SUMMARY OFFENCES (FILMING OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 October 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:04): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences (Filming Offences) Amendment Bill 2012. This is a piece of legislation introduced by the government. The Attorney-General indicated in his contribution back in October last year, when introducing this bill, that it was necessary to deal with the publication of images that are now able to be made by people, largely on the internet and with the growth of social media.

This legislation addresses an ill which these media now enable to be produced, and with it a growing and unwelcome phenomenon of people using these media to cause distress, humiliation, etc., to another party. The practice, if I can describe it as that, of someone who films someone in some compromising circumstance—and I will come to definitions shortly, but which is more than just embarrassing—with the view to distributing that to cause humiliation to the victim is something that I think most people in the public are offended by and consider to be unacceptable.

I for one would like someone to produce, in a positive way, some kind of etiquette that is to apply to the use of material, and even the use of all these pieces of equipment, in a public arena. I think there is a need to deal with the issue of when people should be using phones or texting, more than the original idea of whether you should use your mobile phone (which used to be the size of a shoe) in a restaurant or not.

There is a general standard of etiquette for the use of this new technology which I think is wanting in the space of how we might respectfully conduct our relations with fellow human beings without causing what I think are really acts of rudeness in many circumstances. Perhaps we need to have some education or some other application as to when it is appropriate to be texting people or conveying photographs and so on.

This bill, of course, goes much more than to etiquette; it is dealing with how we might control a small portion of the use of this new medium which is obviously unacceptable. As published in the Sydney Morning Herald, I noticed that other jurisdictions have looked at a number of these issues. In particular, the Attorney has outlined some very disturbing examples of where people have been photographed, usually.

There was a shocking case in Victoria, which I think was the beginning of a lot of effort being put in to how we might address these matters, where a young girl was forced to perform certain sexual acts. She was disturbingly humiliated in the most disgusting manner, and pictures of this were placed on a DVD and then distributed. All these cases are horrific and disgusting. Other jurisdictions have taken up how they might best manage this, and we already have some legislation which does provide for a number of offences, and I will refer to those in a moment.

Late last year, shortly after this bill was introduced, a case was dealt with in the Sydney local court where a magistrate found an important sports identity guilty of an offence for sending a naked photograph of his former girlfriend to her brother and her best friend. There were assault charges in that case and they were dropped, but the offence of which the offender was found guilty was of using an iPhone in an offensive way. In that jurisdiction, the maximum sentence for an offence was three years' imprisonment.

My recollection is that on that occasion the person convicted was ordered to pay $500 and required to enter into a good behaviour bond for a 12-month period. The magistrate hearing that case identified that the material was clearly offensive and found that it was extraordinarily hurtful that the material was exposed to the victim's brother and friend. In any event, there was general acceptance that this photograph was grossly offensive. So, we are seeing circumstances in which it is being used when it is clearly inappropriate.

We have heard of a whole area of bullying via social media, but the government have been clear, in providing this bill to us, that they are not attempting to cast the net too wide. I note the offences are specifically created, first, to make it an offence to film a person who is being subjected to or forced to engage in a humiliating or degrading act; secondly, to distribute images of that person; and, thirdly, and at a more serious level, if you are engaged in the humiliation and the distribution. They are the three new offences which are going to attract a penalty.

The point which has been raised, and which I think has been acknowledged by the government to some degree, is that there are already significant offences that relate to this type of behaviour; in particular, a number of the publication of images that we are talking about could be caught by assaults, although, as in the case in New South Wales to which I have just referred, the assault charges were not able to be established and a number of counts of assault were dismissed. The publication of images can also be the subject of indecent filming offences which are already in our Summary Offences Act.

Probably, on my assessment, these extra offences, which are proposed in this legislation, are unlikely to do much more; but if they do in the types of cases that have been referred to by the government and which we have seen through the courts since the introduction of these mediums, then that is a good thing. We are here to try to make sure that people do not slip through the net and that they are caught.

My greater concern is that the trigger for the government in introducing these extra filming offences in legislative form was not the events of other inquiries interstate or even their legislation. The government do not claim these to have been the trigger; they mention them and they outline inquiries made in Victoria, for example, and the report of the Victorian Law Reform Commission in 2010. But if these things were going to have a powerful influence of the government to consider the introduction of this legislation, one would wonder why would take a couple of years to act on it. There did not seem to be any examples of where there had been in South Australia girls dragged away, filmed, subject to disgusting behaviour, and then filmed and the films distributed.

