Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to note Labor's support for the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017, and, in doing so, clarify the role of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to promote and enforce online safety for all Australians, including children. It expands the functions of the eSafety Commissioner to broadly complement existing Australian legislation to combat cyber bullying, cyber hate, trolling and other malicious and offensive behaviour. This bill will make it easier for the public to identify where they can seek assistance and advice in relation to a range of online safety measures, irrespective of age. The bill recognises and addresses the extensive public feedback that adults, previously, had not been aware that they could also seek assistance from what was previously known as the Children's eSafety Commissioner for general advice about online safety or when they have concerns about illegal or offensive online content or the sharing of private images without consent.

This amendment is required mostly due to the Turnbull government realising that online safety is a problem facing Australians of all ages, not just children. I say it is okay to admit when you are wrong. It was the Turnbull government that decided to transfer responsibility for online safety from the Australian Communications and Media Authority to a new office, the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, two years ago. While Labor supported the introduction of the act in 2015, we noted at the time that it was out of line with the Turnbull government's 'breathless' deregulation agenda. It was clearly a case of 'regulate first, think later' by the Turnbull government.

The Labor Party supports measures that improve public access to information and advice on cyberbullying, revenge porn, image based abuse, sexting and e-safety in general, including the safe use of the internet by older Australians. Labor is firmly committed to improving cybersafety. As a mother of three children, I welcome this. The previous Labor government delivered $125.8 million towards the National Cyber Safety Plan to combat the online risks to children and to help parents and educators protect our children from inappropriate online material and malicious contact. In 2010, Labor established the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety as part of its commitment to investigate and improve online safety measures. The committee released a report with 32 recommendations, each of which was endorsed by the previous Labor government.

In 2015, my colleagues the member for Gellibrand and the member for Griffiths introduced a private member's bill criminalising the non-consensual sharing of nude or sexual images. So called revenge porn is widely understood as the spiteful actions of a jilted ex-partner. However, as the term has gained popularity, so has the realisation that the non-consensual sharing of nude or sexual images is increasingly being used as a tool of abuse and control by the perpetrators of domestic violence.

More than a year after my colleagues introduced their bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of private images, the Turnbull government continues to delay its passage through the parliament. This is just another example of the Prime Minister's great capacity to 'talk the talk'—and he certainly can talk the talk about the problem of violence against women, but his government has been much slower in actually taking any action. Australian law has failed to keep pace with the ways emerging technologies are being used to cause harm, particularly to women.

Experts agree that we need to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of private images. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions said that making so-called revenge porn a criminal offence would fill a gap within the existing law. The Australian Federal Police said that 'uniformity in legislation would be most helpful for police, allowing them to investigate and charge perpetrators and abusers'. The Turnbull government has had plenty of time to act, and it has plenty of support from our national law enforcement agencies to ensure that the non-consensual sharing a private images is not tolerated.

As I have noted, Labor supported the introduction of the act in 2015, acknowledging the widespread problem of online bullying, which can have serious impacts, including depression, anxiety and, in rare cases, child suicide. Two years later, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017 amends the act and the title of the statutory Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to reflect the broader role for online safety that the commissioner has for all Australians, not just Australian children. A statutory review mechanism in the legislation was necessary and appropriate given the practical concerns around implementation that were expressed by the Australian Interactive Media Association, representing Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo7. This bill, amending the remit of the office from 'children' to 'Australians', suggests that the creation of the office was not particularly well conceived at the time and that the ongoing stakeholder and parliamentary scrutiny is welcome. As more and more of our daily lives—both work and private matters—happen online the issue of online safety continues to grow and demand the attention of both lawmakers and law enforcement.

We acknowledge the prevalence of bullying online and we acknowledge the very significant and lasting harm it can have on people. In a recent RMIT survey of more than 4,000 Australians aged 16 to 45, 23 per cent reported having been a victim of image based abuse. The most common problem, affecting 20 per cent of those surveyed—an astonishing one in five people—was sexual or nude images being taken of them without their consent. Eleven per cent of those surveyed reported having sexual or nude images of them sent or distributed to others without their consent. Nine per cent of survey responders reported experiencing threats that a sexual or nude image would be sent or distributed to others without their consent. This is an alarming problem facing young people. The survey found that some groups were more likely than others to be affected. One in two Indigenous Australians, one in two Australians with a disability, and one in three lesbian, gay and bisexual Australians reported suffering from image based abuse or victimisation.

The RMIT survey concedes an important limitation to the information they collected. Victims can only self-report if they become aware that a sexual or nude image of them was either taken or distributed without their consent. The authors of the RMIT survey report acknowledge that addressing image based harms requires a combination of approaches. This would take into consideration coordinating with social media and website providers to better detect and remove material; two, introducing measures to increase legal protections; three, providing information and support services for victims. Information and support should cater for the different experiences of the diverse Australian community.

This government likes to come in here and tell us that we have done things wrong. I think it is time for them to own up, fess up and face up to the fact that they have done nothing about this. Now, finally, after four years, they are sorting out the issue.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017 is recognition that online safety is a fundamental right for all Australians, no matter what their age, gender, race, sexuality, ability or occupation. Since it was established two years ago, the Children's eSafety Commissioner has carried out more than 15,000 investigations into online content, including 9,000 cases of online sexual abuse. This shows the scope of the problem with cyberbullying, trolls, threats, intimidation and personal attacks carried out online. More than 92,000 students and teachers have been reached through the e-safety virtual classrooms. Further to that, more than 1,200 frontline professionals have received training in how to help women who are experiencing abuse and harassment online as part of the Women's Safety Package.

This has been a hugely successful start. Now it is time to expand the program to ensure that every person in Australia can access the internet without fear of ongoing harassment or vilification. These efforts need to be wide reaching, diverse and, importantly, they must evolve as quickly as technology does. The keyboard is now mightier than the sword, and cruel words typed onto the internet can have tremendous power. Adults may have a thicker skin and greater perspective than children, but relentless attacks from online trolls can and do wear down our defences.

No-one is truly immune from the threat of cyberbullies. This is particularly true in the case where these personal attacks are shared rapidly among peers online, where they can be seen by many others. This is humiliating enough when it is a derogatory statement or criticism, but it is utterly devastating in cases such as revenge porn, when intimate images are circulated widely. In many cases the victims suffer in silence, as they do not know how to stop the onslaught or where they can get help. This can lead to serious mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, and can even be so serious that it causes people to become suicidal.

