Summary Offences (Filming and Sexting Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 March 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:58): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences (Filming and Sexting Offences) Amendment Bill 2016 and indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill. However, I indicate that there will be amendments which I will canvass in the course of the contribution I propose to make.

The bill before us seeks to amend the Summary Offences Act 1953 and generally is in response to an increase in young people sending sexually explicit material, normally via their mobile phone (otherwise known as sexting), and is also in response to what is commonly called 'revenge pornography'. Revenge pornography is the publication of explicit material depicting someone who has not consented to that publication and with the intent of causing them humiliation, embarrassment and the like. The government recognised that this was a matter that did need to be addressed, and I think issued a discussion paper—or it may have even been the bill at that stage—late last year for public comment and consideration.

Essentially, the bill now before us does two things: it applies the current offence of distribution of an invasive image to children offenders as well as adults, and it also provides a separate penalty if the images depict a minor. The existing penalty for distribution will remain a $10,000 fine or up to a two-year imprisonment penalty. Where the image is of a minor, the penalty will be a $20,000 fine or up to four years' imprisonment.

The second thing the bill does is propose a new offence of threatening to distribute an invasive image or an image obtained from indecent filming. This will apply to a person who was intending to provoke fear that the threat will be carried out and who was recklessly indifferent to whether that fear was provoked. In this area, if the image is of a minor, the penalty will be a $10,000 fine or up to two years' imprisonment, and in any other case a $5,000 fine or up to one year's imprisonment.

In order to avoid the criminalisation of the distribution of innocent images of minors, the definition of 'invasive image' in the bill excludes an image of a person who falls within the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults in the community; that is the wording that is used in the bill. The government claims that the bill will give prosecutors a better range of offences, as currently offences involving invasive images depicting children under 18 years can usually only be charged under the child exploitation material offences in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

The penalties for child exploitation are much higher and include a different definition of the offending material and, as we explored in a previous bill before the parliament this morning, it is important to recognise what we are dealing with as being quite distinct and not within the area of criminal sanction against conduct that relates to child exploitation. That is a serious and universally condemned conduct and it has very serious penalties attached to it.

The Law Society had considered it in its Women Lawyers Committee, Children and the Law Committee and Criminal Law Committee, together with the University of Adelaide Law School, and generally the society is supportive of the bill. As I indicated, so are we. However, the Law Society did consider that the Criminal Law Consolidation Act prosecutions should only be progressed against a minor with the consent of the Attorney-General. We have presented that opportunity in a preceding bill to the government and they have declined it.

However, I make the point that when we are introducing this legislation with the new level of offences, for the reasons which have been laid out and which we accept, it is important that we do protect people against being inappropriately prosecuted for the more serious offences, particularly if the alleged offender is a minor. There was, however, reference to two other matters that were raised with us; one is that, in reference to the definitions in respect of publication of breasts, they should be explicitly defined as 'bare breasts'.

The complication that comes with providing for the offence to relate to breasts is that they can be partially exposed and would be caught by the definition in the offence. I say this on the basis that it is a fair assessment that, in the contemporary world, seeing a partially disclosed female breast of a mature female when wearing a bikini top, a bra or some partial covering may be offensive to some people but largely is accepted by the community as being a reasonable vision, and one that is certainly permitted and frequently paraded in person, in literature, in advertising and the like.

If the covering is particularly scanty or transparent, it starts to blur the lines; nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that in 2016 it is a very different approach from 1916, when of course, unless you were covered neck to knee, it was going to cause public offence. We need to be clear that we are talking about naked, exposed breasts, displaying the nipples, etc., and that offences in this criminal sanction of the Summary Offences Act should not be attracted unless we have that category. I foreshadow that I will be moving that amendment.

The second thing that has been brought to our attention, which I think it is fair to say we had a pretty longstanding stoush with the government over in the surveillance devices legislation, is what the definition of a media organisation should be. The government has reverted to form and in this bill presented a definition which we do not consider adequate. The Attorney-General is fully aware of what we are referring to, and I foreshadow that we will propose an amendment to include a definition of 'media organisation' consistent with that which was ultimately accepted by the parliament.