The events that preceded the government's outrage and statements of ensuring that action will be taken that there will be legislative management of these issues in fact was a quite different event. Members might recall the occasion when a young boy in a northern school seriously assaulted other child in the school. The whole event was totally unacceptable, and I do not think anyone in the chamber would not accept that.

It was filmed, and on the face of it seemed clear that the whole assault, the whole treatment of this other child, by the bigger, stronger child was designed to be filmed and to be published. Whether this was for some enjoyment on their part in some sick way or whether it was over zealotry, over active hormones in young boys, I am not here to make that assessment, but the fact is a young boy was treated badly, was clearly assaulted, and then had to suffer the whole humiliation of having that published. Everyone agreed that it was totally unacceptable.

What was interesting about that event—and I do not know whether this is why it was not even mentioned in the contribution by the Attorney—is that it led to other matters being brought to the attention of us here in the parliament and, indeed, the media, and that was the fact that on that occasion apparently the incident of assault on the child was not reported to the parents until some significant delay when that information was disclosed to them. As I recall, there was no report to the police, there was no action taken except for the fact that it became clear that one of the other children had filmed it on his phone.

So, then we have this extraordinary situation where, in the process of concern and complaint of the parent finding out that her child had been assaulted in the schoolyard and the outcry of the family about what had happened, including the lack of that information being conveyed to the parent in a timely manner, the child who had photographed this boy became almost a hero for having exposed what had been totally unacceptable behaviour and neglect at least but also failure on the part of the school and authorities to act in a responsible manner to advise.

So, we have this situation where, but for the clear recorded evidence of this event having occurred, this incident may not have even ever been discovered. It just seems an extraordinary situation where, but for the act of this boy, we may never have known about it and it would never have been exposed that we had this disgraceful situation where the persons who were apparently responsible for the care and protection of children in the school had not acted appropriately.

It is rather disturbing to think that this act, which everyone agrees was totally unacceptable, actually becomes the only window of recording that was then used to expose the serious neglect, in my view—but others will say it was even worse—of that incident. This boy, who had been assaulted and cruelly treated, is obviously not the only one, and not just in schools.

What we expect of the people to whom we temporarily hand over care of children—namely, the schools, the department and the minister responsible—is that if, in the circumstances, a child is the victim of any kind of assault or any humiliating or bullying behaviour, they will then be protected, it will be followed up and the parents will be advised, etc. It is an extraordinary situation, but it was after that that the government came out and said, 'We will ensure that this will not happen again. We are going to pass a law. We are going to do what is necessary to protect against this child or any other child being filmed in these circumstances and them being used and humiliated.'

That is what transpired as the precursor to the government's answer in producing this bill. So, let us be honest about it. It was that event that triggered the government into action. I am very disappointed, not that the bill has come forward, because it does address a bigger picture and a broader issue—I accept that—but that the government uses it as some sort of wand to then cast away any obligation or responsibility they have to deal with what was also a problem, that is, the concealment, the failure to act—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: The conspiracy theory finally emerges after this long rant.

Ms CHAPMAN: The former minister for health, the ghost of health, harks from the backbenches to—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I would have thought he would be listening very carefully. He has got a great record! He has got a great record of radiation treatment of children, of HIV/AIDS.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order being taken by the Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I was listening with, I think, quite a bit of forbearance and I do not blame the member for Kaurna for his forbearance having finally reached the end of its tether because, instead of talking about this bill, in effect, this is now a proxy conversation about what Mr Debelle is looking at. I am not saying that what Mr Debelle is looking at is not interesting or relevant or something the public is interested in, but it is not actually particularly relevant to explore it at length in the context of this particular issue.

I let the honourable member go because what she said originally about this having been the entry point in terms of my thinking about this problem was a fair comment. It was my entry point, but it is certainly not where we have wound up, and we have wound up here because we have had a good think about it.