Whether it is online trolling, hacking, impersonation or degrading remarks, the actions of bullies can have a lasting and significant impact, no matter what the victim's age. That is why the federal government is seeking to expand the role of the eSafety Commissioner to help a broader range of Australians, including the elderly, victims of domestic and family violence and people who have had private or personal images shared without consent.

The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill will change the name of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the eSafety Commissioner to reflect the broader role in online safety. The new name and role will make it clear to members of the public that all Australians can go to the commissioner for assistance if they have concerns about illegal or offensive content posted online—if they have faced the so-called revenge porn posts or if they need general advice on how to stay safe online. While the commissioner will not have the ability to receive complaints from adults about cyberbullying material, the bill is recognition of the government's commitment to improve and promote online safety for all Australians through education initiatives and research.

The bill amendment will allow the commissioner to carry out work on the federal government's election commitment relating to women's safety and the safety of older Australians online, ensuring that they have the skills to participate in our modern digital economy. These changes will complement the existing work the commissioner and the Department of Social Services are doing to develop a digital inclusion and online safety strategy for older Australians. The federal government recognises the important role technology plays in keeping Australians connected. Eighty per cent of people own smartphones and tablets to help them stay in touch with family and friends, but only one in five aged people in Australia use smartphone technology, because many fear that they do not have the skills needed and are hesitant to take part in today's digital world. The federal government is investing $50 million to improve the digital literacy of older Australians, keep them connected with their loved ones and give them the confidence to participate online.

In relation to the safety of women and children online, as part of its commitment to reducing violence against women and their children, including online abuse, the government has agreed to develop principles for national and consistent criminal offences relating to the sharing of revenge porn images and a public consultation process to impose civil penalties against perpetrators and websites that host intimate images or videos that are shared without consent.

On 19 May a meeting of the COAG Law, Crime and Community Safety Council released a National Statement of Principles Relating to the Criminalisation of the Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images. The national statement of principles will give state and territory governments a shared framework to develop and review criminal laws relating to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Additionally, on 20 May the government released a discussion paper and called for substantial submissions on a proposed civil penalty regime that will target both perpetrators and sites that host intimate images and videos that have been shared without consent. Civil penalties could complement an online complaints portal currently being developed which will allow victims to report instances of image based abuse and access support. The portal is expected to be launched by the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner in the second half of 2017.

These changes acknowledge that attacks online are often conducted as part of a sustained campaign of victimisation in the real world and must be tackled within the broader framework of preventing family violence. By expanding the function of the eSafety Commissioner, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill will complement existing legislation arrangements for Australian adults to address cyberbullying, cyberhate, trolling and other malicious and offensive online behaviour and promote the online safety of all Australians. The bill will help bridge the great digital divide faced by our older generations and ensure that those Australians who are most vulnerable online, including victims of violence, children and the elderly, are given the skills and support to participate with confidence in an increasingly technological world. I commend this bill and the work being carried out by the federal government to allow all Australians to enjoy safe use of the internet.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As shadow assistant minister for cyber security and defence personnel I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017, because there are many competing voices in the cybersecurity and cybersafety space, and it makes it difficult for people to know where to go to for advice, tools and assistance when the online world gets particularly scary.

We had a very good example of that recently with the WannaCry incident which occurred just a few weeks ago. We heard about it overnight hitting the NHS and 200,000 other individuals and organisations in more than 100 countries throughout the world. We heard that this possible wave was coming to Australia, and my concern was the fact that there was no single voice here in Australia sending a message out to Australians, saying: 'WannaCry is on its way. This is what you need to do: you need to patch your systems; you need to back up your systems; you need to do an IT health check.'

We had the Prime Minister's cybersecurity adviser out there doing some media conferences and a few media interviews here in Canberra to a few media outlets that are not really communicators to the wider Australian community. We also had occasional communications from the minister, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Stay Smart Online. They are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head; I am sure that there were other government agencies.

That is six that I can count already that were communicating different messages at different times out to the broader Australian community and—this is the big concern—to small business. How did it work in the UK? There was one government agency, the National Cyber Security Centre, sending messages about WannaCry out to the broader community, to the small business community and to government agencies. We had at least six.

This very recent example of the government's mismanagement, in my view, of communication on WannaCry potentially could have been a major disaster for hundreds and thousands of businesses and individuals here in Australia. It was just by chance that we did not experience what happened throughout the world in those 100-plus countries to those 200,000 individuals and businesses who fell prey to WannaCry. As I mentioned, we had 18 instances of reports of WannaCry victims; 12 of those that we know of were small businesses.

I have made this point to a recent Australian Strategic Policy Institute panel that I was on; I make this point again to the government: first-up, you need to get the crisis communication on cybersecurity in this nation sorted. We need one voice, we need consistent messages and we need a coordinated approach to communication, because from what I could gather there was no guiding hand on the communication that took place over the weekend of the WannaCry incident.

We also need to ensure that small businesses are aware they have a go-to place to find out, 'Okay, I'm hearing about WannaCry. I am hearing about this on a Friday night. I need to make sure that my business is okay,'—because we know that small businesses operate around the clock; it is not just a case of nine to five, Monday to Friday. Of the 2.1 million small businesses that operate here in Australia, 60 per cent operate from their kitchen table or from their home office. They do not have a shingle out in the high street; they do not have a shop on the main street. They operate from their home office, from their kitchen table. Sixty per cent of the 2.1 million small businesses in Australia are one person; there is no staff. There is no ICT department, no human resources department and no marketing department. It is just one individual trying to run the business, market the business, administer the business and secure the business online—one individual.

I have been one of those individuals. I was one of those individuals for 10 years. I had my own small business before I came into politics. I have been there. I know the importance of getting my IT security right, because that is my business. That is my reputation. If something is compromised there then the business is closed. The business is over. It is vitally important that small businesses understand, have the confidence and feel empowered to operate in the online environment. And it is vital that, when incidents like WannaCry occur, they know where to go. It is vital that those poor 12 business people—four of them were in the Northern Territory—that fell victim to WannaCry, and any other small business person or microbusiness person, can go to one site, one location, to work out what to do. They hear the news overnight; they wake up on Saturday morning and hear that WannaCry has hit like a wave, like a tsunami—200,000 individuals and businesses in more than 100 countries throughout the world. What do they think? 'I need to work out what to do. Where do I go to get advice?'

