputation and your relationships and the effect on your family, your employment, your social relationships and your personal safety. This is what people forget when they take and share these types of photos. I've actually seen it far too often in my years of doing these presentations. People come to me because they know I'm active in this space.

I live in a small rural and regional community. I've seen so often the community's loss of respect for an individual whose photos have been distributed. In a small rural and regional community where everyone knows everyone, how would you feel, having to walk down a small local street and go into your local shops or local businesses, like the newsagent you go to every day, where everyone in that shop is looking at you and having a bit of a laugh because they've seen the images? What if you were the person in the business behind the counter or providing the service and someone had photoshopped your face onto someone else's naked or pornographic image and sent it viral in your small community?

How would you feel if you were the 14-year-old girl in my electorate who shared intimate photos with her boyfriend—it was a very precious relationship to her—only to find out that he sent them to everyone after they broke up? Is anybody here really surprised that she attempted suicide, at 14? She is just one of many that I've dealt with, but it's both young people and adults who have been victims. There is the adult who sent an intimate image to a beautiful woman overseas only to receive a response that said, 'Thanks for that. If you don't pay me $10,000, I will show this to your wife, your work and the local newspaper.' That's what happens when you make the choice to share this type of image.

Snapchat is just one of the apps that encourage sexting—sending naked and semi-naked selfies. It's really rife among young people. And young people thought, because Snapchat told them so, that their images would simply disappear and they could do this with impunity. They were told, 'No-one's going to know you did it.' That's not what happened, of course. Others took screenshots of these photos, and there are apps that automatically save every single Snapchat photo. One of the other concerns—and I have seen this far too often—is that young people think they're only sharing their images with a friend or with a small group of people, but we also know that this is a paedophile's paradise. They find these images, access these images and use these images in ways that would horrify people in this House and elsewhere.

Sharing can occur over electronic services, email, text, multimedia messaging, social messaging services, message boards, forum websites and websites specifically designed to share images without consent. These are the reasons this bill will create a prohibition against non-consensual posting or threatening to post an intimate image. It covers social media services; relevant electronic services, such as email or text; or any designated internet service, which includes websites and peer-to-peer file-sharing services. It establishes a complaints and objections system, to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. I just wish everybody in Australia, including young people, knew to use the resources of the eSafety Commissioner's office. There's an extraordinary amount of assistance—advice, help, support and access to counselling—available to people through the eSafety Commissioner. Through this legislation, victims or persons authorised on behalf of victims will be able to actually lodge a complaint with the eSafety Commissioner. The first thing parents scream down the phone to me when they know that the images of their young people are viral is, 'I just need to get them taken down, as a first step.' Sometimes there are more steps that they want after that, but the first step is: 'Just get it down. It's my child that the world is seeing this way.'

The first thing is go to the eSafety Commissioner, and the eSafety Commissioner will help to get these images removed. The bill will facilitate this removal, especially where a person who initially perhaps consented has changed their mind. They will be able to lodge an objection notice with the commissioner. Very importantly, the bill will introduce civil penalties. How important is that? The eSafety Commissioner will actually enforce these. The penalties will be up to $105,000 for an individual and up to $525,000 for corporations, as they should be. If you make a choice to share these images without consent, there will be consequences for that action. There needs to be a change of culture on the internet. Having consequences is part of changing that culture. These penalties can be incurred for a breach of prohibition or a failure to comply with a removal notice. Take it down.

Last year, through the eSafety Commissioner, the government launched a pilot of a world-first new national portal for reporting non-consensual sharing of intimate images. It provides immediate support to victims of image based abuse. Image based abuse is something that eats away at you when it happens to you. The portal gives victims a place to seek assistance and report instances of image based abuse, with clear and concise information about the practical steps. You just want to get action when this happens to you. Since the launch of this, the eSafety Commissioner's office has received over 115 reports of image based abuse. That is a drop in the ocean. Report this, please. It doesn't matter if you are a young person or an adult. Report it. There are 220 separate URLs and locations where the images were made available. In addition, the eSafety Commissioner's office has received almost 60 queries regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and has had over 48,000 total visits to the image abuse portal. It's telling its own story, isn't it? That's only the people who actually know at this time that that's where you can go and report those instances. They might be significant statistics, but I can tell this House it is a drop in the ocean to what is happening.

I keep saying to people: please don't do this. Please don't come to me after the damage is done. Make a conscious decision that you're not going to share these images in the first place. This civil penalty regime targets the perpetrators and the content hosts who knowingly engage in this behaviour. This is a real concern more broadly in the community, and parents are the ones who have been very vocal with people like me and with the government. We've listened to them and responded, and that's what you can see the minister has done through this legislation. Young people are very much aware of this, but it doesn't stop them. But the minister and the government are sending a very clear message to all Australians: the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society. That is the message through this legislation.

The bill has been developed in consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, the victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. I want to commend the government for forming the eSafety Commissioner's office. I was strongly involved in this. But we're always playing catch-up because of what people choose to do and what people choose to share online. The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated.

In closing, I will go back to where I started: please do not share any of these images. Make a conscious decision. Encourage your families and your young people. Tell them that it's not okay and what can actually happen to them once they click 'send' or 'post'.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. In starting, I will just note that in the schools galleries we've got young children in one gallery and older teenagers in another. If there's any bill before this House that impacts young people, it's this bill. This bill introduces both civil and criminal penalties to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Labor believed criminal penalties should apply from the get-go, and I am very pleased to see the government has taken our concerns on board and agreed to amend its own bill in order to now provide criminal penalties. This is a great example of this parliament working at its best.

What is known colloquially as 'revenge porn' is a particularly insidious feature of the internet and smartphone age. The act of recording someone doing something private and intimate and then disseminating, without that person's consent, a recording in order to cause them harm is, unfortunately, widespread. It is foul. We are not here to judge how those images came to be taken. It's possible they were taken between consenting adults for private use or recorded for a laugh between consenting friends. What is clear is that the recording of such events should not be shared without the consent of all parties concerned. Too often, we have seen instances of spurned or jealous lovers using the existence of such recordings as blackmail or currency in campaigns to hurt and humiliate. I am particularly concerned by the potential to cause harm to young people and, as the father of a 19-year-old daughter, especially the harm that can be caused to young women.

Once an image or a video has been uploaded to the internet, it is there forever. I know that we are seeking orders from the eSafety Commissioner to have these things taken down, but that takes down the original recording. If somebody caches that image or sends it on, it can be almost impossible sometimes to track that back and have it taken down. I do echo the sentiments of the member for Forrest in this. Think carefully before you undertake these activities. You may be having a laugh in that moment or sharing an intimate moment, but you never know where relationships end up. It may have been a jealous or immature impulse that causes a perpetrator to hit send, but feeling sorrow or regret after the fact does not make the harm go away. Perpetrators must understand that sharing intimate images without consent is a crime and that they are criminals.

This parliament has been debating this issue for some time—for too long, in fact. In October 2015, Labor introduced a private member's bill to criminalise revenge porn. In April 2016, the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report recommending:

To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.

Labor went to the 2016 federal election promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise revenge porn within the first 100 days of being elected. In October 2016, Labor reintroduced its private member's bill in the current parliament, but this was removed from the Notice Paper on 23 May 2017 because the government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays. Finally, in November 2017, the government undertook to consult on a proposed civil penalty regime targeted at perpetrators, social media services and website content hosts that share images without consent.