Please let's not spend our time talking about what Mr Debelle is doing. No doubt we will talk about him in due course when he has finished what he is doing, or have a substantive motion and talk to my colleague the Minister for Education about it, but that is not what we are here about today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the deputy leader is going to concentrate on the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: I just want to place on the record that the events which triggered this bill did ultimately expose an appalling situation for this young boy who was the victim—not the filmer at this point but the victim. While I am in this place, I will do everything I possibly can to ensure that we not only pass laws but amend others to ensure that those children are protected—in this instance, against another bullying child and another party to the one who was instrumental in doing the filming.

That is intolerable, and events that have occurred outside that arena, the published ones, usually seem to be a party who is involved in some high profile sports activity, who have glamorous partners and so on getting the attention in the media. That may say something more about our media more than anything else; nevertheless, I think most members here would have had cases come to them in their own electorate lives of young people who are victims of bullying by text or photographic material that is designed to humiliate.

The sort of example I am given is, 'What can I do about my 14 year old daughter who is receiving multiple texts which are now causing me to have to get her therapy to be able to manage this? It's done by other girls in the class who do not want her in their friendship group now.' Instead of what we did before these media were available when children might be exposed to teasing, rude words or being told that they were not liked or that they were not going to be the group and that nobody was going to play with them, etc., we now have this insidious 24/7 capacity for other young people, for example, to cause extraordinary distress to their victims.

These are the sorts of things that are not the glamorous things that hit the headlines, but we all know they are very real and pressing issues that we want to capture. I do note that the government were mindful to try to ensure that they would not capture innocent filming, such as photographing your children when they are jumping in and out of the swimming pool at 4½ years of age and they may not have their full bathers on—the sorts of things which I am sure are humiliating when they are produced at their 21^st birthday party. Nevertheless, this is not designed to catch those people. It is obviously designed to catch humiliating and degrading acts at a much higher threshold.

We are told by the Attorney, and I accept this, that it is not designed to capture things that are accidental. You cannot be guilty of taking or distributing something when someone slips over or suffers a wardrobe malfunction, which is the example the Attorney used. I must say that when I heard that for the first time I immediately thought of our Prime Minister. She seems to be a casualty of both. There are a lot of things I do not agree with, with the Prime Minister, but I do not doubt that there would have been much less attention to her tripping over, which has happened a couple of times in public forums, when she has lost her shoe and so on, if she had not been female, but nevertheless I am sure she would have felt some humiliation or embarrassment from that occurring.

But there is no suggestion that she was being filmed at that time with a view to distributing something in that regard, that has simply occurred as an accident. Wardrobe malfunctions bring her to mind again, poor thing, but in any event—I suppose the classic is whether the often played image of Kevin Rudd sitting in the chamber, doing something with his nose as I recall—

Mr Pisoni: No, earwax.

Ms CHAPMAN: Earwax or something.

Mr Pisoni: Eating his earwax.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is a bit gross anyway, but the poor chap, I mean, it must be embarrassing for him. He has been a prime minister and he had that sort of thing played over and over again and of course it must be humiliating for him, but I am reassured by those who provided advice on this bill that any such image would not be captured under this type of legislation.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: It raised one question I saw recently, an image of a young girl, I think this was in Japan. She was apparently a very well known pop star. I can't remember her name, to be honest, but, in any event, this young girl in Japan just recently had, in breach of her contractual obligations, stayed overnight with a boy and this was seen to be most unacceptable, sinful, in breach of the contract and terms of condition of her employment etc. She went on YouTube or somewhere herself pleading for the mercy of her fans in not condemning her for this act and to show her contrition she actually shaved her head. It was a really quite distressing thing to watch this poor young girl actually plead for her public reputation to be kept intact and to offer her remorseful submission.

I am assuming that the reason this legislation would not cover her is because she had done that willingly. Had she? Do we know that? Maybe she had been required to undertake that filming or been under such duress at such a young age to try and recover by the recording company or whoever she was bound to, to actually undertake that. I do not know. It raises the question, doesn’t it, each time we are faced with the mass of behaviour which on the face of it we would see as either unacceptable or on the face of which we would presume to be innocent and not captured without some legislation.

So, I commend the government for looking at the broader picture of protecting against this sort of behaviour when it is clearly undertaken to try and deliberately humiliate and degrade somebody and where it is not caught by our current publication of offensive acts, but I do not think it will take it very much further and I do not think that it in any way tells us how the government is going to address the cases which were the trigger of this legislation, namely bullying in school yards.