In the UK you go to the National Cyber Security Centre's Twitter page or Facebook page. In Australia you have to be very conversant with the bureaucracy. My recommendation is, if you are business wanting to secure your online environment, you need to get a big organisational chart of the Australian government bureaucracy. Because, if you are operating a small business, and you wake up Saturday morning and hear about WannaCry, you need to go to the Attorney-General's Department website, then you need to go to the minister's website, Twitter page and Facebook page and then you need to go to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website, Twitter page and Facebook page. You also need to go to the Australian Cyber Security Centre website, Twitter page and Facebook page and, just in case you have forgotten, you need to go to Stay Smart Online. Although, from memory, their first Facebook post was done about four days after we first heard about WannaCry—four days.

This is the real challenge that we have in Australia. The government needs to get serious about cybersecurity communications. It needs to get serious about establishing behavioural and cultural change in government agencies and it needs to drive that through a communications strategy. It also needs to get serious about crisis communications strategies, because what we saw on WannaCry was a complete and utter joke. I could not believe it, after what we saw with census fail last year, when people had no idea what was going on. They were compelled to take part because it was the census, but they had no idea what was going on. There was a great deal of review over census fail. Everyone realised that communication was probably one of the major issues. The Prime Minister's adviser on cybersecurity made it clear that communication had to be improved and that there had to be significant improvement in crisis communications and also in terms of behavioural change, attitudinal change and cultural change.

So you would have thought, after that significant failure, that with WannaCry they would have just gone to the one government agency and rolled out that communications strategy. You would have thought it would have been a really slick operation, given the lessons that were supposedly learnt after census fail. Given that everyone acknowledged that communication was one of the major failures of the census, you would have thought that with WannaCry there would have been an award-winning communication strategy rolled out.

As someone who had my own communication business, who is a fellow of the Public Relations Institute of Australia and who is an active member of the executive of the Australian Association of Business Communicators, I know when a communication strategy is working. I know, by looking at it from outside, whether the communication is being guided, or whether it is just mad and ad hoc, with one organisation running off with one message and another organisation running off with another message.

That was definitely what we saw with WannaCry. There was obviously no guiding hand managing the communication on WannaCry. There was no crisis communication. There was no general communication. There was no behavioural change, no attitudinal change, no call to action, no cultural change—nothing. There were just six government agencies sending out all their different messages at different times, except on Mother's Day. WannaCry happened on Saturday morning. We found out about it on Saturday morning. There was, from memory, no communication on the Sunday from government agencies about what people needed to do.

That is all you want to know. When you are a small business you just want to know what to do: 'Give me advice on what I need to do right now to save my business, to save my data, to save my intellectual property, to save my reputation. Just tell me what to do, and I will do it.' It was just a case of patching. It was a case of doing backups. It was a case of basically making a commitment to do regular IT health checks.

As I said, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill, because there are so many different voices in the cybersecurity and cybersafety space. Labor supported the introduction of the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act in 2015 as part of our commitment to combating online child bullying and its impacts, including child suicide. Since then we have seen that age is no longer a barrier, and adults are also frequently the target of online harassment and bullying, with similar consequences for their mental and physical health. I often wonder whether, at its creation in 2015, the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner recognised then that its scope was simply not going to be wide or broad enough.

I am pleased Labor is supporting the amendments to the bill that will make it easier for all members of the public to identify where they can seek assistance. That is what is so vitally important: one place to go to seek assistance; one place to go to seek advice—somewhere they can seek assistance and advice in relation to a range of online safety issues, irrespective of their age.

This bill, as we have heard from so many of my colleagues today, amends the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015 to reflect the broader role of the Children's eSafety Commissioner in relation to online safety for, as I said, all Australians, not just children. It will amend the commissioner's title, and it will make a number of other amendments that are welcome.

Revenge porn and the online safety of young Canberrans has been a significant issue here. We had an incident last year at St Mary MacKillop College where images were released, causing significant consternation and concern amongst the St Mary MacKillop College and also other colleges throughout Canberra. This is a significant issue in not just my community but all our communities. Revenge porn is a whole different issue. We need to ensure that mechanisms are in place to address that and to ensure that the victims are not targeted. We also need to provide an environment where support and assistance is provided to both children and adults. (Time expired)

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the bill before the House today, which has the primary function of changing the name of Children's eSafety Commissioner to eSafety Commissioner, to reflect its broader remit. The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017 primarily broadens the general functions of the existing Children's eSafety Commissioner to cover the online safety of all Australians, not just that of Australian children. This is a worthy agenda. When the Children's eSafety Commissioner was first established, I did ask the House why our commitment to dealing with abusive behaviour towards Australian women stopped when they turned 18. Recognising the breadth of this issue is worthwhile.

Before I tackle the specifics of the bill, it is important to recognise that this represents a broader trend in our society. You do not need to be paying too much attention to what is going on in the online space to appreciate that women, particularly those with a significant public profile, are currently the targets of enormous abuse and threats and intimidation online. Unfortunately, these threats are not mere words. They are words that go to very specific threats of physical violence against women, words that amount to the new, noxious practice of doxing—that is, publicly revealing the identity and physical location of the women being threatened. It is very, very intimidating behaviour that has a significant impact on women. The reality is that, to date, this kind of behaviour has not been taken seriously by law enforcement or by policymakers in general. What happens if you are a woman going into a police station to complain about online threats, abuse and intimidation can be a bit of a lottery. There is a lot of research that shows that the experience of women in these situations varies enormously, depending on which station you make the complaint at or depending on who the officer on watch was.

In this respect, changing to an eSafety Commissioner with a general remit is valuable, because we have an important culture-change task in front of us. We need to really get the message through to law enforcement and to policymakers that this kind of online behaviour can have significant impacts—impacts that can be just as significant as if these threats, abuse and intimidation were happening in real life, physically.

Labor welcome this name change to the eSafety Commissioner, and the expansion of the role to cover adults as well as children. The change in title is sensible, as it is not just children but also adults that are at risk. This bill will expand the role of the office to deal with issues broader than children's issues, which is also sensible. This includes expanded responsibility to take a leading role in combating the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, commonly referred to as 'revenge porn'.

Whilst we support this expansion, we believe that the most appropriate approach, the best approach, to dealing with revenge porn would have been to criminalise these acts some time ago, at the Commonwealth level. Australian laws have failed to keep pace with the new ways that technology is being used to cause harm, particularly to women, and the law should have been brought up to date and must be brought up to date as a matter of urgency. Revenge porn is one of the ugliest manifestations of the trend towards online abuse of women that I was talking about earlier, and it is important that the parliament as policymakers send a strong message to the community that the sharing of private sexual images without consent is wrong, and wrong in the clearest terms. The easiest way to send this message would be to enact Commonwealth legislation to criminalise this behaviour.