It was certainly one which took the Attorney-General a little time to ultimately accept, but he did so, and that bill has now passed and I think is on its way to being proclaimed, if it has not been already. It may be that this was a matter which the Attorney thought that he could get away with by placing the other definition of 'media organisation'. It may be that the drafting of this bill had occurred at a time when we had not concluded the resolution of the definition of 'media organisation' in the other bill. I will give the Attorney the benefit of the doubt, but I will soon know if he comes back into the debate on this matter with any assertion that he objects to this amendment because it will flag to me that perhaps the former was the case.

I am ever hopeful that he has understood the importance of having media definition in a general manner which, as I say, is consistent with current commonwealth legislation and it is consistent with the Surveillance Devices Act which we have recently amended and in which a definition in exactly these terms has been approved. As I say, I will be moving that amendment as well. Otherwise, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:10): I rise to make a contribution on this piece of legislation. In doing so, I want to take a step back and to look more broadly at the types of things that we are seeking to do here. Society has changed greatly over the last 30 or 40 years, and even in the last 20 years, when the advent of technology has changed the fundamental way that humans interact with each other. As a civilised society, we rely on levels of discretion and levels of privacy in order for us to remain a cohesive cohort of people living in often quite close quarters to each other, and that is an important principle that needs to be looked after. I refer to a quote by Ayn Rand who said:

Civilisation is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilisation is the process of setting man free from men.

That is a philosopher's way of pointing out that privacy is quite a modern construct when you look at the history of the earth and the history of mankind, but privacy is one of the fundamental underpinnings of how we as a society have been able to function and are able to grow into a modern, prosperous people.

The reason it is important is that living in a civilised society requires us to suppress some of our more basic instincts, to suppress some of our more—as Ayn Rand puts it—'savage instincts'. There is a whole series of laws which again we are debating today, and a criminal code, that asks us to suppress sometimes base emotional instincts that we otherwise have. A very simple example is that violence is not an appropriate way to express your feelings in, basically, any circumstance save and except for things like self-defence and others.

Privacy, as a principle to a civilised society, adds to that. Whilst we are suppressing our base human instinct in a whole variety of ways, privacy allows us—in the privacy of our own homes, in the privacy of our own minds—to take ownership of our own thought. As we have seen society evolve and as we have seen technology evolve, we as parliaments are confronted with new challenges. If you were sunbaking naked in your backyard 50 years ago, the worst thing that could happen was that your neighbour popped his head over the fence. If he or she decided to go and get a camera to take a photograph of you doing that, it was quite a difficult, laborious process. Also, 50 or 60 years ago most people did not have cameras.

Mr Duluk: Yes, they did.

Mr KNOLL: Sorry; they did have cameras, but not in the proliferation that we see them today. Whereas now we see the ability of anybody with a smart phone to be able to take a photo over the fence, or sometimes more accidental footage is taken especially with regard to drones, for instance, flying over the top of people's houses. There is an example of a real estate agent's drone taking a photograph of somebody sunbaking in their backyard in Melbourne. There is a whole host of examples where the nature of privacy in our civilised society is changing and where our laws need to catch up.

What we are dealing with today is a very specific example of the ability of young people to communicate images of themselves to their friends, and then the potential misuse of those images. Again, this is something that would have been much more difficult in times gone by. If you think about times gone by, instead of being able to send a text to all your friends or putting up an image on a website that should not otherwise be put up, you would have had to do things like photocopy or pass a photograph around to your friends.

We now have the ability to damage others much more easily and much more freely, and our default right or our default presumption of privacy is being eroded. Again, as parliaments, we need to make sure that we stay on top of these things. Frustratingly, I think we are dealing with these things in quite a piecemeal way. Without detracting from the fact that I think this piece of legislation is reasonable and that we on this side support it, we need to look at this a little bit more holistically.

I will go back to some other examples around the Surveillance Devices Act that we passed here last year. It was a fantastic piece of legislation which I have been supportive of for quite a long time, and it was exciting to see it passed. Again, it brought back a presumption of privacy or a right to privacy that did not otherwise exist before—the idea that, when we are in a private space, we should have a reasonable presumption to having privacy within that space and, indeed, that what happens within that space cannot legally be recorded.