I do have any other comment about the bill except that I have received notice from the government that they propose to introduce amendments which, essentially, are to deal with concerns raised by the media. The government received submissions from the media, one of which outlined that in the course of filming, especially for news and current affairs programs, the legislation as drafted might be too wide and might inadvertently catch them.

They set out in their case that they have a high standard that they impose on themselves in respect of their own code of practice in respect of the privacy of persons and, essentially, made it clear that under their own Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice there was a range of obligations for broadcasters in relation to privacy. In particular, the code state that material relating to a person's personal or private affairs must not be broadcast unless there is an identifiable public interest reason as set out in clause 4.3.5 of the code of practice.

They highlighted, though, that the bill could inadvertently capture them, and that what may result is that media organisations, especially television of course, would avoid filming or distributing certain material that they had captured for the purposes of a news or current affairs program for fear that they would be charged with the offence, or having to also go on and proceed to court to demonstrate the public interest in that particular story.

Their description was, 'This will in turn have a chilling effect on news and current affairs.' I will take that as the journalistic licence of exaggeration, to be honest. Nevertheless, they raise a good point. Their way around this was to recommend that the government introduce an amendment to its bill to require that broadcasters be licensed and committed to observe an industry code that deals with privacy matters and they set out some recommended way in which that occurs.

However, I note that the government has prepared amendments which do not follow that structure (that is, requiring that it be a registration approach) but does cover, via the presumption method, an alternative way of managing it. I do not know whether the television industry accepts that as being adequate but, nevertheless, I note the government's attempt in this amendment to address that. We will have a more comprehensive look at it, and if that seems like the way to go then I am sure that the opposition will support that in another place.

In respect to one other matter which was presented from Kelly and Co. solicitors in Adelaide, which set out the forensic assessment of the bill, I recall there was another matter related to this, which the Attorney provided to us today, and that is a reference to the definition of humiliating or degrading filming in section 26A. They consider that it should be amended to replace the word 'and' in the penultimate line of the definition with the word 'or', such that the definition concludes:

...does not include filming images of a person who consents to being subjected to, or engaging in, a humiliating or degrading act or consents to the filming of the act.

Again, I have had only a brief look at this submission. On the face of it, it may be that that is over prescriptive. However, I did note that in the bill itself—and the Attorney can look at this—the heading refers to humiliating or degrading filming, but the definition, I think, refers to 'humiliating and'. If I have the final copy, there seems to be some inconsistency. Sometimes the bill refers to 'humiliating and' and sometimes it refers to 'humiliating or'. So I just ask that that perhaps be looked at; I am sure that we can remedy that in another place.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:41): I just want to make some brief points. I think this bill is a useful addition to the criminal law. I query, though, the claim that the test of whether someone is humiliated or degraded is not subjective. The bill sets an objective test which requires the court to consider whether reasonable adult members of the community would consider such an act humiliating or degrading. I would say that that is very much subjective. I have yet to meet these reasonable people in the community, but they must exist somewhere.

The bill seeks to deal with two aspects, I guess. One is an invasion of dignity and the other is an invasion of privacy. I guess it follows in a sense, but in a slightly different direction from the attempt to deal with tacky behaviour—or worse than tacky; upskirting—that it clearly does not deal with a whole range of photographic material which I think most people would regard as an invasion of dignity and privacy. I am not in the habit of buying these magazines. They are not R rated; they are what you would call gossip magazines, usually directed at female readers. However, I think they come under the category of both those infringements. I will give you some examples without being too graphic.

Recently, the star of Les Misérables was photographed getting out of a car, and she did not have any underwear on. That photograph is featured in quite a few of these magazines. There are other very explicit photographs of genitalia up close which leave nothing to the imagination. I think one of the cruellest ones I have seen—and she is not unique in that she has been targeted—is of Monica Seles, the tennis player, who was photographed while bending over, with a close-up of her cellulite. When you mention the word cellulite, most women disappear; they hate the word and they hate cellulite. There are paparazzi, or whatever you want to call them, who specialise in trying to catch people out, usually women bending over, getting out of a car or something like that, so that they can produce what I would call a tacky photograph.