While, historically, we have considered family violence and abuse to be physical, psychological and emotional, in the 21st century family violence has also gone digital, and it has serious impacts on victims' mental health. There are a wide range of methods that revenge porn can be distributed: texting private images to friends, colleagues or family members; publishing images on social media sites; even uploading images to commercial pornographic websites. Indeed, it takes just four clicks on a computer to upload a photo to Facebook. That is how quick and simple it is to share an explicit photo of someone without his or her consent—four clicks to maliciously rob a person of their privacy, of their human dignity, and to inflict a digital form of sexual assault on them.

The mental and emotional toll of revenge porn is staggeringly high. Victims experience increased anxiety, and the research suggests they experience this anxiety acutely when they are doing activities that will subject to them to online scrutiny—for example, applying for a job, with the stress that potential employers might come across this material, which is frequently published with the names and contact details of the victims.

Private sexual images, and the threat to share them, are often used to control, humiliate and abuse individuals. While this practice is commonly referred to as revenge porn, it is clear that the sharing of these images without consent, or threats to share them, occurs in a much wider range of scenarios than a simple desire to inflict revenge. As the Sexual Assault Support Service recognises:

Revenge is not the only motive to consider. Perpetrators of the behaviour may seek notoriety or financial gain, or believe that they are providing entertainment for others. Some perpetrators may intend to cause emotional harm to their targets and humiliate them, while others will give little or no thought to potential impacts.

The problem of revenge porn is complex and not only limited to the publishing of sexually explicit material intending to intimidate or humiliate people in the context of a relationship breakdown.

Laws criminalising revenge porn have been slow to emerge. A leading expert in the field, Dr Nicola Henry, said: 'image-based abuse has emerged so rapidly as an issue that inevitably our laws and policies are struggling to catch up'. The law can often lag behind advances in technology, but in this instance it is causing real harm in the community.

Labor has been working on a solution to this issue since 2015. In October 2015 the member for Griffith and I introduced into parliament a bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of private sexual images. Shortly after we introduced this bill, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee established an inquiry into this issue. During the inquiry the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions expressed concerns regarding the limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with revenge porn. As part of the Commonwealth DPP's submission they acknowledged that existing Commonwealth laws capture only part of the conduct that is encompassed by the sharing, or the threats to share, revenge porn. The submission confirmed that 'there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with 'revenge porn' conduct'.

The status of revenge porn legislation in Australia is strictly drafted at the state level and it is patchwork at best. Currently there is no federal legislation that criminalises revenge porn. Most states do not currently have legislative mechanisms in place to protect victims from cyber-abuse of this kind. South Australia and Victoria are the only two states that have passed revenge-porn-specific legislation. Victoria passed the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Bill in August 2014, which criminalises non-consensual sharing and also provides protection to young people who take and share images of themselves consensually. Between August 2014 and July 2016 174 offences had been recorded and around 29 per cent involved young people aged between 10 and 17. Western Australia passed the Restraining Orders and Related Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Act 2016 to criminalise cyber-stalking and revenge porn. The act received royal assent on 29 November 2016. Queensland has no specific revenge porn laws; however, Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said the state government was working with other jurisdictions on this matter.

The general point here is that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions said that a Commonwealth offence targeting revenge porn would 'fill a gap within the existing law'. The Australian Federal Police said that 'uniformity in legislation would be most helpful for police' so that they can investigate and charge perpetrators. However, the Turnbull government has delayed and delayed on this issue. In early 2016, before the Senate inquiry had even released its report, the Minister for Women wrote to the opposition to indicate the government would not be supporting Labor's bill and that instead they would be pursuing the COAG process. In February 2016 the committee published its detailed report, which called for Commonwealth legislation that created offences relating to revenge porn. This was still not enough for the government and they continued to refuse to act. With the passage of time, the COAG Advisory Panel released its report, in April 2016, which stated:

Existing laws that govern such offences do not adequately capture the scope or nature of these offences. To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.

The COAG panel explicitly recommended criminalising revenge porn:

All Commonwealth, state and territory governments should introduce legislation that reinforces perpetrator accountability by removing uncertainty and explicitly making it illegal to use technology to distribute intimate material without consent.

Governments should:

•   introduce and enforce strong and consistent penalties for adults who distribute intimate material without consent

•   improve community understanding of the impacts and consequences of distributing intimate material.

Despite the government saying it would wait until the COAG panel produced its report before making its decision, the government has still not legislated 12 months on. As a result, Labor re-introduced our private member's bill in October 2016.

There remains an urgent need for criminal penalties for offenders nationwide. Indeed, in the week that this bill was introduced into this parliament, research was released on the prominence and severity of this issue. RMIT and Monash University surveyed close to 4½ thousand people about their experiences with image based abuse. Their findings document the 'mass scale of victimisation' and the impact it has on victims' lives. According to this research, one in five people who were surveyed had been victims of some kind of revenge porn. Young people--aged 16 to 19—were the most vulnerable, with one in three reporting some form of image based abuse. Minority groups were also found to be much more vulnerable, with one in two Indigenous Australians, one in two Australians with a disability and one in three LGBTIQ Australians reporting having suffered victimisation of this kind. Even the researchers themselves were surprised at the number of people who had their private sexual images distributed or taken without their consent or used against them in other ways. There is a clear need for parliament to send a very clear message to the general community that this behaviour not only is wrong but should attract a criminal sanction.

The study also found that women are more likely than men to be victims of image based abuse by a former partner or intimate partner. Importantly, they are also more likely to fear for their safety as a result. Dr Anastasia Powell from RMIT, one of the lead researchers, noted:

Victims do report experiencing this as a form of sexual violation or sexual violence.

The researchers found that upon discovering that their private images were publicised victims felt that it had 'constituted a violation of their sexual autonomy and dignity'. This has obvious and difficult long-term repercussions, and overall those who had suffered image based abuse were almost twice as likely as nonvictims to report experiencing high levels of psychological distress. This report, the first of its kind in Australia, recommends criminalising revenge porn at the federal level to provide cover for existing piecemeal state laws It found overwhelming support for criminalising the distribution of private or invasive images without consent. Four in five of those surveyed agreed that it should be a crime.