The government's bill has been informed by a public consultation process with a cross-section of stakeholders including the Australian Federal Police, women's safety organisations, mental health experts, school and education departments, victims and the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. During the public consultation process, there was broad consensus amongst stakeholders that the primary concern of victims is, indeed, the rapid removal of offending images. I say 'rapid removal' because the longer those things are on the net, the longer they'll stay and the more they are distributed. It is virtually impossible to get rid of them if they're there for any more than—well, I don't know how long, but it doesn't take long for them to spread. In June 2017, Labor moved a second reading amendment in the House calling on the Turnbull government to criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent. In December 2017, the government introduced this bill following the public consultation.

It is worth noting that, in January of this year, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk called for a national conversation on the related issue of cyberbullying in the wake of the death of Amy 'Dolly' Everett earlier this year. The Premier said she would host a round table to discuss strategies that could be taken to the COAG meeting in February. The right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse is primarily contained in article 20.2 of the ICCPR, which requires Australia to take measures to protect persons from exploitation, violence and abuse. As the Australian Information Commissioner stated in a submission to the department's consultation on the bill:

The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale.

In calling for laws to address revenge porn Tasmania's Sexual Assault Support Service submitted several incidents to a Senate committee and highlighted others in the media. In 2015 a Tasmanian man was convicted of raping a young woman, having threatened to publish a photo that she had sent him of her breasts. That threat was enough to tell the court that sex had not been consensual. Recently images of high-school students in Canberra were posted to a revenge-porn website where users swapped intimate photos of girls and women without their consent. One thread on the site is marked 'Hobart, Tasmania'. Some participants go as far as requesting images of particular women. Other threads are marked with different locations, individual names, Snapchat screenshots and requests for images of schoolgirls. It is a foul subculture which, I'm sorry to say, is popular with far too many male teenagers. I shudder to think what sort of men they turn into if this is their view of women as young men.

The impact of revenge porn on Tasmanian victims is intensified by our island's relatively small and discrete population. Without seeking to perpetuate an offensive stereotype, it is fair to say that most of us in Tasmania know each other by perhaps one or two degrees of separation. You don't have to go far to bump into somebody who knows somebody. Word gets out fast, especially in the regional towns, and material like this spreads like wildfire through kids' social media networks. Sexual Assault Support Service Tasmania chief Jill Maxwell says her organisation is seeing increasing numbers of young women and girls reporting image based abuse. She reports that many perpetrators appear to be on a power trip, seeking to intimidate their victims. Others want to punish women either as individuals or as a gender. Sometimes it's just because perpetrators, usually younger teens, both male and female, think it's funny and either don't realise or don't care about the consequences to their victims.

Cyberbullying and revenge porn kills kids. We've all heard the evidence of the devastating effects that this stuff has on young people, and, when it's compounded by isolation and teasing, it can be lethal. This parliament's actions today have the support of the Australian public. According to a study:

4 in 5 Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission

… (80%) agreed with the statement: 'It should be a crime for someone to share a nude or sexual image of another person without that person's permission'. Females (84%) were slightly more likely than males (77%) to endorse the criminalisation of image-based abuse. Both victims and non-victims of image-based abuse were just as likely to agree that it should be a crime, indicating that there is a broad agreement within the Australian community as to the seriousness of this issue, regardless of whether someone has experienced it personally.

Alarmingly, one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians report having experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

Labor welcomes the government's change of heart on the criminalisation of image based abuse online and supports the government's amendments to its bill to introduce aggravated offences for the offensive use of a carriage service where the conduct involves private sexual material. This amendment reflects Labor's clear and longstanding position, and it expands upon the civil prohibition and civil penalty regime in the bill—which is, as the member for Forrest noted, a $105,000 civil penalty, so it's not small bickies; if you engage in this sort of activity, put $105,000 aside because that's what you'll be paying the victims of your conduct—and applies increased criminal penalties to the most serious instances of the sharing of intimate images. It is a pity that the government wasted so much time insisting that Australia did not need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse, but we are pleased it has finally accepted the evidence, changed its tune and followed Labor's lead.

I would like to congratulate all members of this House and the Senate for their work. I know there are a lot of people on our side who have worked very hard to bring this about—in particular, the member for Griffith, the member for Hotham, the member for Gellibrand and the member for Isaacs—and I'm sure there are members on the other side who've worked just as hard. All of us want this issue dealt with. We know how serious it is. It is a modern problem. The internet has delivered great things for us, but this is one of the insidious sides of what the internet age has brought. I think the member for Forrest is right; we are playing catch-up to a degree. Technology and culture overtake laws, and we have to play catch-up, but I can assure all the parents and any victims in the public gallery that we are taking this issue seriously; we are tackling it head-on. We think these issues need to be dealt with, and we are dealing with them. Thank you.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the father of a young daughter and as someone who is still close in age to the younger generation, being the youngest member of the House of Representatives, I feel that it's incredibly important that the subject matter of this bill receive as much attention and publicity as possible. I feel that I can address this issue not only from the perspective of a parent but also from the perspective of someone who, at least partially, grew up in the digital world. For example, ICQ and MSN Messenger, later known as Windows Live Messenger, started in the late nineties, when I was still a teenager—around the age of 14 to 16. I remember the interactions that started between youth of that age over those platforms. And Facebook, for example, started in 2004 when I was 21.

As parents we sometimes want to wrap our children up and protect them from the world; however, it is inevitable that as they grow older they will face more and more contexts where they face more and more risk, which is in itself essential to growing, maturing and learning how to face and deal with difficult situations. But I do want the situation for my daughter and others growing up today to be better than it has been in the past.

While we as MPs may wish to sometimes take on the role of parents protecting their children as much as possible, there are certain angles from which to tackle an issue like this so we can be as effective as possible. There are many areas of life where, quite frankly, it is not appropriate for MPs to act like parents. Raising children is, first and foremost, the right and responsibility of parents and families. However, what we can do is work to address the outcomes of situations that children may find themselves in or to try to prevent those situations from arising where possible. This becomes even clearer when the matter in question verges on severe civil legal matters or indeed criminal matters. This subject, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, is one that has wide-ranging outcomes and some very serious ramifications stemming from peer pressure, jokes, malicious intent, revenge or something in between.

My colleagues will note my references to this legislation so far have been in the context of people of school age. While this legislation clearly has aspects that protect adults, it is particularly the effect this legislation will have on young people that I want to discuss today. Online platforms become more and more advanced every day, and from speaking to students in my electorate I have become even more acutely aware of how quickly internet sharing platforms advance. While we may attempt to teach our children about the dangers of oversharing—whether it is initially online or in person, voluntary or involuntary—I would argue that the government has an important role to play by extending its oversight where a parent's reach ends.

The internet is a wonderful tool for education, commerce, advocacy, health and so many other issues and areas, but we all know that it can also be used for the wrong reasons. It not only provides a platform for private material; it makes it very easy to spread and cause significant harm to an unsuspecting individual.

Revenge porn, the distribution of images for entertainment, even images that are spread beyond what was thought to be a small group in confidence, is covered by this legislation. It is important that we work to address these situations before the impact on victims reaches a stage that it affects their reputation, employment prospects, relationships with family or friends, or their physical wellbeing and safety. It is very easy to look at legislation and see simply words, but there are always people behind these bills. I urge my colleagues across the House to consider the impact of a scenario like this on them, their friends, their family or their neighbours. If we have the ability to prevent such serious harm coming to those individuals, we have an obligation to act.

In May last year I spoke on a related bill, also working to keep children and teenagers safe. The Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017 sought to address the threat to young people frequently posed by adults pretending to be teenagers who prepare or plan to cause harm to, procure or engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 16 by the means of an online platform. Also, throughout my work leading the inquiry into modern slavery I've worked closely on issues around sexual slavery and the exploitation of children both in Australia and in the supply chains of Australian businesses and organisations.

