Page 1939 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Turning to the bill, I will provide a brief history of its development and a brief overview of its operation. The bill was first presented in an exposure draft and placed on the legislation register on 18 May this year, following significant work internally. I would like to thank Ms Lawder for doing a lot of work internally within the opposition to bring this forward. The draft was circulated to many stakeholder groups, and links and feedback forms were included on the Canberra Liberals have your say website.
When presented, it was largely based on the Victorian model of this legislation, which, at the time, was one of only two operational laws in Australia. Since the presentation of the exposure draft, New South Wales has also tabled a bill to address the same problem. We received valuable and insightful feedback, and I would like to thank everybody who offered their time and expertise to help bring this revised bill forward. Beyond the individual constituents who have commented on the bill, we have received extensive feedback from organisations including the Law Society, the Bar Association, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Victims of Crime Commissioner, the Public Advocate, the Children and Young People Commissioner, and the Disability and Community Services Commissioner.
The response has been universally positive, with all supporting the intent of the bill and the timeliness of the Canberra Liberals in bringing it forward. The groups, by and large, had similar suggestions for improvements. Those comments have been noted and acted upon, and informed the bill that has been tabled today.
I will go through the clauses. With respect to definitions, the bill provides specific definitions. Some of these have been developed through our consultation processes and some are required because the type of offence we are dealing with is unprecedented. This includes definitions for “intimate image”, “capturing visual data”, the meaning of “distribute” and the meaning of “consent” in this context. All provide valuable guidance for the application of the legislation in what we have attempted to be a clear, concise and precise manner.
Moving to the main offence, which is the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, the bill provides that a person commits an offence if they distribute an intimate image of another person, and the offender either knows the other person does not consent to the distribution or is reckless as to whether the other person has consented.
This provision is drafted differently from the exposure draft, and is based on feedback from stakeholders and the introduction of the New South Wales legislation. It requires the lack of consent to be an element of the prosecution, and was an important consideration from most of those who provided advice. It also brings us into line with New South Wales. It is important to note that, where possible, the view of the opposition is that if we are going to have harmonisation of laws it is best to do so with New South Wales, given our geographical position within New South Wales.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video