What we are dealing with today is slightly different, but along the same vein: the fact that modern technology gives rise to breeches of what people would otherwise have a right to consider private. When one person shares a private image of themselves with another person, they do that under the presumption that that image will remain private. Indeed, it is up to the person who takes it to determine who they disseminate that image to. Unfortunately, again with modern technology, that decision can be taken away from them, and that is why I think that what we are doing here today is an important piece of work, except that we are again dealing with this in a rather piecemeal fashion.

I know that the South Australian Law Reform Institute has looked at privacy in a much broader way. Indeed, they have made a series of recommendations that I hope at some point in the future we will be debating in a more holistic sense, because I think we in South Australia—and this is an issue that is not just confined to us but happens in jurisdictions all across the world—are playing catch-up when it comes to privacy.

That fundamental presumption of privacy that people would have had in times gone past no longer exists. As a younger MP in this place and as somebody who has lived a reasonable amount of my life on the internet, I certainly understand these things more than most. However, as a parliament, I think it would be exciting if we were to actually deal with this not only in a much more holistic fashion but also in a way that gives some completeness, that is maybe technologically agnostic, so that we are not simply playing catch-up when a new piece of technology comes into play.

I would like to see us create a set of rules that will endure as the pace of technological change increases so that we can actually provide a platform on which our civilised society can remain civilised. I think it is extremely important for the future prosperity of all civilisations around the world that we get this right. Not to get too extremist, but every civilisation that has gone before us has failed for one reason or another; and not to go through the history of the Roman Empire or—

Mr Treloar: Days are numbered.

Mr KNOLL: That's right, yes. But suffice to say that we have been extraordinarily successful, the most successful civilisation in the history of man, in being able to create and change our world and deliver better living standards for our people. We have the longest life expectancy that we have ever had, and that is again an extremely recent phenomenon. We have more leisure time and we are richer. As modern societies, especially in First World societies like Australia, this is the greatest time to be alive.

Mr Treloar: In Australia.

Mr KNOLL: It's the greatest time to be alive in Australia, certainly, but we need to be careful that we continue to protect the gains that we have made. I think in my lifetime certainly we are going to deal with challenges, and whether it be climate change, whether it be changes to energy consumption patterns, or whether it be the fact that we hit resource limits in a variety of different areas that force us to look at alternative ways of doing things, I would hate to see the breakdown of our civilisation in my lifetime. That may sound extremist, except whether it be extreme climate change, whether it be nuclear war, whether it be world war more generally, there are a number things that we need to consider.

As much as privacy may not seem like it is up there, I genuinely do believe that it is, because a breakdown of that privacy I think will lead to a less cohesive society, a more lawless society, and one in which we do not show respect for each other in the way that we should, or indeed have the opportunities to privately disrespect each other in a way that is not apparent to those we are seeking to disrespect, if that makes sense.

So whilst I applaud the intent of this bill and, again, it is something that we are supporting, I would urge us as legislators to look more broadly at this issue, because otherwise we are going to be debating piecemeal bits of legislation like this on an ongoing basis for generations to come, all the while not looking far enough ahead so that we can actually prepare our society for what is happening and what is to come, thereby not doing right by the people whom we are elected to serve.

We have an amendment that is going to be put forward by the shadow attorney in relation to the fact that any charges of pornography that are to be brought against a minor need the prior written consent of the Attorney-General. The current Attorney-General is someone, as long as he avails himself of what new technology looks like, I think will be well placed to rule on these matters. But, again, whilst we are seeking to have the law keep up with the pace of technological change, we also need to make sure that the law does not otherwise capture those who view privacy and technology slightly differently.

I look at the younger generation who have grown up with technology. I have a 3½-year-old child at home who is able to turn on an iPad, find the ABC iview app, find ABC Kids and find her latest Bing episode within 15 seconds, and she cannot read yet, but she is able to use a piece of technology. She is able to find photographs of herself on the iPad and scroll through them and then we have to recount the stories. My point is that they do not have a fear of technology, but they also potentially do not understand its consequences, and that is where we as legislators need to help them understand those consequences or provide a framework in which those consequences are appropriate.