While the protecting minors online bill had a different focus, that legislation from a year ago is directly related to the matter we are discussing today as well. Carly's Law, as this bill became known, was brought about by the horror of what befell Carly Ryan, who, as I'm sure I don't need toremind my colleagues, fell victim to an online predator posing to be someone her age and was raped and murdered. We have so much to do to attempt to keep pace with the internet and to keep our young people safe online. The important point is we can do something. The first person has already been charged under Carly's Law.

We in this place are all elected to work for our constituents and to keep our children safe to the greatest extent that the law allows, and we are continuing that important work again today in addressing the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. I would like to thank my Victorian coalition colleague the Minister for Communications, Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield, for his work in bringing about the bill we have before us today, as well as the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, and the then Minister for Communications, now Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who also contributed to the wider context that this legislation is in today.

I'm aware that a number of amendments to this bill have been discussed and debated, which I'm pleased about, as it acknowledges the importance of this subject and shows that there is a significant commitment in this building to getting this legislation right. It is important to acknowledge that the approach and sentiment behind these amendments is first and foremost with concern for those involved and about minimising the harm done by individuals of malicious intent and empowering victims to take control over these situations. My concern over the amendments that involve criminal penalties, as well-meaning as they may be, is that it risks revictimising people who have already gone through some awful experiences. Women's advocacy groups have been consulted in the formation of this legislation and we've seen from statistics relating to other offences of a sexual or intimate nature that, for many people, having to testify about what has happened to you or having to give evidence or provide detail to the police can be incredibly distressing. I have my reservations about any components of the legislation that may force victims to relive these experiences but certainly acknowledge that we are all coming from the same perspective in this debate—that is, ensuring and preserving the welfare of people, primarily women and girls, whose trust is betrayed or who have no control over the situation.

Why are these changes important? These changes are important because they are enabling people to take a proactive approach and to regain some control of a situation that previously was not within their control. Extending a parent or individual's reach and power over removing images I believe is a natural continuation of our existing legislation on the abuse of carrier services, because unfortunately these days it is far too easy for technology to invade all of our private lives, whether we're aware of it or not.

In debating, and I hope soon passing, this legislation, the government is strengthening Australia's laws against technology facilitated abuse, which will complement and extend existing criminal offence provisions at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels and will provide victims with another option for timely and effective redress. The bill sends a clear message to the community that the sharing of intimate images without consent is not an acceptable practice. The civil and criminal penalties facing perpetrators of these offences are important, but, most of all, this bill will facilitate the quick removal of images that have been shared without consent, which is the primary concern of victims and advocacy groups who have been heavily involved in this process. The eSafety Commissioner can even have photos that have been photoshopped removed. I understand that this is the result of extensive public consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group.

I also recognise the contribution that a number of social media platforms have made towards these changes. I read a few months ago, for example, about the ongoing collaboration between the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and Facebook. Facebook has been testing a proactive reporting tool in partnership with the eSafety Commissioner, and I hope that that relationship and the ability to stop these images coming up improve even further. Social media really is central to this legislation, and it's fantastic that we have support in protecting Australian users. As I said, we need to improve the goodwill and work in this space.

I'm also incredibly passionate about this area of the law and policy not only because I'm a father but because, as a human being, I'm compassionate about the fact that we need to stop these activities happening and to protect not only children but the wider community from these activities. I don't want to see people's lives ruined either due to a situation getting out of their control or due to the abuse of trust by someone they thought was close to them.

I've had this legislation on my radar since the bill was passed by the Senate back in February. My office, in conjunction with my friend and colleague the Chief Government Whip, Nola Marino, coordinated several school visits for the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence back in March. This allowed us to speak to students of varying ages in my electorate of Dunkley about cybersafety, to spread the message of caution and education about the reach and impact that social media and online hosting services can have. As many school assemblies do, our visit started off with many students restless and possibly distracted. But as Nola progressed through her talk, particularly raising the situation of Carly Ryan, the students became still and fixed on her words. I believe that at least some students were thoroughly impacted by our conversations that day, particularly noting some of the conversations that occurred with students coming up to the Chief Government Whip and me after the presentation. I would hope that, if it changes behaviour or actions and perhaps prevents even one decision that may not have been thought through, we will have helped to make a difference.

As the Chief Government Whip said at the time, young people know, and think they know, a lot more than their parents about being online, and they need to also help younger people, including younger siblings. The initial restlessness that we were met with at the forums that we held demonstrated this. This is why it can be hard to get these messages through, but I'm optimistic that this bill helps address situations that people may find themselves in while we also work to change attitudes and behaviours.

The Chief Government Whip at the time also drew the children's attention to the risk of such incidents of cyberbullying and revenge porn and the impact that this may have on future careers. Unfortunately, having mobile devices in our rooms 24/7 means not only that there's so much more risk of having material spread around but also that bullying, especially cyberbullying, has a much greater reach and can continue to harass and intimidate people when they are in what should be the most private environment. This material not only provides an avenue for bullying but can have serious repercussions for victims' futures, leading to anger, embarrassment, fear, defamation, poor performance at school or work, and even self-harm or suicide. But we can hand some of the power back to victims with this legislation.

Around 20 per cent of Australians have experienced image based abuse. One in five Australians aged 16 to 49 has experienced image based abuse, although women aged 18 to 24 are more likely to be targets. This issue is far more wide reaching than I think many of us would like to admit. With our world becoming increasingly centred around the internet and increased connectivity and accessibility, the risk will only increase. This legislation works with victims and victims' advocacy groups, addressing a variety of civil and criminal penalties to protect Australians. Today our online reputation can be our greatest asset.

Lastly, I refer to the support that the Chief Government Whip, Nola Marino, has shown for students in my electorate and across Australia. No police investigation will ever undo the harm, but we as a government will do what we can to limit it and, with a civil law focus, empower those who have been victimised by predators by passing the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018, which I wholeheartedly support.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great pleasure to be speaking to the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 today. All I can say to those opposite is: about time. Labor first put forward its private members' bill on the issue of non-consensual sharing of intimate images or revenge porn in 2015. It's now 2018. It's now three years later, and we're still discussing the form that this legislation should take.

Technology is advancing at lightning speed. As the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity, I know that regulators and public policymakers throughout the world are grappling with how to keep up with this ever-changing technology environment, which is changing on a daily basis in some sections. Who would have thought, even five years ago, we would have fridges or televisions or dolls that spy on us? It is a challenge for the regulators and it is a challenge for public policymakers to keep up with technology that is advancing so very quickly and with the risks and threats that come as a result of these technological changes. There are, as well, the many advances in technology that are used for good, that create a more engaged society, a more convenient and functioning society, a more connected society and a more equal society. There is a huge opportunity to use technology as a platform for good and there is a huge opportunity to use technology as a platform for the worst. As representatives of our community, we have an obligation to change our laws as technology changes, and this bill represents that.

Non-consensual sharing of intimate images refers to the sharing or distribution of an image or video of someone portrayed in a sexual or intimate manner which has been shared online without consent. This includes social media and websites. This parliament needs to send a very clear message, a very strong message, to our communities that this is not acceptable. Labor know this, and we are committed to it. That's why we supported the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017, which introduced a civil penalty regime to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This bill provides victims of image based abuse with a single entry point to assist in providing redress, whether it's in the form of advice, information, the taking down of imagery or the protection of a person's privacy and reputation. It sets up a statutory regime to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner, including graduated responses from issuing removal notices to the issuing of a remedial notice or direction to ensure a person doesn't contravene the prohibition—a form of deterrence notice, if you like.