The statistics in this report reflect what is occurring overseas. More than 200 people have been prosecuted in the UK since revenge porn laws were enacted in 2015. According to UK police forces there were around 1,200 reported incidents of revenge porn from April 2015 to December 2015. And these are just the numbers we know publicly. Actions of this kind are deeply personal and often go unreported or underreported. Without strong laws that send a very clear message, revenge porn will continue to be underreported or unreported. It is unacceptable that victims currently do not feel protected by the existing law.

We must as a parliament treat this issue seriously. By challenging the blame that is often directed at victims we can direct cultural change in the broader community. We can move away from a culture that tells women to police their own behaviour and move away from comments about a woman's conduct when she is a victim of a violation of this kind. It is never a victim's fault when they are the subject of a sexual attack or sexual abuse of this kind. A woman who has had her private sexual images distributed without her consent has done nothing wrong. The perpetrator here—the person responsible, the wrongdoer—is the person who is acting without consent.

Criminalising these acts would send a clear message that this behaviour will not be tolerated by this parliament or in this country. If we change the law, this can be a first step in changing community perceptions of this conduct. The law can shape social norms and affect community attitudes, but it is up to parliamentarians like us to send the message that this behaviour is not accepted in the community. Commonwealth legislation on this matter will send a clear signal to young men and women in Australia that this behaviour is not on.

So, I do call on the Turnbull government to act now to send this clear message that non-consensual sharing of private sexual material will not be tolerated. The experts agree that we need to criminalise this behaviour now, and I call on the parliament to act. In the interim, in the meantime, I support the passage of this bill and commend the work of the former Children's eSafety Commissioner, soon to be the eSafety Commissioner, in driving cultural change and the general powers of that body in the community. I do, however, note that the financial impact of this significant broadening of the responsibility of the eSafety Commissioner is listed by the government as zero, so I do wonder whether we are providing adequate ammunition to the eSafety Commissioner to perform these much broader functions. But I am sure that time will tell as we see the operation of the commissioner. I commend the bill to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017. As stated by the member for Gellibrand, Labor supports this bill, and I would like to particularly thank the member for Gellibrand, in working with the member for Griffith, I think, for the great work that they are doing in making people aware of the challenges in this area. This bill before the chamber amends the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015 and amends the title of the statutory Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to reflect the broadening of that role to an e-safety commissioner for all Australians, not just Australian children.

This bill adds to the legislative regime supported by Labor in 2015 to address the serious problem of online safety affecting a very large proportion of our population. Sadly, it is a proportion which is growing. It is easy to forget that the World Wide Web was only invented in 1989—not even 30 years ago. Obviously, over this time, the internet's interconnectedness has exploded. By 2005, there were one billion users of the internet worldwide and, by 2016, there were 3.4 billion and rising. Already, 47 per cent of the worldwide population is interconnected or able to make connections and see material that is distributed. Facebook was first launched in 2005 for American university students to connect with each other. The next year, it was expanded to all people who had an email address. Since then, people across the world have taken to Facebook in droves. By 2012, Facebook was being used by one billion people a month. In 2017, there are more than 16 million Australians using Facebook.

Social media has become an important platform for communication. It has incredible benefits. It allows friends and families spread across the world to continue to share their lives in an immediate way. Who has not been connected to an old school friend or a family member who you do not see but still have an idea of what is going on in their life? It allows a connectedness that we would otherwise never be able to have. Sadly, these days, writing letters is a skill that is being lost. Now we have more people than ever to have face-to-face conversations with, especially online.

However, obviously, with this level of connectedness comes also a vulnerability. It leaves us exposed to the darker side of human nature—the side that most of us never encounter in person-to-person contact. Social media is the haven for cowards wielding keyboards as their weapon of choice. These gutless keyboard warriors do not care about the harm they inflict, often, sadly, I would suggest, because they are sad losers themselves.

As Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Committee, we did an inquiry, as I am sure you well know, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, into freedom of speech. We heard much evidence about online abuse during that inquiry. In particular, I note the professors from the Cyber Racism and Community Resilience research group who gave evidence about the extent of online racism. From a survey they conducted, 35 per cent of the people they surveyed had witnessed racism online. Evidence shows that cyberbullying, including online racism, is becoming much more common on social media. While schoolyard or workplace bullying can be devastating for the target—back when I was at school as it is now—when that bullying occurs online, the reach of the audience is magnified, as is the harm caused to the victim. Obviously, the difference between when I was in primary school and now is that back then at least home was a sanctuary. Now there is no sanctuary. Kids and adults drag the horror home into their own bedrooms, sadly.

Online bullying is serious. It can cause the victim to suffer from mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, and, in some cases, tragically, it can result in suicide. Obviously, as you as a member of parliament would know, Deputy Speaker, the victims of online bullying are not all children. Adults also are often the targets. That is why it is important that the role of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner be broadened to include adults as well as children. Now the commission will be responsible for the online safety of all Australians.

I have young children who are eight and 12. I know how difficult it is for me to keep up with the changes to social media—the different platforms, the different terms, the different dangers, the different things that they are told and the games that they wish to play. So the role of the e-safety commission is crucial in assisting all Australians but particularly parents so they understand the possible dangers of using social media and how to avoid them. Maybe we should add grandparents to that because often they are caring for their grandchildren and are not aware of the technology challenges.

Of course, there was no such thing as Facebook when I was growing up. The dangers we faced as children were many, but they did not include online bullying. As a parent, it is difficult to keep abreast of changes in the technology that my children and their friends are using. Just keeping up with the terms used for the various platforms can be a challenge. For instance, I have only recently learned that the sinister-sounding term 'dark social' refers to the private features of a social networking service. Facebook Messenger, Twitter Direct Messages and apps such as WhatsApp and Snapchat are all dark social. These messaging services can be a valuable tool—I acknowledge that. They allow communication between two people or within a private group without sharing on a public platform. But the very nature of dark social does pose potential dangers. Because the platforms are hidden, it is not as easy for service providers to monitor or regulate the content that is being shared. It is also much harder for parents to monitor this type of content sharing. Inappropriate content can be sent direct to a child's phone through an app without much, if any, monitoring. There is also a danger that children or young adults may be more easily lured into communicating with someone they do not know very well, or with someone who they are misinformed about, when these types of direct messaging platforms are used. A text message or a phone call from a number they do not recognise might seem suspicious to a child and they may ignore it or tell a parent, but a direct message through an app can seem deceivingly benign.

Unfortunately, this is not mere scaremongering; this is a real and present danger that is a threat to Australian children, and children around the world, right now. As a case in point, it was reported recently that a 16-year-old Australian girl was lured to America by a career criminal. He had befriended the girl on Snapchat. It is important that parents are aware, are vigilant and make sure they know their children's activities on social media platforms are age-appropriate and appropriate to their sensibilities. We need to balance freedom, independence and respect with the vigilance that is required. A good place for parents to start educating themselves about online activity is the website of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner.