There is also the issue of people who are grieving. The media do not want any restriction on that. They want to be able to film people at funerals, people weeping and so on. As an aside, I do not know why people should feel ashamed or apologise for shedding a tear when a loved one dies or something like that. I think it is a commendable expression of emotion, but for some reason the media like to intrude on funerals and make repetitious presentations of bodies in the bag. It gets particularly cultural when you are talking about deceased Aboriginal people because, in their custom, they do not accept the portrayal of deceased people. It is really a gross infringement of their cultural values to present it in a photographic form and show it amongst people in the community.

This bill does not tackle all those things, and I think we still have a way to go. I think the term 'wardrobe malfunction'—which is probably how my wife would describe me every day—is a curious term, but it says that this is not meant to tackle people who have an accident or are drunk or have a wardrobe malfunction.

In conclusion, I think you could drive a bus through many aspects of this. It is a step towards trying to protect a person's dignity and privacy. I do not think it is going to satisfy a lot of people when, if they really knew what occurs particularly in the print media in those gossip magazines—you do not have to buy them because you can see the covers when you go into the newsagency; they are not restricted—many of them, as I say, are a gross intrusion of people's privacy and dignity. I would put this question to my female colleagues: how many of them would like to be portrayed in a magazine in a situation like Monica Seles or some of these other characters? I think it is a gross invasion of someone's privacy.

I think this is a step forward, and I am not critical of what the government is trying to do, but I question whether the test is really an objective one. I think it is still subjective, but I think it is necessary, particularly in the age of the internet, to rein in some of what is gross and unacceptable behaviour which really compounds the injustice that has been inflicted on a victim. If it helps deal with that situation so that the person or their family is not humiliated further, then I think it is a worthwhile initiative.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:47): I just want to take this opportunity to reflect on events that happened back in early 2011—the filming of the vicious assault on a boy at Craigmore High School. We all know how shocked we were to see that, and it is ironic, actually, that it was that very footage that we saw on television that sparked the media debate on talkback radio where the parents of the child were interviewed and had an opportunity to tell their story.

Only because of the prominence and the visual effect of that incident did the family even have any interest from the Department for Education in helping that child get through that very difficult situation they were in. I got involved after the parents contacted me on this issue. I met with them at Parabanks Shopping Centre and we had a coffee together where we discussed it, and I met the lad involved. I met the mother and the father, and they were very frustrated with the lack of support that they had from the Department for Education for the victim.

What I learnt was that it was the victim who was forced to move schools, not the perpetrator. As we recall, the perpetrator went on to be convicted of this assault, but it was the victim who had to move schools. The department thought that they could wash their hands of the care or the support of this family by offering three counselling sessions with a qualified counsellor, but they did not advise where they could go for that counselling. Let me go back a few steps. As somebody that grew up in Salisbury, I can—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is a point of order. I am prepared to take a battering from the member for Unley about what I have done or not done according to his lights, but we are now moving into matters that he has a grievance about—fairly or unfairly is not a matter for me to decide—with the education department, and I do not think that is on point for this. My point of order is relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been listening and I will continue to listen carefully to the member. I ask him to concentrate on the contents of the bill. I know what he has done in regard to linking this other matter and its connection, so I will listen carefully.

Mr PISONI: It is not just me that has linked this bill to the incident at Craigmore High School. Matthew Abraham and David Bevan asked the Attorney-General whether having footage of such bullying posted online can draw attention to the event and spark positive changes, so the minister himself has made public statements in regard to this particular bullying incident and this legislation. Some may argue that it is a long bow, but it is a relevant part of the debate.

Of course, this whole process then led to the Cossey report, and there were some shocking findings about the way that the education department handles such matters. I come back to the fact that, without this filming, we would not have had the Cossey report. Until I raised questions about the rape of the eight year old in this house back in October last year, we would probably still be thinking that there was nothing wrong in the education department.

I make the point that I understand where the Attorney-General wants to go with this bill, but it is very important that we do not stop the democratic process where people have a right to raise issues. We know how the media operates: if you have footage, you are bound to get a run in the media. I do not believe that this family would have got the support from the education department that they got in the end, after I intervened, because I kept embarrassing the department into action on this issue in the public.