Since 2015, Labor has been calling again and again on the Turnbull government to criminalise image based online abuse. This, we know, sends a strong message to the victims, the perpetrators, the police and the community that revenge porn is a crime. In 2016, we took a promise to the election that within the first 100 days of being elected we would make this happen, because we understood that this was a matter of urgency. We understood the prevalence of this in our community and we understood that dealing with it was urgent, because we knew it was a very strongly held view that was shared by the Australian people. Later in 2016, Labor reintroduced its private members' bill, but it was removed from the Notice Paper because this government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays.

Finally, we were given the opportunity to support this bill in the Senate, and we did so knowing that the civil regime was a step in the right direction. But it did not go far enough in recognising the seriousness of image based abuse. It needed to be criminalised. Less than 24 hours ago, this bill failed to send a message to the community that image based abuse is illegal. For years Labor has been saying there should be a specific criminal offence, and time and time again this government has maintained that existing criminal law is enough and that there is no need for a specific criminal offence. Until yesterday the Turnbull government disagreed with Labor, until yesterday this bill failed to criminalise image based abuse, until yesterday Labor was still calling on the government to get with the times, and until yesterday the Turnbull government continued to waste time insisting to Australians that they didn't need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse.

Today, finally, we're pleased that the Turnbull government have finally backflipped. They have accepted the evidence. They've changed their tune and accepted Labor's advice and Labor's leadership on this for years. The government may have been dragged kicking and screaming, and I'm sure they have been, but we are relieved that they've done this. We are relieved that they have finally come to the table, come to their senses and listened to Labor, to the Labor leadership and to the experts on this.

Experts, research statistics and the community all agree this amendment should have been a no-brainer. Research from the RMIT indicates that one in five Australians has experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Those who have had their intimate images posted online include one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians. RMIT has also reported that four out of five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission.

Experts agree that the sharing of intimate images without consent is a serious form of abuse and it can cause significant and ongoing harm. In April 2016, the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report recommending:

To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.

In a submission to the department's consultation on the bill, the Australian Information Commissioner stated:

The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale.

We've heard through the course of this debate about the increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making those recordings. What can be created—because that's what we're dealing with here in many cases—is just breathtaking and horrific.

This research, combined with a lack of leadership from this government, forced the ACT government to lead by example when it comes to non-consensual sharing of images. Instead of waiting around for this government to stop dragging its feet on revenge porn, the ACT Legislative Assembly criminalised this behaviour in 2017. The ACT understood how important it was to stay up to date with technology, and the Crimes (Revenge Porn) Amendment Bill 2017 proves it. The ACT law states that people who publish or threaten to publish non-consensual intimate images online face up to three years in jail or a $45,000 fine. The penalty increases to five years in jail or a fine of up to $75,000 if the victim is aged under 16. In the first six months of this law, several people were charged or convicted. Some of these were convicted of multiple offences. One perpetrator was charged with at least four offences, including printing over 20 intimate images of his ex-partner and threatening to distribute them. The ACT revenge porn law prevented the reputation, dignity and modesty of this victim being destroyed. These laws matter, and the ACT has shown that. The ACT, by taking leadership on this and following federal Labor leadership on this, has proved that these laws matter and that what we have here is a serious problem.

Unfortunately, those in the other chamber have decided that the ACT, despite its wisdom on this legislation and the fact that we have had a mature and logical debate about many, many issues since self-government, is incapable of having the full equality and the full rights of everyone in a state in Australia. Yesterday, they basically condemned those in the ACT and those in the Northern Territory to second-class citizenship. We do not enjoy full equality here in the ACT or in the Northern Territory. Despite the fact that we make up 700,000 of the people in the nation, we do not enjoy full equality compared to those in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia and compared to the 500,000 people in Tasmania.

In 2018, in this democracy that is Australia, those in the other chamber condemned the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory to inequality, to being second-class citizens in our nation. I am deeply disappointed with what happened in the Senate yesterday, particularly because territory rights were voted down by two votes and particularly when, here in the ACT, we have a mature and logical debate about issues. We take a leadership role on many of these issues. We have taken a leadership public policy role in the context of this debate on revenge porn. I again remind those opposite that, in 2018, in a democracy, in Australia, the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory deserve to be treated as equal citizens to those in the states.

Finally, I just want to add that Labor supports and stands by the victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and, since 2015, we've proven that. We understand that revenge porn is not okay and has the capacity to ruin someone's life. I want to make special mention of the tireless efforts of a range of stakeholders in the community who have worked hard to make significant progress on this issue. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues, the members for Gellibrand and Griffith, for taking a leadership role on this. They have been prosecuting this issue and working diligently and tirelessly on this issue for years. Your work has not gone unnoticed; it has finally been noticed even by the Turnbull government. Labor welcomes the backflip from the government. After years of proving our commitment to this bill, I support the government's amendments, especially as they adopt Labor's clear and longstanding leadership and Labor's clear and longstanding position on this issue.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This important piece of legislation, the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018, is designed to target and tackle the problem of revenge porn. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation that should be supported by everybody in this parliament. Sadly, there are many Australians who have experienced the problem of intimate images being taken from them and used for nefarious purposes against their wishes and against their will. This legislation will crack down on that and make sure that there are penalties for people who do so. The bill provides for fines of up to $105,000 for an individual and more than $500,000 for a corporation, if they do not comply with the law.

The important thing that this bill will do is enable individuals to register a complaint with the eSafety Commissioner that an intimate image has been taken away from them and used against their will and their wishes and provide for an investigation and an outcome. If an Australian has a problem with this issue, or an Australian has an intimate image that is taken from them, against their wishes, this law will make it possible for them to have a pathway for recourse by going to the eSafety Commissioner, which can be found at esafety.gov.au, to make sure that there is an investigation to have these images taken down. Thank you.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was young, there were some technologically-driven constraints on photographs you took. You knew that not only would the person who processed your film see the images but so would your pharmacist, including the sales assistant who opened your photos, flicked through them in front of you, and anyone else who was there, and asked you to check they were yours. To copy and share an image involved a laborious process of getting a copy made from a negative, also involving many people seeing it, and then a good old-fashioned envelope and postage stamp.

My point is the likelihood of people feeling comfortable enough to take intimate images, even with consent, was significantly lower than it is today, and sharing those images was much, much harder. Of course, Polaroid changed this. When you could take a photo and see it develop right before your eyes, and your eyes alone, there was a bit more leeway, but the ability to share that image was still limited. It might be discovered by eyes you'd rather not have see it in your sock drawer, but it still wasn't possible for someone to give it wide distribution. However, we all know the digital world has torn away all those constraints. Most of us have a camera by our side almost 24 hours a day, which is why I'm so pleased to be able to support a bill in this House that takes strong action, including criminalisation, against image based abuse online.

I want to raise the point that this is not an issue restricted to what is colloquially known as revenge porn. There are a variety of ways that breaches of privacy occur. It's not just kids. It's not only love affairs gone wrong. What this bill addresses is times when there is a breach of trust, a breach of privacy. This is not the fault of the people who have their images shared, and we have to remember that. We must never make the victims that feel they are to blame for someone else manifestly exploiting their privacy.

Labor supports the government's amendment to this bill, including the criminal penalties, because this is a view we've held for a very long time, including in the lead-up to the last federal election. We promised that, within the first 100 days of being elected, we would act, because we felt a sense of urgency. This sense of urgency was shared by Australians, who appreciate the profound impact that non-consensual sharing of images has on someone. Four out of five Australians agree that it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission, according to RMIT research. When the government failed to act, we reintroduced a private member's bill in October 2016, but the government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays, so it lapsed. It is a shame that so much time has been wasted by this government in insisting that there was no need for a specific criminal offence for image based abuse. But I guess late is better than never.

