HUMILIATING AND DEGRADING IMAGES

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (14:14): My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General inform the house about the work the government is doing to crack down on people filming and distributing humiliating and degrading images?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:14): Today, we have released draft legislation which seeks to ban the filming and distribution of humiliating and degrading images. This is an issue which has become more of an issue in our community as a result of the advent of multiple transportable filming and broadcasting devices, otherwise known as phones. The real world has had a lot of rules about this sort of behaviour for a long time. It is about time the virtual world did so as well. Filming and distribution of criminal attacks is just as wrong as the attacks themselves.

The SPEAKER: Excuse me, Attorney. I have already spoken to the media once about filming people who are not on their feet. I would ask that camera person on the end to make sure they are filming over this side and not the other side while the Attorney is on his feet.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are possibly more attractive sights over there, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Possibly.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I was saying, filming and distribution of criminal attacks is just as wrong as the attacks themselves. Indeed, there is some information to suggest that some of these attacks are motivated by the opportunity to film them, and then the 'kick' (if that is the right word) that the individuals filming them get out of having the person repeatedly humiliated out there in the internet world, able to be accessed over and over again. It is a repetitive action of humiliation which knows no boundaries at all.

Following consultation earlier this year, the draft legislation seeks to create new offences. Firstly, in relation to filming without consent, the important thing in this aspect of the offence is the consent. The second aspect of the offence relates to distribution, again without consent. It is possible that filming may occur with consent but without consent to the distribution, or the wider distribution or dissemination, of the images that result from filming. In any event, these ideas are encapsulated in the legislation.

What is in the virtual world stays there indefinitely until taken down—and that seems to be never—so the aim of this is to reduce the endless victimisation that people who are the victims in these cases suffer by having these images held there indefinitely. This is intended to make no impact at all on legitimate journalism, and the legislation will be open for consultation until 16 January next year. We welcome any opinions that might come in and we encourage all who have an interest in the matter to make submissions in relation to the bill, and they will be taken into account.

I, for one, hope that we can take a bipartisan approach to the resolution of this matter, because it is a genuine issue. There are a lot of people who are concerned about it, and we will be interested and welcoming of any contribution the opposition might care to make in relation to this between now and 16 January.