House debates

Monday, 8 February 2016

Private Members' Business

Domestic and Family Violence

Photo of Tim WattsTim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dunkley for moving this important motion, and I recognise the seriousness with which the vast majority of members of this parliament take the issue of men's violence against women. I particularly welcome this motion, and the Prime Minister's recognition, that all violence against women begins with the disrespect of women—or, put another way, that violence against women begins with gender inequality, the beliefs and attitudes of individuals, and the structural imbalances in our society that allow some men to feel that they are entitled to exercise power and control over the women in their lives.

Before I came into this place, I spent the better part of a decade working in the Australian technology sector. I love gadgets. I love new technologies. I love the way they empower us to do more efficiently what we already do and allow us to do new things that we had never imagined before. However, unfortunately, for some men these new technologies are also giving them new opportunities to exercise power and control over the women in their lives. You can ask anyone on the front lines of services provisions to victims of family violence, and they will tell you that perpetrators of violence are increasingly using technology to stalk, intimidate, harass, threaten and abuse their victims; to send a constant stream of controlling or threatening messages; to monitor their social interactions; even to track their movements. Law enforcement officials ought to take this trend seriously. The mere fact that this behaviour occurs online does not diminish the seriousness of its psychological impact on victims.

The most extreme example of how technology is being used to exercise power over victims is the phenomenon of so-called 'revenge porn'—threatening to share private sexual images or films to coerce or control victims, or sharing those images publicly to shame and harm victims. You can imagine the impact that sending private sexual material to a woman's friends, work colleagues or family can have. It can cause serious and ongoing harm to a victim's career, reputation and mental health. Given the nature of the internet, once these images are online victims are left with the lifelong anxiety that they could merge at the worst possible time—before a job interview, at the start of a new relationship or when their children are starting a new school and making new friends.

Victims also suffer significant ongoing harassment, often from third parties who have found the images on line and connected them to the victim. This ongoing harm has led victims of revenge porn to suffer from depression and anxiety and, unfortunately, some have committed suicide. The mere threat of these images being shared is often enough to prevent victims of family violence from leaving an abusive relationship, adding an additional layer of malevolent control that can make seeking help even more difficult.

Our laws and police responses, however, are failing to provide adequate protection to victims of family violence in this respect. Victoria and South Australia are the only state governments that have legislated against revenge porn, meaning there is only patchwork protection across Australia. We need to act quickly and respond to the growing harm that is being caused by this emerging practice urgently by implementing new laws to plug the gaps in the protection available to victims.

That is why last year the member for Griffith and I introduced a private member's bill to criminalise revenge porn across Australia. Despite this, the government refuses to bring on this bill for debate or a vote. I honestly cannot imagine that there would be a single member of this parliament who would vote against this proposition, who would argue that criminalising this behaviour is not what we ought to be doing. So why is the government not allowing a vote on this bill?

In response to a letter from the member for Griffith and me calling for debate on this bill, the Minister for Women, Senator Cash, responded that this is quite a complex legal issue and that there are existing legal provisions that could be used to prosecute this offence. Instead of acting, the minister informed us that the government is kicking the can down the road through COAG. Frankly, this is squibbing the issue. There is nothing complex about whether or not we should criminalise revenge porn. It does not take a room full of bureaucrats to tell you that it is wrong and that the law should say so clearly.

And as for existing legal provisions, the Commonwealth DPP told the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee's inquiry into revenge porn that:

There are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with ‘revenge porn’ conduct.

And that the circumstances in which revenge porn might be caught by existing laws are 'limited' and 'uncommon'.

This is precisely why the member for Griffith and I introduced our bill—to send a clear message to the Australian public, to law enforcement officials and to prosecutors that this behaviour is not only wrong but, clearly, contrary to law. No police officer or public prosecutor should be in any doubt about the intent of parliament with respect to this behaviour.

Talk is cheap in this space. There is a great deal of talk about respecting women, addressing gender inequality and reducing family violence. But this is an area where it is time to act. The government should not delay acting on this issue merely because it does not want to support a bill introduced by the opposition. I am pleased that the Turnbull government has picked up Labor's proposal to hold a national crisis summit on family violence, bringing together advocates, service providers and stakeholders in the one room with decision makers. The Prime Minister should adopt a similar approach here, and adopt Labor's proposal to criminalise revenge porn across Australia. This is a straightforward policy question with a straightforward legislative response.

Comments

No comments