I want to finish with a couple of key points that the Cossey report did find was wrong with the education system and the way it handles such matters here in South Australia.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have really gone out there now. I know the education system is a very hot topic for the member for Unley, but this is not the moment.

Mr PISONI: I am happy to conclude my remarks by thanking the Attorney-General for insisting that Mr Debelle had royal commission powers so he could continue, despite the Premier fighting for him not to have those powers. I congratulate the Attorney-General for insisting that those powers be granted to Mr Debelle so we could finally get to the end of what is wrong with this rotten education system here in South Australia.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:53): I want to say a couple of things quickly. First of all, the deputy leader made some remarks about etiquette and the internet. I could not agree with her more and I make this offer: I am happy to sit down with the deputy leader and—

Ms Chapman: Write the Chapman-Rau Bible.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. We can write the etiquette book for the internet, and I think it would be damn good, because both the deputy leader and I aspire to see the highest of standards on the internet, and I am quite serious about that. I would love to work with her on that. In fact, in my own office, I have banned people with those silly modern phones coming to meetings in my boardroom because they used to sit in there and, while I was talking (occasionally about things that were interesting, but usually perhaps not), they would all be under the table with their fingers going, apparently paying absolutely no attention to what I was saying—which, again, I know is how most people feel, but to have your own staff demonstrate it in such an offensive fashion, I found it a little bit too much, and I banned them all from having them.

Mr Sibbons: Is it better now?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I feel better, because I do not feel like they are ignoring me. They probably are anyway, but anyway, that makes me feel better. The other thing I wanted to say is that, in respect to the school incident, it is a bit of a 'chicken and egg' thing, as I tried to explain before. They did it to film it and put it on the net. People say, 'Well yes, because it is was on the net, they found out about it.' My point is: if they were not going to get a kick out of putting it on the net, they would not have even bothered doing it, because they would not have been filming it; part of the whole kick they got out of it was putting it on the internet, if that makes any sense. If it does not, never mind.

The other thing I wanted to say, very quickly, was that this is broader than that incident at the school, and it is intended to capture these offensive creeps—and I know that the deputy leader agrees with me on this—who go around with photographs of other people and put them on the net, making their lives a misery and humiliating them. That is unacceptable, and I think it is very important, even if we only capture a few people a year, that we make it very clear that is just not on.

The member for Fisher was getting into an area of a tort of privacy which the Law Reform Institute is now looking at, and I look forward to that report. I do actually have a great deal of sympathy for the comments he has made. I myself have been disappointed by the fact that, on television at various times, you see people who are grieving at a funeral or something like that, and some clown is chasing after them with a camera.

Ms Chapman: 'How do you feel?'

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, 'How do you feel?' I mean, what an outrage! I also recall, during the earthquake in Wellington, people were running around—these poor people with blood streaming off their faces—and these characters were chasing them down the street. Personally, I find that very offensive. In relation to the media outlets, we have done our best to accommodate them. What they originally wanted was a complete blanket thing which meant they could do whatever they like. I actually do not think they always get it right, and there needs to be an opportunity for them, if they really step outside the envelope, to be picked up by this. That is what we have agreed, and that is what is in the amendments.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 3, line 11 [clause 5, inserted section 26A, definition of humiliating or degrading act]—Delete 'that person' and substitute 'such a person'

Page 5, lines 24 to 32 [clause 5, inserted section 26B(7)]—Delete subsection (7) and substitute:

(7) If, in any proceedings for an offence against this section, the defendant establishes that the conduct allegedly constituting the offence was engaged in by or on behalf of a media organisation, the conduct will, for the purposes of this section, be taken to have been engaged in for a legitimate public purpose unless the court determining the charge finds that, having regard to the matters set out in subsection (6), the conduct was not for a legitimate public purpose.

Page 6, after line 2 [clause 5, inserted section 26B(9)]—After the definition of broadcasting insert:

media organisation means

(a) an organisation that engages in broadcasting pursuant to a licence under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 of the Commonwealth or that is otherwise authorised under a law of the Commonwealth to engage in broadcasting; or

(b) an organisation that is a constituent body of the Australian Press Council or is authorised under• a law of the Commonwealth to engage in publishing;

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 17:58 the house adjourned until Thursday 7 February 2013 at 10:30.