I want to pay tribute to the people who have worked so hard to make progress on this issue, both within this House and outside, over many years, including people who have been victims of non-consensual sharing of images. I want to speak about the human toll it takes, as people have shared their stories with me. One young man told me of his pain from an incident several years earlier of having an ex-boyfriend share images. They were teenagers, and he hadn't yet come out to his family. It was through seeing images that his younger brother found out that he was gay. It wasn't just the emotional impact of having nude images shared; it was the total loss of control over his own self-determination that was a consequence for this young man. It was, as is so often the case, an abuse of power. When we discussed what would be needed as a deterrent and how strong penalties would need to be to prevent the sharing of images happening in the first place, he agreed that it needed to be a crime for people to share sexual or nude images without permission. I am pleased that this parliament has reached that point.

As I've spoken about this issue with young people, I've been saddened by the ease with which angry, vengeful former lovers or friends can harm someone's reputation, their employment, their social relationships, their family and even their personal safety with a single image.

Let's be clear on what we mean by non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That's sharing or distributing by any social media service, electronic service or designated internet service an image or a video of somebody portrayed in a sexual or otherwise intimate manner without consent. The content might or might not have been obtained with the consent of the person who is in it. It isn't always revenge porn, but it is always intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, even when it's just a threat to share that image. It can be an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce or punish a victim. But other motives exist: fun, social notoriety or financial gain. Whatever the reason, it is right that there should be severe penalties and that it should be a crime.

RMIT and Monash researchers last year surveyed more than 4,000 Australians aged 16 to 45 and found that nearly a quarter of them reported having been victims of image based abuse. The most common forms were sexual or nude images taken of them without their consent; 20 per cent had experienced that. Eleven per cent said the images had been sent to others or distributed without their consent. Nine per cent had experienced threats that the images would be shared. Interestingly, the survey found that victims reported high levels of psychological distress—that is not surprising—but the impacts were highest for those who had experienced threats to distribute an image. Eighty per cent of these people reported high levels of psychological distress consistent with a diagnosis of moderate to severe depression or anxiety disorder. This demonstrates the severity of the harm associated with image based abuse victimisation.

One of the advocates for strong action on this matter is a woman whose privacy was invaded during a gynaecological procedure in 2014. Brieana Rose, as she has chosen to be called in her advocacy role, woke in a hospital recovery suite and saw a nurse showing another nurse something on a mobile phone. Brieana's only thought was that it was strange to see a mobile phone in the recovery room. She didn't really give it much more thought than that. Weeks later, her surgeon rang to say that, while she had been sedated and in stirrups, a nurse had taken an explicit photo of her genitals. The nurse had shared the image with her colleagues, and two nurses had reported her to hospital executives. The nurse was dismissed immediately, but no other action could be taken.

Brieana lives in my electorate. She's a mum and a daughter, like me. Brieana's journey for justice to ensure appropriate action can be taken against people who do this, to ensure that the photo is not going to turn up on the internet and to protect her privacy after this shocking invasion has led her to campaign vehemently for changes so that 21st-century laws match 21st-century technology. There was no legal recourse for her, and that's why this legislation is so important. I think this example also shows that a shocking breach of privacy can happen to just about any of us. I repeat: victims are not the cause of this issue. I want to pay tribute to Brieana, who I know personally. She has faced enormous personal pain and consequences from what was done to her, yet her driving force has been to make sure other people, including other women, don't find themselves in a similar place, without recourse.

This is why the change to the bill—the latest backflip by the government, and the best one we've seen by far—to have criminal, not just civil, consequences is so significant. This behaviour requires a punishment. That brings me to the options for redress. Labor supports victims having a range of options. Not all victims of image based abuse will want to go down the path of criminal proceedings. Some may prefer to work with the eSafety Commissioner under the civil regime. Some may want to go direct to the service provider. We know that the more prominent social media service providers and content hosts are working to develop innovative technological measures, or already have some things in place, designed to assist victims whose images have been shared without consent. I'd encourage those social media providers to continue this work and note that the bill will not prevent victims from approaching these services in the first place rather than the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The mechanism for people to do whatever they choose to do, particularly keeping in mind the distress that they will be experiencing when they do it, needs to be easy. I think it's vital that, with a strong legal framework in place, there continues to be a commitment by all parties to see a swift response to this abhorrent behaviour.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 prohibits the posting or threatening to post of an intimate image without consent on a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service. It also establishes a complaints objection system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. It provides the commissioner with powers to issue a removal notice for offending material. As other speakers from this side of the House have made clear, this legislation is long overdue. Innovation in information and communication technology has changed the way society functions. Almost every facet of life is now transacted via the internet or a similar service. People have instant access to the rest of the world. Innovation has transformed the way we live and, in most cases, for the better. Regrettably, however, innovation can equally be used for bad as be used for good. Unfortunately, often it is. Sometimes it is unintentional, but most times it is deliberate.

The deliberate misuse of information technology has ruined people's lives, whether it's through scamming people out of their life savings; bullying, which has often led to suicide; accessing a person's personal data; identity theft; the online denial of service, effectively sabotaging a business by affecting its internet connections; or the posting of pornographic materials. Finally, there is the matter we are dealing with today: the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, which this bill seeks to address. It is because of the widespread misuse of online information that there is so much widespread mistrust of the government's My Health Record system. It is because so many other systems have been mismanaged and how easy it is to do that for perpetrators who wish to use the internet system for the wrong purposes. For young people, the internet has become particularly problematic, connecting them to undesirables, sometimes leading to bullying at all hours of the day and night and the sharing of intimate images.

I was a member of the inquiry that prepared the report High-wire act: cyber-safety and the youngin 2011, whichtried to address the very issues young people are confronted with each and every day through the use of the internet or cyber systems that we have in this country and around the world. As a member of that committee, I believe that little has changed since 2011 when that report and its 30-odd recommendations were presented. Perpetrators are also always finding new ways to circumvent the safeguards that governments and authorities try to develop. However, when the abuse results in a person being humiliated, shamed and embarrassed to a level that causes long-term psychological harm that can ruin a person's life and a person's relationships, it can be life-threatening. We have reached that point today. When one in five Australians, one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians have experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, we have a serious problem that must be addressed.

It should have been addressed much sooner, as I alluded to earlier on. Labor attempted to do that in 2015 with a private member's bill. That bill included criminal offences for those who perpetrate such action. It has taken the government three years to do the same. One can only wonder: what was it about those original bills that Labor introduced that the government had a problem with? What didn't the government understand about the fact this was a serious matter that needed to be addressed urgently and that, if criminal sanctions did not apply, any other remedy would be less than satisfactory?

The crossbenchers and others in this parliament all saw the need for this matter to be dealt with, and the government has finally come back to parliament with a bill that seeks to provide criminal penalties. It is only through the provision of criminal penalties that those people who have a mind to offend others by such actions might be prevented from doing so. They might think twice about doing so, because they know that the consequences will be very serious. However, the fact remains that, once material is shared through the internet, it can never be universally retrieved even if the image is subsequently taken offline. We don't know if those who have seen it have in some way copied and made permanent images of it which they will keep so that perhaps in a future occasion they can use those images for whatever sinister reasons they have in mind.

I welcome the introduction of this legislation. As someone who participated in a long inquiry, as I alluded to earlier, with respect to the impact that these kinds of acts can have, particularly on young people, I believe it is a step in the right direction. I do have some reservations about whether this legislation will go far enough. I accept that the penalty provisions are quite adequate, but a couple of matters concern me. The e-Safety Commissioner can issue removal notices requiring images to be removed, and the images have to be removed within 48 hours if a notice is issued. My first concern is that 48 hours of using the internet service is a long time. In 48 hours considerable damage and harm can be done. I would have thought that, if it's possible—and perhaps it's not—the notice should require the immediate removal of the images. I see no reason why that can't be done, but I'd be happy to hear from the government as to why that might not be possible.