So when you have two minors who send back and forth to each other images of a private nature, does that mean that they are disseminating pornography? In this instance, we are suggesting that there needs to be discretion built into the system; that the Attorney-General is potentially the right person to hold that discretion; that whilst seeking to reinforce the presumption of privacy that should exist within a civilised society, we also have enough discretion within the system to ensure that it does not capture those whom we are not seeking to capture; and, indeed, that we find the right path forward in this otherwise difficult and vexed area of public policy.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:24): I also rise today to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Filming and Sexting Offences) Amendment Bill 2016. Technology has obviously changed and continues to change. With that change in technology, we as legislators always need to be on the front foot to ensure that we are able to set the necessary boundaries for our community, for the conduct of those in our area.

The mischief which this bill is seeking to prevent and avoid is clear, namely, the distribution of intimate and pornographic images of another person without their consent. I believe that the bill adequately cracks down on revenge porn and the distribution of such images. The new laws target people who not only distribute or seek to distribute the explicit images, but also those who threaten to distribute an invasive image. Sometimes, the threat is more potent than actually carrying out the conduct, so I am glad that the Attorney and his department have sought that coverage in the bill.

As the member for Schubert alluded to, with technology emerging as rapidly as it is, and with so many young people having access to a phone with colour images, the sending of this type of image has become much easier to do. So, it is essential that laws are updated to keep in touch with the technology as it changes. There has been an offence set up under the bill for sending a picture depicting a person 17 years or under which would now carry a maximum penalty of $20,000 or four years' imprisonment. I believe the bill will also give those who have authority to prosecute much greater flexibility, and many more offences will be available for prosecution to reflect the changing nature of the prospective offending.

I note that there has been public consultation sought on the bill and there has been support across the board. It is dangerous to assume that some young offenders who deal with such explicit material are simply naive or misguided, because sometimes they go far beyond that, and there are some who are out there to inflict damage through the distribution of these images.

The types of images that will be captured by this bill can all too often be used as a means of not only harassment but also bullying and revenge. Too often we see cases where young people are actually being bullied through this type of mechanism. In some instances, suicides have been caused because young people feel so depressed by the bullying. Unfortunately, this type of behaviour has been caused by revenge porn and sexting, so it is important that we legislate against this type of behaviour.

We all know that once an image hits cyberspace and is in the internet history it is there forever, and we are certainly sending a clear message to young people that they need to understand this. I am sure that the legislation by itself will not necessarily solve this very difficult and complex issue. I think this proposed bill has a significant role to set the boundaries that society will tolerate, and to send a clear message as to the appropriate code of conduct in this regard.

I have noticed that when you look at other jurisdictions around the world, they have been quick off the mark to legislate against this type of behaviour, and so it is only fitting that South Australia now follow suit. I had a look at some statistics provided from an American study, a joint study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl, which actually suggested that 20 per cent of teens aged 13 to 19, and 33 per cent of young adults aged 20 to 26, have shared nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves, either by text message or online posting.

The study has gone on to say that teen girls were slightly more likely to do this than the boys. In the study, 11 per cent of the young teen girls admitted to sending suggestive photos of themselves. This is a significant issue. Whilst we do not need to panic that it is as prevalent here in Australia, it is a significant issue. That is why we as legislators must do all we can to prevent this kind of behaviour and to set the relevant standards in place.

The bill refines, and also updates, the offences in part A of the Summary Offences Act of 1953, and those offences pertain to filming in response to sexting. Apart from that, the bill also amends section 26C of the Summary Offences Act, so that the offence in that section of distributing an invasive image will actually apply to images where the party depicted is under the age of 17. As I said, under the bill, the distribution of an invasive image of a minor will be a very serious criminal offence, and it will attract a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of four years.

