Invasive Image Distribution

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (14:45): My question is to the Attorney-General. What has the government done to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate photographs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (14:46): I thank the honourable member for her question. Members may have read a disturbing article in the newspaper about a website containing intimate images of Adelaide women and teenagers. Some of the images were apparently taken in circumstances of consent by the subject at the time of the taking or the making of the image, but they have now been used in a way that the subject most definitely has not consented to.

Thanks to legislation passed by this government in 2013, the Summary Offences (Filming Offences) Amendment Act, the act of distributing an invasive image without the consent of the person in the image is illegal in South Australia. The penalty for this entirely new offence is up to two years' imprisonment. An invasive image is defined as being a moving or still image of a person engaged in a private act or in a state of undress such that the person's private regions are exposed. It does not include an image of a person in a public place, or images of persons under 16, because that is classified as child exploitation material, which of course is a completely separate kettle of fish.

A private act includes sexual activity or—disturbingly, I think, from some of the things we've read in recent times—the use of a toilet. This legislation was the first of its kind in Australia. The legislation also created a new offence of humiliating or degrading filming, criminalising the filming and distribution of images of persons being subjected to humiliating or degrading acts. I provided copies of this legislation to the other state and territories' attorneys-general and encouraged them to consider a similar reform in their jurisdictions.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned for the second and final time. Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The message in South Australia is clear: you may not distribute an intimate image of another person without that person's consent. If the person consented to the taking of the image in the first place, that is not enough. Distributing these types of images is not okay. I look forward to receiving an update from SAPOL in due course about their investigations of this website and the sources of material depicting members of our community. I certainly hope that in due course the moderators are brought to account for their actions.