My other concern is about how this deals with and manages the problem where people under the age of 18 put the images online. As we have heard from others who have spoken in this debate, it's not always adults that are the perpetrators of these kinds of offences; quite often it's minors who are the perpetrators, as well as being the victims. Again, I'm not sure whether this legislation adequately addresses that situation. The reality, however, is that the legislation is an important step towards having a deterrent in place that will prevent people in the future from abusing the opportunities they have to harm someone through the use of the cybersystems of this country and around the world. For those reasons I support this legislation and commend it to the House.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. Labor supports this bill. We're committed to keeping Australians safe online. In relation to this bill we support the government's intent to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Over several years we have demonstrated our commitment to opposing this insidious and hateful practice, as we have heard from other members this morning, so we support this welcome initiative by the government. However, as we've also heard, we're concerned that this bill does not go far enough. I will return to that point later.

In 2015 Labor introduced a private member's bill that would make so-called 'revenge porn' a crime. At that time the sponsors of the bill, my friend the member for Griffith and the member for Gellibrand, made the case for the need to make revenge porn a crime. They described a case—regrettably, not an uncommon scenario—of a young woman who fell in love and shared confidences with her partner, but whose first, innocent and trusting love has turned into the partner's overly protective and controlling behaviour and whose trust has been betrayed.

When the young woman suggests she needs to have her own life, perhaps see other people, he pulls out his phone and shows her a picture of them together naked and clearly having sex. That is clearly an intimate and private scene, something to share only with the man she loved. He puts the photo away and tells her that she needs to watch herself. He makes it clear that he has something to hold over her now. If she even thinks about disobeying him or disrespecting him, let alone leaving him, then the photo won't be private anymore. Perhaps the photo was her idea, perhaps his. Either way, she never thought he would betray her trust or would want to hurt her like that. As the members for Griffith and Gellibrand said, no-one wants private images sent around to their friends, family or workmates without their consent. It is beyond embarrassing. It's a horrible sexual violation that can have a serious impact on victims' health and even their personal safety.

Revenge porn is an extreme example of how new technologies are being used to exercise power and control to shame victims and to silence them. It should be a criminal offence. Labor went to the 2016 election promising to legislate to criminalise revenge porn within 100 days of being elected. Unfortunately, that did not happen. We went close but did not quite get over the line. So, in October 2016, Labor introduced another private member's bill, but the government allowed it to lapse in 2017. Labor has a strong record in working to protect Australians online. That is why we support the intent of this bill. The Information Commissioner stated in a submission to the Department of Communications and the Arts:

The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale.

While the non-consensual sharing of intimate images can often occur as a result of the ex-partner of a victim distributing images of the victim for the purpose of seeking revenge, as in the realistic scenario described by the members for Griffith and Gellibrand, it can also involve acquaintances or complete strangers distributing the images. The practice is generally intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing and distribution of intimate images or the threat to share, often in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce or punish a victim. This is sometimes referred to as sextortion. Other motives might include sexual gratification, fun, social notoriety or financial gain. As the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, said in the Senate in speaking to this bill:

… Australians are immersing themselves in the online world through social networking sites, online games, smartphones and tablets … the internet is a vital tool for education, research, entertainment and social interaction; however … the internet can be used for the wrong purposes, which can lead to very tragic consequences.

He was referring to online bullying in particular. I agree with the minister that there need to be a range of responses to online abuse, which can take various forms and which can include education, civil and criminal responses and the efforts of government, non-government and community bodies. This bill is one response, and we support it.

Several points made in the bill's explanatory memorandum can be highlighted. The non-consensual posting of an intimate image is a serious breach of a person's right to privacy. The posting of an intimate image without consent is also an attack on a person's reputation. It can have far-reaching consequences for the victim's personal relationships and friendships and may also impact a victim's employment or other prospects which are contingent on their reputation. The Australian public recognise the abhorrence of this practice and the significant harm it causes victims and expect an appropriate regime to be enacted to prevent and minimise harm to victims or potential victims.

The bill amends the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 to, among other things, prohibit the posting on the internet of intimate images without consent, establish a complaint system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner and establish a civil penalty regime to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. This is where we believe the bill does not go far enough. We believe the bill should criminalise the posting of intimate images without consent. Civil penalties are not a sufficient deterrent for these abhorrent actions. The government says there is no need to introduce a new criminal offence because, under the Criminal Code, it is already an offence to use a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. This is a very broad offence and is not well enforced in relation to image based offences.

Labor sought information in Senate estimates about the enforcement of this provision of the Criminal Code. The Australian Federal Police told us that 844 charges have been proved against 410 defendants from 2004 to 2016. I'm sure members will agree with me that this is a very low number, given the pervasive nature of the internet into virtually every part of our modern lives. What is more, it is not possible to tell from these figures how many are offences related to the non-consensual posting of intimate images. We do not know how many of these charges related to this sort of vindictive and malicious posting of sensitive or intimate pictures or videos. There may have been no charges relating to that kind of action.

Then there is the inherent issue with civil action. It puts the onus on the victim, already distressed and humiliated, to take action against the perpetrator, with consequent further distress and expense. In fact a civil regime may make this situation worse. It may encourage the police to refer cases to the eSafety Commissioner instead of prosecuting. In my electorate, the Top End Women's Legal Service in Darwin wrote in its submission to the Senate inquiry:

… criminal offences effectively serve as a symbolic and educative function … a tailored offence … would clearly highlight and reinforce the 'wrongfulness' of … this behaviour …

The government's refusal to make this a criminal offence is out of step with the Australian community.

There is presently a piecemeal approach to this issue across Australia, with no nationally consistent criminal laws. I understand it is a criminal offence in Victoria and South Australia to share an intimate or invasive image without consent or to threaten to distribute such an image. I was pleased to see earlier this year that in the Northern Territory our Labor government has also taken action to criminalise the sharing of, or threats to share, intimate images without consent, introducing a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. Our attorney-general, Natasha Fyles, said:

We're sending a strong message to the community that image-based abuse is an unacceptable and serious offence with long lasting effects for the victim.

Importantly, under the NT law the shared image does not necessarily have to be sexual in nature to be in breach if it is considered to be a significant invasion of privacy.

Telecommunications services, constitutionally, are a Commonwealth matter. The area of online safety we are considering in this bill is clearly a telecommunications matter where the Commonwealth should take a strong leadership position. The Federal Police told a Senate hearing that 'uniformity in legislation across Australia would be most helpful to police' to be able to investigate and charge perpetrators.

I acknowledge that the major social media platforms have policies and procedures to address the problem of bullying and image based abuse. However, the recent Four Corners program about Facebook has led to doubts about how effective these measures may be, particularly in relation to far right and extremist views. It may be in Facebook's commercial interest to include such extremist material, as it attracts followers and viewers and makes Facebook more attractive to advertisers. I say this because I realise we are not considering racist hate speech and provocative opinions specifically in relation to this bill and that they raise complex questions of freedom of speech, but they do raise doubts in my mind about how far we can rely on the social media platforms to regulate themselves. It reinforces the need to have strong Commonwealth laws to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

Bearing in mind my misgivings about this bill's shortcomings and in particular the unsatisfactory consequence of civil rather than criminal prosecution, I support the bill.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been about three years since the member for Gellibrand and I first introduced a private member's bill seeking to deal with what was then colloquially known as 'revenge porn' but is now more accurately described as image based abuse or the sharing of intimate videos and images without consent. When we first tabled that bill, it's fair to say that we were surprised to receive a lukewarm response from the government. It seemed to us to be a no-brainer. There was a growing problem in the community where people were being targeted, harassed and victimised through either threats to share intimate images or videos, or the actual sharing of intimate images and videos.