I think there is wide scope there given to a court to award a penalty, if it sees fit, that is in line with the offence. We all know that these types of images can cause significant damage to one's credibility. Whilst there are other means available to a victim, often that damage is done. I think that penalty is fitting of the crimes committed. I seek to support the bill. As I said, the technology in this area has moved quite rapidly. I welcome the government's response to the change in technology, and I think this bill certainly adequately sets the appropriate boundaries for behaviour in place. I commend it to the house.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:32): I thank all of those who have contributed. I will just say a few very brief words. First of all, the member for Schubert went to some lengths to deal with the significance in his mind of the role of privacy in our contemporary society. I can only say that I agree with him, and I look forward to his continued interest in that topic over the months ahead because it is a matter, I think, of great importance and hopefully a matter this parliament can turn its mind to.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Watch this space. Anyway, on this particular proposition here, I welcome the general support from the opposition as well, obviously, and I—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order! I just can't hear the Attorney. Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is always hard to compete with the member for Wright. I just wanted to look at the context in which we are now pursuing this. I welcome the fact that the opposition has indicated general support for this. There has been indication of two proposed amendments. The first of them I am happy to reflect on in the course of the matter going forward. I listened with interest to the comments made by the deputy leader about contemporary views of breasts, and I am open to being persuaded; I will think about that one between the houses.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand, and my present inclination is that it was quite a persuasive argument. That is my present inclination, but I need time to reflect on it. As to the second of the amendments, I would like to put this in a bit of context. Section 26A is the section of the Summary Offences Act with which we are dealing, and section 26A presently deals with humiliating and degrading images.

That is a matter we dealt with some time ago, and I will just remind people what that is. These are images of a person who is the victim of an assault or an act of violence, or an act that reasonable adult members of the community would consider to be humiliating or degrading to such a person (but does not include an act that reasonable adult members of the community would consider to cause only minor or moderate embarrassment).

Remember, this was actually harking back to the days when students at a school victimised a young person at the school purely for the purpose of filming the victimisation of that child, and then putting that onto—

Ms Chapman: Luckily they did, otherwise nobody would have known about it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: True; a good point. Nevertheless, the whole purpose of that exercise was to procure that film. So just as we say that child exploitation material should neither be consumed nor produced, so we say, in respect of this sort of material, that it should neither be consumed nor produced. That is already there.

The next thing that is already there is protection of an invasive image of a person. This came from the old (in the vernacular of the time) 'upskirting' type of legislation that was floating around, and I will give the definition because it is relevant. An invasive image means an image of a person:

(a) engaged in a private act; or

(b) in a state of undress such that the person's bare genital or anal region is visible,

but does not include—

and this where our amendment starts—

an image of a person under…the age of 16 years…

That is what we are talking about. We have already covered humiliating or degrading; it is already there. It is already there to deal with an image which is regarded as invasive.

What we are doing is actually extending coverage to people who are younger, and we are adding in a new term, 'an invasive image', and an invasive image is that of a person engaged in a private act or a person in a state of such undress, as in the case of a female, that the breasts are visible, or any bare genital or anal region, etc. We have also added in here the threat to reveal such an image. So it is the sending of such an image, the transmission of such an image without a person's consent, and also the threat to do so.

The reason I have laboured that at some length is to point out the fact that the second amendment being suggested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is both completely unsatisfactory and, with the greatest of respect, absurd. It is unsatisfactory because even if we were dealing with anything else, the fact is that we already have a definition in section 26 of a media organisation. It is one that has been there for some time; it is in 26B(9). It already defines a media organisation, and that is a definition that the government accepts.

We do not accept weakening that definition, which is already the operative definition for 'humiliating and degrading' and the operative definition for 'invasive'. The amendment that is sought to be moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would weaken the position for those two things and then lower them to the new lower standard being set in these circumstances: first objection.

The second objection is that there is no doubt that the definition of media organisation in 26B(9) refers to responsible, large, accountable media organisations. The definition which is being sought to be moved in amendment No. 2 basically could include any self-styled commentator, blogger, or whomever you like, on the internet, not responsible people, inasmuch as they are out there in the media, who are not people captured by the definition presently in the legislation.

The third point I would like to make on this is: could somebody please explain to me why anybody in the media would think it is in the public interest to go around broadcasting images of people engaged in a private act (this is without their permission) or in a state of undress such that their bare genital or anal region is visible (without their permission), or where there is an assault or other act of violence against the person? It might be possible that a responsible media organisation might do that if the police ask for assistance in identifying an offender—I accept that. Then we get to the question of invasive image, which again is the same thing.

The whole business about pandering to Free TV and other lobbies should not take precedence in every instance over making sure that this is actually supposed to be protecting somebody from something. It is not supposed to be giving busybodies an excuse to go around publishing whatever they want to publish about people on the internet or anywhere else. There is a fundamental point of difference here: it is just not okay.