Of course, children are not the only ones who are vulnerable to the dangers of social media. Labor support this bill that will ensure the title of the commission reflects the need for all Australians to be aware of online safety. Revenge porn, sexting, cyberbullying and other issues that compromise the safe use of the internet are, sadly, on the rise. For young adults who are the victims of revenge porn, life is seriously impacted by this form of abuse. While Labor support this bill, we are disappointed that the government has not supported the criminalising of revenge porn. Labor introduced a bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images in 2015. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquired into this issue. Evidence from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions at that inquiry revealed that he had concerns about the 'limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with "revenge porn" conduct'. Before the Senate inquiry report was released, the Minister for Women wrote to the opposition indicating that the government would not support the bill. When the Senate inquiry report was released, it recommended that the provisions of Labor's bill be enacted, but the government has still failed to support Labor's bill to make the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or videos a criminal offence.

The COAG advisory panel released a report in April 2016 which recommended that the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions criminalise revenge porn. The panel acknowledged that existing laws do not adequately capture the scope or nature of the offence. Still the Turnbull government failed to act. There was a brief glimmer of hope in October last year with the announcement of the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. On that occasion, the coalition government promised $10 million to respond to revenge porn and online abuse. Of that, $4.8 million is to go to developing a national online reporting tool to help counter the effects of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The remaining $5.2 million is to go to research and to developing educational resources to shift attitudes and behaviours about pornography.

Unfortunately, this seems to suggest that, rather than calling out the wrongdoing of the person sharing the images, the government is almost blaming the behaviour of the victim. It also reveals a lack of understanding of the nature of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The images that are shared are not pornography. They are usually created with the consent of the subject—we might question the wisdom of it; nevertheless it is with the consent of the subject—but the sharing of those images without consent, or threatening to share those images without consent, is an abuse of trust or worse. The victims should not bear any blame for the abuse of that trust. It is past time for the Turnbull government to protect women, and men I guess, from online abuse in the form of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. We need strong criminal laws to make it clear that sending nude pictures or videos of sex acts without the consent of the people involved is not acceptable and threatening to share such images is also not acceptable. The making of laws would send a message to the community about what is acceptable behaviour. I want my children to grow up in a community where everyone is aware that it is not acceptable to share such images without consent and that doing so will invoke the wrath of the law and the consequences that flow.

I repeat: Labor supports this legislation before the chamber. It is a good thing that the public will more easily be able to identify where they can seek assistance and advice in relation to online safety measures. However, the fact that the Turnbull government has introduced this bill to make amendments to the eSafety Commission just two years after its inception might indicate that the original bill was not thought out by the government at the time. I want to make it clear that this bill does not create any new offences or civil penalties; this bill does not provide any new regulatory powers; this bill does not impose any taxes; this bill does not set any amounts to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is an example of the Turnbull government having to correct a piece of legislation because of their 'regulate first, think later' approach to government. And, as far as the Turnbull government's record on tackling violence against women is concerned, this bill is simply window-dressing. The Turnbull government talks about the importance of tackling violence against women, but they have failed to take any fair dinkum or meaningful action. If they were serious about protecting women, they would support Labor's private member's bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or they would introduce their own bill to make that abusive behaviour a criminal offence, because, after all, caring is doing. Because the Liberal-National Party government do not do that, they really do not care.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to briefly speak and show my support for this legislation. The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill makes a simple but very significant change to support Australians who are victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. I wish to express my deep thanks to my Nick Xenophon Team colleague Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore whose questions during Senate estimates last year were the genesis for this bill. Sadly, the frequency of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, more commonly known as revenge porn, is increasing in Australia. According to a study recently published by RMIT University's Dr Nicola Henry, Dr Anastasia Power and Dr Asher Flynn, a whopping one in five Australians have experienced image based abuse. For Australians with disabilities, one in two report being a victim of image based abuse. One in two Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people have reported image based abuse victimisation. Although young people aged 16 to 29 years of age are more likely to be victims, it is not just young people who are victims but people of all ages. Although women and men are equally likely to report being a victim, women are more likely than men to fear for their safety due to image based abuse. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images causes real harm, not only to women but predominantly to women. It stigmatises victims, it destroys social relationships, it causes great anxiety and distress, and it leads to serious mental health issues and, despairingly and tragically, in some cases these acts have led to self-harm and suicide.

Although revenge pornography has been the focus of most of the attention, there are other more malicious ways in which non-consensual sharing of intimate images is used by perpetrators. Here I quote the RMIT study at length. For example:

... perpetrators use threats to share nude or sexual images in order to force the victim to engage in an unwanted sexual act, or prevent them from leaving the relationship or obtaining an intervention order, or to blackmail them for monetary payment, sexual favours or other related acts.

…   …   …

Threats to distribute nude or sexual images might also be made possible through the actions of thieves or computer hackers who gain access to a victim’s computer or personal device, and who are then able to download their files and use intimate images as a form of blackmail and extortion. A further example relates to the non-consensual creation of nude or sexual images, which include covert ‘upskirting’ or ‘downblousing’ in public spaces; secret recordings of the victim in private spaces engaged in a sexual act, bathing, toileting, dressing or undressing ...

The government's eSafety Women website has resources and support for women to manage the risks around technology and abuse. However, these resources are currently hosted within the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner's website and, quite understandably, adults seeking help around illegal or offensive online content and sharing of intimate images without consent would not ordinarily think to seek out the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner for assistance. That was the point made by my colleague Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore, who stated in Senate estimates in October last year that:

… it is not just children who are victims of revenge porn. Increasingly it will be young women in their 20s, 30s and 40s that may see the name Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner and say, 'I can't find help there,' because of the name.

That was a simple but very astute observation.

Sometimes I hear people say that if you do not want your intimate images shared then you should never take videos or photographs in the first place. I would certainly urge all Australians to be prudent. However, I also recognise that when you trust someone, usually a partner, you do not expect them to break that trust in the future. Also, as I have outlined, there are examples where there are images shared not only without the victim's consent but also without their knowledge. The perpetration of the abuse goes well beyond the cliched example of the jilted ex-lover. No-one should confuse the victims with the perpetrators, not even for a moment.