When something like that happens to a person, it can ruin them not just for a short period but for a very long time—because those things stay on the internet, don't they? You can imagine future employers googling someone—it's now pretty routine when someone applies for a job—and, when something like that comes up, it's pretty hard to understand the level of embarrassment and humiliation that it could cause. Of course there's the humiliation and embarrassment that the person suffers at the time because of the invasion of their privacy but also, more broadly, the reaction from family and friends that can occur.

When the member for Gellibrand and I first moved the private member's bill, we were hearing from academics, service providers and individuals about the impact these things were having on peoples' lives, including causing serious psychological conditions for people. It was a fairly new thing in 2015 to legislate specifically against the sharing of intimate images and videos without someone's consent; however, a few jurisdictions in the United States had done it, and there was beginning to be some interest in doing it from some of the jurisdictions here in Australia.

We were concerned that we'd end up with a patchwork of different forms of regulation if we left it to the states. We thought that there should be a very clear, unified message coming from the Commonwealth about the fact that this is not acceptable behaviour. When I say there could've been a patchwork of regulation, you see in some jurisdictions a requirement for the perpetrator to have intended to cause harm. In other jurisdictions, it's just the lack of consent—that's enough. These sound like fairly minor considerations, but in fact they can change the likelihood of success in a prosecution.

We also thought that the broader question of leadership was a really important one. There was too much of a propensity at the time for people to excuse this sort of conduct, to say, 'You know, it's just kids. They're just having a laugh. It's just teasing. The person shouldn't have allowed the photo to be taken in the first place.' These victim-blaming or minimising views about the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and videos, we thought, were completely inappropriate, and what was required was for the nation's parliament to stand up and say: 'This is wrong. It's not a minor thing to do to someone. It's wrong, and it should be criminal.' That doesn't stop state jurisdictions from legislating and proscribing these things themselves, and I'm well aware that the minister at the time was doing some work with state attorneys-general and ministers to look at what could be done to have a harmonised scheme across the country in relation to this issue and other abuses of technology that harm people. I appreciate that work on the part of the government, but what we thought was needed was a very strong signal from the highest authorities in the country and from this parliament, the nation's parliament, to say: 'It's not right. You can't do this to someone.'

We continued to persist with that private member's bill, and there was a very good Senate investigation into the bill. I want to place on record my gratitude to the senators who were involved in that Senate inquiry and to all of the submitters who took the time to make submissions in relation to the private member's bill that we moved on this issue more generally, including the CDPP, the Federal Police and a range of stakeholders, as well as stakeholders from civil society.

As I said, at the time I thought it was a no-brainer that this was something that would be done eventually by consensus. Imagine my surprise that it's now three years later, and we're only just now debating this legislation as a government bill in the House of Representatives. We in Labor didn't want to wait. We took to the 2016 election a commitment to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of image based abuse. Obviously we didn't win that election, so we weren't in a position to bring government legislation to this House. But we took it to the election, and after the election, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women—also known in this country at White Ribbon Day—the Leader of the Opposition made a further commitment that a future Labor government would criminalise image based abuse of this type if we were successful in winning the election.

We have had an unwavering commitment to tackling head-on this pernicious form of abuse, and we continue to have that unwavering commitment. I was until very recently the shadow assistant minister for preventing family violence. In that capacity I spoke with a range of women's organisations and women's legal services who told me that this issue was rife. I've also spoken with young women who are facing this as an issue right now. I have to say, I'm 40 years old, and I really can't imagine what it would be like to be 20 years old, to be just growing into yourself, becoming who you're going to be but also having to face this really difficult set of circumstances whereby there is so much invasion, so much surveillance, such a lack of privacy and so much risk because of the communications technology that now exists, which simply did not exist when I was that age. Whatever we can do to show leadership about the proper use of those technologies and the proper respect that should be afforded to people in respect of their bodily autonomy, their right to privacy and their right not to be humiliated and abused, then we should do that.

I want to also mention that as well as speaking to a lot of stakeholders about this issue I've had the opportunity to work with some really good people in our own ranks to come up with the original private member's bill that the member for Gellibrand and I tabled. I particularly want to record my appreciation to Stephanie Watkins, who was in my office at the time, and to Lara Freidin, who was in Tim Watts's office at the time. They can both be really proud of the work they've done to deal with this issue. They are both young women themselves and really have done so much to advance the cause of standing up against abuse of women in this country through their work here, and it's really an enduring legacy. I know we all have a lot of staff who work very hard, and I think sometimes we could do a bit more to acknowledge the work that they all do and the contributions they all make to changing the way this country works. I see that some of the minister's staff are here as well, and I'd like to express my appreciation to everyone who's worked on this bill and on the amendments we moved during the consideration-in-detail stage.

This bill is something that has been a long time coming. For those who have been victims of what we now call image based abuse, I hope it brings them some comfort to know that their public advocacy, in some cases, has not been for nothing and that this bill will go at least some way to preventing what has happened to them happening to other people. There have been some really famous cases of sex tapes being leaked. There have been some really famous cases of women standing up in respect of ongoing abuse and harassment from former and current partners. Those cases have been appearing in the media for many years.

This is an opportunity for us as a nation to stand up together in a bipartisan way and say: 'This sort of abuse is not on. It's wrong to use peoples' most-intimate moments, most-trusting moments as a weapon against them.' If a photo or a video like this exists, it's because someone has trusted someone else so much. For that abuse of trust to occur as a means of, for example, seeking to control someone or seeking to cause them harm because you're angry at them, it's particularly egregious and it deserves its own specific criminal offence. Obviously, we have the carriage service criminal offence. That's important. Some of the submissions in the Senate inquiry into our private member's bill noted that that wouldn't necessarily cover the full range of situations that a specific offence could cover. But the other important thing about a specific offence, of course, is not just the tools that it equips the police with but the message it communicates about what this parliament believes should be a criminal offence. I'm very grateful to everyone who's worked on this bill. I commend the bill to the House, and I certainly look forward to its passage.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. This bill criminalises the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and complements the earlier legislation passed by this House and by the parliament, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Act 2017. I wish to use this opportunity to express my deep thanks and gratitude to my colleague, former Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore, whose contributions to the development of both bills were meaningful, heartfelt and significant. This was certainly an issue very close to the senator's heart.

In relation to the previous bill, I spoke about the frequency of image based abuse in our society and the severity of its impact, and I'll briefly revisit and summarise those remarks. I noted that, sadly, the frequency of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, more controversially known as revenge porn, is increasing in Australia. I referred to an RMIT study that found that an astonishing one in five Australians have experienced image based abuse. The study found that people who were disabled, Indigenous Australians and younger Australians were more likely to be victims, although the issue does affect many Australians from all corners of our society. Women and men are equally likely to report being a victim, but women are more likely than men to fear for their safety due to image based abuse.

The non-consensual sharing of intimate images causes real harm, not only to women but predominantly to women. It stigmatises victims, destroys social relationships, causes great anxiety and distress and leads to serious mental health issues. Despairingly, in some cases, these acts have led to self-harm and to people taking their own lives. Although revenge pornography has been the focus of most of the attention, the non-consensual sharing of images, as some fellow honourable members have mentioned today, is often used by perpetrators as a means of blackmail and control, to extract money, disrupt relationships and compel unwanted sexual acts. The same RMIT study found that four in five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. It is no surprise that the level of support for criminalisation is so high.