The first bit I am quite happy to talk about—the full breast or the partial breast. I am happy to have a conversation about that, and it might be that we can resolve that between the houses, but as to the second one, that is not okay, from our point of view.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Chapman–1]—

Page 3, line 22 [clause 5(7), inserted subsection (2)(b)(i)]—Before 'breasts' insert 'bare'

I thank the Attorney for indicating that he will give consideration to the addition of the word 'bare', to ensure that we are dealing with the clearly offensive publication of that part of the female anatomy, and I look forward to his consent in due course.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I repeat again that I oppose it only at this point because I have not had a chance to consider it. I will talk to the deputy leader about this between the houses. I was much moved by her speech.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 6.

Ms CHAPMAN: I note for the first time in 14 years that there is actually an error in the numbering. I am shocked because parliamentary counsel are usually so excellent, but I note, at least on my copy, that it says 'Section 269B(9)' and it clearly should be 'Section 26B(9)'. I think it is acknowledged that there is no section 269B of the Summary Offences Act, so if we could delete the '9' where it first appears. I move the amendment in an amended form:

Amendment No 2 [Chapman–1]—

Page 3, after line 31—Insert:

(2) Section 26B(9), definitions of broadcasting, media organisation and publish—delete the definitions and substitute:

media organisation means an organisation whose activities consist of or include the collection, preparation for dissemination or dissemination of the following material for the purpose of making it available to the public:

(a) material having the character of news, current affairs, information or a documentary;

(b) material consisting of commentary or opinion on, or analysis of, news, current affairs, information or a documentary;

I place on the record that I hear the Attorney's statement suggesting that this definition would somehow or other weaken what would otherwise be provided. I do not accept that. I do not accept this whole question of public interest and whether people are engaged in a private act or there is a display of material.

The fact is that we are agreeing with the government that there is a need in the community to deal with the publication of this type of material. It borders on the area of privacy. The government has the capacity to deal with the matter of privacy and the breach of it generally for the public. There is a very comprehensive proposal that has been presented by the Law Reform Commission for the introduction of a tortious remedy for breaches of privacy which we have been urging the government for some time to consider.

However, what we are dealing with here is introducing a new offence. We are dealing with not just the failure or the incapacity to be able to lodge material in evidence where material or information is captured and then could be unfairly used against somebody. We are dealing with a new regime of criminal offences purportedly for a certain circumstance to deal with an obvious ill that is out there in the community now but which we must deal with to make sure that we do not inadvertently capture people.

In the real world, media organisations are not just major television stations or major newspapers or groups who are members of the union; it is broader than that. We are in 2016 and we have had this debate in another place and the commonwealth has had this debate and realised that we have to have a more flexible definition. The fact that the Attorney is so passionately opposed to it makes me think that he knew full well that the old definition was going to be left in this bill and he just did not even want to deal with it.

We may have to go through this tortuous process again when the Legislative Council may agree with us—they did in the other legislation. I would have thought that the Attorney could take the loss on the chin the previous time around and not be so petulant in refusing to allow an amendment that will, at the very least, provide consistency with other legislation in the contemporary envelope. I am very disappointed to hear that. It seems as though we are going to have another unnecessary battle, but in the interests of consistency and bearing in mind that we are introducing another regime of offences.

The Attorney touched on the reason we are all here in the first place, that is, to deal with people who deliberately use images and the publication of them to cause humiliation or offence to others. He referred to the precipitating example in the schoolyard. I place on the record—and I have said it before in other forums—thank goodness for that young boy, not because he had a pure intent in relation to his being prepared to humiliate another boy in the schoolyard by taking those photographs, but because if he had not recorded that the Department for Education would not have acted, would not have been forced to act, and the parents would not have known anything about it. There are actually some circumstances where the publication of what would otherwise be humiliating material would be important.

I think the Attorney himself has used an example of where we may need to be able to identify someone, someone who is photographed on the ground in a riotous conduct, believed to be a suspect, who might have bitten a police officer, contaminated them with a contagious disease, and they may need to be identified, when the only photograph of them is where they are upended on the street with their legs apart and parts of their private areas exposed. That is an example. So, I think the government is being a bit petulant, at least the Attorney is on behalf of the government, in not allowing this amendment. We will see if we are here to fight it on another day.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (7 to 10) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:52 to 14:01.