There is another statistic from the RMIT University study on image based abuse that I would like to draw to the government's attention. Four in five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. It should be no surprise that the level of support for criminalisation is so high. I understand that the Labor Party has an amendment and calls on the government to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of images. I want to voice the Nick Xenophon Team's support for this amendment and strongly urge the government to consider criminalising these acts. The non-consensual sharing of images causes serious harm and is not socially acceptable by any mainstream social standard. There needs to be a strong deterrent against committing such atrocious acts. These acts are not trivial. They have changed lives and, sadly for some, they have ended lives.

I also want to highlight that this bill complements another bill in the House—the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017 or 'Carly's law'—that the Nick Xenophon Team and Sonya Ryan of the Carly Ryan Foundation have worked so hard to advance. This is about doing everything we can to keep us all safe online.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017. I acknowledge my colleague from the Nick Xenophon Team who spoke earlier and will refer also to the other bill that she spoke of.

I want to start by saying that it was only two years ago in 2015 that this government created the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner. Under this bill it is now seeking to expand the remit of the commissioner to include all Australians just two years after it was first established. Of course, this is a very welcome move. Labor has always supported better measures for online safety for everyone. But it also highlights the fact that, like much of what we have seen from the other side, particularly when it comes to online safety and cybersecurity, the legislation was ill conceived, not thought out and lacked understanding of the issues and the practical implementation of the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act.

We hear a lot about governments needing to be agile and not just responsive but also proactive when it comes to online safety. So it is rather disappointing that two years after establishing the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner we are now looking at that again and realising that e-safety is for everyone, not just children.

The Turnbull government created the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, thereby transferring responsibility for online safety away from the ACMA and now leading to this necessary change as the government has finally realised that online safety, as I said earlier, is for all Australians, not just children—although protecting our children is of course always at the front of our minds. This also highlights the government's unwillingness to do anything about criminalising revenge porn—because the amendments proposed only go so far as to amend the title of the act and the title of the statutory office. There is no expansion of the role or existing functions of the commissioner in relation to persons at risk of family violence; victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, otherwise known as revenge porn; or the safe use of the internet by older Australians. We know that many older Australians are getting duped by online romance scams, for example. We need to have something in place for them as well. But there is nothing in that regard either.

The amendments, though welcomed, do not go far enough in terms of creating any new offences or civil offences or providing any new regulatory powers. In government, Labor was committed to cybersafety. We delivered $125.8 million towards a Cyber Safety Plan to combat online risks to children and help parents and educators protect children. I have spoken previously in the Federation Chamber on the fact that, in 2010, I presented a paper at the International Cyber Resilience Conference following the release of the Labor government's 2009 Cyber Security Strategy. The paper that I presented at that conference was entitled 'Building resilient cyber communities'. In that paper, I spoke about the need to raise awareness and educate people about the importance of maintaining strong and robust cybersafety habits ranging from ensuring our passwords are safe to logging off when leaving the office and being aware of suspicious messages. That may seem small, but the impact of not having a resilient cyberculture can actually be quite devastating.

Again, Labor has taken the lead on this issue. We first introduced a bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images in 2015. This then led to a Senate inquiry and the expression of concerns that there were limitations within existing legislation to adequately deal with revenge porn or image-based abuse. And yet this government refuses to support Labor's bill. As with everything else they have offered to the Australian people, this government likes to tinker at the fringes, put a bit of lipstick on it, wrap it up in a whole lot of nothing, in bright baubles and ribbon, and roll it out. But they have of course leave out the very heart of what is needed here. They do not give thought to the effectiveness or impact of any of their measures—whether it is cybersafety, housing affordability, needs-based education or banking reform. This is a government that has, time and time and time again, proven its incapacity to think things through. Often I have thought to myself that this is a government that is way out of its depth.

It can sometimes be difficult for those of my generation—I stand here proudly as a member of the generation officially known as 'old codgers'—to understand just how hardwired the lives of young Australians are. I remember when my son was 15 he came running down the steps of our house yelling, 'I've got 100 friends!' I looked around and said, 'Where are these friends? I do not see any friends here.' He was of course talking about Facebook friends. Our generation tends to separate the offline and online worlds. Our social reality is offline—the people we go out for dinner with, the people we have over to our house, the people we have barbies with and those kinds of things. We tend to separate that from the online world, the things we use the internet for—our uses and gratifications, to use a technical academic term. But my sons' generation do not make that separation. For them the online world is a social reality, whereas we define our social reality as tangible things, things around us, things we can touch, so it can be quite difficult for us to understand just how hardwired they are, but understand it we must.

It is not enough to tell young people about the dangers of posting personal information or explicit photos online. It is not enough to tell them of the dangers of putting up things that are far from photos of what they had for breakfast, their smashed avocado on toast: personal details about where they live, where they are staying or why they are home alone—or even explicit photos, as I mentioned. The leaking of explicit photos involving Perth schoolgirls underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with the risks involved in posting private and intimate information online, particularly in an age where the so-called 'selfie culture' has infiltrated traditional boundaries of privacy and confidentiality. Perhaps it is time we have a discussion about what privacy and confidentiality mean. I know that in academic circles, at least, those discussions are happening, looking at the separation between privacy and confidentiality and what that means in a digital age, where those boundaries seem to be a lot less rigid and much more fluid.

That is what Labor did by introducing a bill to criminalise revenge porn. We hoped that those opposite would support it, but of course they refused to. Instead, those opposite decided to fund research and develop resources to shift attitudes and behaviours around pornography. This shows a complete lack of understanding of image based abuse, because image based abuse is about sharing of images without consent. 'Without consent' is the key there. It is not about young people willingly partaking in the sharing of intimate images but about the sharing of them without consent, with malicious intent. That malicious intent is a form of abuse and a form of violence.

It is difficult to have control over the internet space—I would even venture to say it is impossible to regulate the internet—but it is possible to raise awareness, to equip people with the tools to protect themselves and their children, and to legislate against harmful behaviour that involves the use of the internet. As a society we are still to come to grips with this. Technology has advanced so fast, particularly information and communications technologies, and it seems like we are unable to keep pace, because very little consideration is given to the interface between human behaviour and the internet. Since it is very difficult for us to fully regulate internet content, particularly as nation-state boundaries do not exist on the internet and different countries have different rules around what they allow—different rules around freedom of speech, for example—we need to shift our attention to understanding what those online behaviours are and how we can regulate them.