I commend the parliament for working together to ensure that these atrocious acts become criminal offences. The government's amendments to this bill are a compromise. While the amendments do not introduce the additional offences proposed by Centre Alliance to specifically target image based abuse, they do build on and strengthen existing offences to punish those who use technology to share private sexual material. I strongly urge the parliament to support this bill.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with my colleagues to support the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. I acknowledge, as other people have done, all of those who have been involved in drafting this bill and, in particular, the women and men that have been so brave in their advocacy for making this bill a reality today.

Labor will support this bill, and we also support the amendment that is being suggested. We know that this bill will amend the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015. It will prohibit posting, or threats to post, an intimate image on social media without consent. It will establish a complaints and objection system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner. It will empower the commissioner to issue removal notices and other remedial orders and will establish a civil penalty regime, which I think is one of most powerful aspects of this bill.

Labor welcomes this bill. In supporting this bill we recognise that the sharing of intimate images causes humiliation, distress and absolutely real harm. It not only inflicts psychological harm but also affects relationships and employment, pervading all aspects of one's life. It is difficult to imagine the fear, shame, anxiety and humiliation, but it is very real. Many of us would know people that have been affected, who were in what they thought was a trusted relationship only to find that that trust has been breached. Perhaps that's the most difficult thing for so many people. We can all understand and have had experiences perhaps not in this sphere, but of having our trust abused. It is not something that is easy to come to terms with.

In the day and age we now live in, we know these kinds of images can reach thousands, if not millions, around the world. It seems to me that part of the aim for this bill is about education and, getting young people to understand that what you post is not private and can never go away. This bill sends a clear message to the community and to young people: the sharing of intimate images without consent will not be tolerated in our community. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images is a breach of trust and of privacy, as I said.

As the shadow minister for preventing family violence I emphasise that it is a serious form of abuse and a form of coercive control. Women are more likely than men to be victims of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The effect on women is significant, given that one in 10 Australians have had a nude or semi-nude image distributed online or sent to others without their permission. There are many misleading connotations that come with the term 'revenge porn'—that is, it is an act of vengeance and is somehow justified. It is not. Porn trivialises the act of abuse and implies there was some consent, and there is not. Let us be clear: the victims are never to blame, and the sharing of non-consensual intimate images is a serious form of abuse which inflicts grave harm upon those that have been affected.

All abuse is concerning. All image based abuse is concerning. In the context of family or domestic violence, reports from groups such as the Women's Legal Service New South Wales or Victims Services have been particularly concerning. We now know intimate images are being used in abusive relationships as a mechanism of power and control. In some instances women are being coerced to stay in relationships out of fear, shame or humiliation that these images could be shared. We've heard the threat of sharing intimate images used as a means of pressuring women to settle disputes in Family Court proceedings. Image based abuse represents an emerging and escalating policy area in the prevention of family violence. We welcome the work that has been done on this.

I finish by saying that, by criminalising image based abuse, we are saying that it is no less serious than any other form of abuse. I think that is a really important point to make in the passage of this bill. This is grave, has serious impacts and harms so many people. We know that. Labor called on the government to make the non-consensual sharing of intimate images a crime, and we welcome the government's cooperation. It has been a big effort for many, and education—teaching the importance of respectful and healthy relationships—is part of this discussion. Once again, Labor welcomes this particular piece of legislation.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me begin by thanking all of those in this chamber who've contributed to the debate on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. It is pleasing that there is bipartisan support for this piece of legislation, although I could not help noticing, when listening to the debate, some rather misleading statements coming from the other side of the chamber—an assertion that the government had 'backflipped' in relation to bringing forward additional criminal penalties and an assertion that Labor had provided leadership by promising to legislate criminal penalties within 100 days of being elected.

We do know that Labor is the 'gonna' party. Labor's always 'gonna' fix it; they're always 'gonna' get it done. They were 'gonna' deliver a National Broadband Network, but it was a chaotic mess. They were 'gonna' have a national pink batts scheme; we know what a disaster that was. They were 'gonna' end the double drop-off—Mr Deputy Speaker, you'd remember that one—and they didn't do well there either. The fact is, Labor is the 'gonna' party; the coalition is the party that gets it done. When it comes to enhancing online safety in relation to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, we are getting it done.

Let's be clear on the issue of civil penalties versus criminal penalties. The government stood ready to legislate a civil penalty scheme in February, and we said at the same time that we wanted to separately examine the introduction of criminal penalties. In our view, it would have been better, in the interests of victims of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, of revenge porn—for people who'd been subject to this terrible treatment, this terrible attack on their dignity and on their self-esteem—to legislate the civil penalty provisions. Had that happened, they would have been in force now for several months. They would have been delivering active protection to victims of this conduct—practical protection—for several months. Regrettably, thanks to Labor's political grandstanding, victims have had to wait. That, I think, is a matter for regret. I'd say to the other side of the House: let's remember that we're here to serve the Australian people, including those who are victims of revenge porn, rather than scoring political points.

The Turnbull government, by contrast, has worked methodically through this issue, making sure that criminal provisions are properly developed, that they are based upon the outcomes that victims want to see. It is detailed work, and we've done that detailed work. That stands in contrast to grandiose but ultimately empty claims from the other side of the chamber. It has been common ground, rightly, amongst all participants in this debate to say that Australians are of course immersing themselves in the online world through social networking sites, online games, smartphones and tablet. That, on balance, delivers enormous social benefits. The internet is a vital tool for education and for research. It has great capacity to provide entertainment and social interaction. But it can also be used for purposes that are harmful, purposes that can have very tragic consequences.

That's why the government has brought forward this bill, which reflects the government's ongoing commitment to keeping Australians safe online and sends a clear message to all Australians that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society. This bill creates a prohibition against the non-consensual posting or threat to post an intimate image on a social media service, on a relevant electronic service such as email and text messaging or on a designated internet service, and that includes websites and peer-to-peer file-sharing services. The bill establishes a complaints and objection system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner whereby victims or persons authorised on behalf of victims will be able to lodge a complaint directly to the eSafety Commissioner where there is reason to believe that an intimate image has been posted or there has been a threat for it to be posted without consent. The bill will facilitate the removal of an image where a person initially consented to an image being shared but has subsequently changed their mind and now wishes to have the image removed. People in this situation will be able to lodge an objection notice with the commissioner. The ability to take down intimate images quickly is a primary concern of victims and of support services.

The bill will introduce a civil penalty regime to be enforced by the eSafety Commissioner. Penalties of up to $105,000 for individuals and up to $525,000 for corporations can be incurred for a breach of the prohibition or a failure to comply with the removal notice or other remedial direction issued by the eSafety Commissioner.

In the Senate, the bill was amended by the inclusion of provisions to amend the Criminal Code 1995 to create new criminal offences for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The government carefully examined the provisions moved by the Centre Alliance party in the Senate, and, through that examination, we identified a range of technical issues with the operations of the amendments and inconsistencies with the definitions and provisions in the civil penalty regime currently in the bill.

Today, therefore, the government will move an amendment to the bill which retains the intent of the Centre Alliance amendments to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images but does so in a way that is more effective and more appropriate for the criminal justice system. This amendment creates two new aggravated offences in the Criminal Code that deal specifically with the non-consensual sharing of private sexual material and attract significantly higher penalties. The special aggravated offence sends a very clear message: if a perpetrator has been issued three or more civil penalty orders under the civil penalty regime established by the bill and still does not get the message that image based abuse has serious consequences, the court will have the discretion to impose a maximum penalty of up to seven years imprisonment.

This bill demonstrates that the government and Australian society as a whole will not tolerate the sharing of intimate images without consent. This government is serious about protecting Australians online. This bill has been developed in consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools, education departments, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. Again, I thank all who have participated in this debate, and I call on all in the chamber to support the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.