Part of that is through legislation, but we cannot discount the value of education. Children and young people these days are exposed to an online world with unregulated hate, abuse, racism, harassment and bullying. What are we doing to prepare them for this? It is a serious question that the old codger generation might need to ask ourselves. How are we equipping young people of the ages of 11 of 12, who are about to get onto Facebook or Instagram for the first time, for that internet world that is so unregulated, where people can sit behind a keyboard, say whatever and pretend to be whoever they want, and quite a sizeable proportion of them mean to harm our young people?

What can we do to equip our young people for that onslaught? The Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner has had 370 reports of image based abuse alone. These include images that are shared without consent and images that are shared through phone hacking. They have had a 60 per cent increase in reports of cyberbullying—60 per cent is pretty huge. They are dealing with 8,200 child exploitation cases and 37,000 images and videos. They are quite startling statistics. This is an absolute tsunami of reports and it is likely to increase with the expansion of the commissioner's remit implicit in this bill. In that regard we also need to give thought to how we can better resource this office in order to enable it to carry out the extent of work it has been charged with and in order to equip it to be both proactive as well as reactive, when necessary.

I now come back to where I started: the necessity of ensuring that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is not just about children, though children are always at the forefront of our minds because they are so vulnerable to all kinds of exploitation, whether that is sexual exploitation or exploitation for other purposes, including radicalisation. There is a need to ensure that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is well equipped to undertake the expanded role that is included in this bill. It is not enough just change the name of the bill or to change the name of the e-safety commissioner, expanding its remit from children's e-safety commissioner to e-safety commissioner all round. We also need to recognise that e-safety is the responsibility of every single person, because it affects every single person, regardless of whether you are a child or an elderly person who may be vulnerable to romance scams online.

In closing, I reiterate my support and Labor's support for this change but also ask those opposite to consider what else we are doing. How much further do we need to go in order to be those things that we talk about: in order to be agile; in order to be proactive; and in order to ensure that our children grow up safe from predators online, safe from the sharing of images without consent, and understand that the online world is a world where privacy and confidentiality are just as important as they are offline.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017. I am pleased to see that this bill has received support from members on both sides of the chamber.

The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill contains important amendments to implement the government's announcement of 23 November 2016 to broaden the children's e-safety commissioner's general functions to cover online safety for all Australians, not just for Australian children. The bill will also change the name of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to reflect the expanded general functions. Expanding the commissioner's role and changing the name of the children's e-safety commissioner to e-safety commissioner will make it easier for the public to identify where they can seek assistance and advice in relation to a range of online safety issues, irrespective of their age.

I want to make it clear that the statutory scheme for complaints about cyberbullying material on social media sites will continue to relate only to material that is harmful to an Australian child and the commission's responsibilities for administering the online content scheme under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 will remain unchanged by the bill.

The amendments do not create any offences or civil penalties, provide any new regulatory powers, impose any taxes, or set any amounts to be appropriated from consolidated revenue, because appropriate arrangements for these matters are already in place, or, in the case of civil penalties for the sharing of intimate images without consent, will be sought under future legislation.

The statutory Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner is established by the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015 and has been in place since 1 July 2015. To date, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has been a considerable success. The government is now looking to build upon this success with a view to improving the online experiences of all Australians. The office's role has already expanded since its establishment, with the government recognising that there are other groups within the community that can benefit from the expertise of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner.

The commissioner's staff have a wealth of expertise in all areas of online safety. For example, in December 2015 the functions of the commissioner were expanded to include online safety for women at risk of domestic violence. The commissioner also manages the existing eSafety Women website, established with a $2.1 million funding commitment from the government's Women's Safety package announced in September 2015; eSafety Women offers a range of resources to help women manage technology risks and abuse by giving them the tools and information they need to encourage confidence and safety online.

The bill before the House today provides for an important evolution of the eSafety Commissioner's role. It is unfortunate that the contribution of the member for Greenway revealed a lack of understanding of how the criminal law operates today. In particular, section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code makes it an offence to use 'a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence'. There have been a number of prosecutions under these existing Commonwealth criminal laws. For example, a successful prosecution in 2015 resulted in a seven-year prison sentence for a man who encouraged teenage girls on social media to send intimate photos of themselves and then threatened to disclose the photos to the victims' family and school.

These laws were also used in the successful prosecution of a member of the Defence linked so-called Jedi Council, which resulted in a 15-month prison sentence. More recently, in February 2017, a Brisbane man was sentenced to 4½ years in jail for a range of offences, including superimposing a picture of his ex-girlfriend's head on images of naked women and posting information online, including her phone number and address, and inviting men to rape and torture her. Additionally, when a representative of the Australian Federal Police appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into the phenomenon colloquially known as revenge porn, he noted that section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code says it is 'a broadly drafted offence which encompasses a range of misconduct sufficient to plead the transmission of explicit material without being prescriptive as to the detail of the content'.

The point therefore is that there are already criminal laws in place, and law enforcement agencies are using these laws to prosecute cases of image based abuse. The further point is that, notwithstanding these existing criminal provisions at the Commonwealth level, in most cases victims go to state based police for help. That is why, in parallel, the Turnbull government has worked with states and territories through COAG to develop a national statement of principles for the criminalisation of a non-consensual sharing of intimate images. On 19 May 2017 the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council agreed a national statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. These principles will provide a framework for states and territories to consider when reviewing or developing laws, with a view to achieving a consistent approach to the criminalisation of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, whether in specific offences or offences of general application.

The government is also conducting a public consultation process on a proposed civil penalty regime targeted at both perpetrators and sites that host intimate images and videos shared without consent. A discussion paper was released on 20 May this year, with feedback being sought from the eSafety Commissioner, federal and state police, women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, the Online Safety Consultative Working Group and others. I look forward to seeing the work progressed.

The amendment moved by the member for Greenway asks the House to note 'that Australian laws have failed to keep up with the new ways technology is being used to cause harm, particularly to women and in the context of family violence.' This is a statement that is wholly at odds with the extensive legislative and policy track record of the Turnbull government in dealing with these critical issues. The establishment of the Children's eSafety Commissioner has been an overwhelmingly positive development, and, of course, the government will continue to make enhancements to assist the eSafety Commissioner in its work.

I would like to remind the House of some of the things that have been done by the eSafety Commissioner since the office was established. Since that occurred, the commissioner has: received 370 complaints, since October 2016, regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images; finalised over 379 complaints about serious cyberbullying that targeted Australian children; worked with 11 major social media service providers to counter cyberbullying; certified 23 online safety program providers with over 115 presenters delivering programs in Australian schools; conducted over 19,000 investigations into illegal or offensive online content; educated over 194,000 people via virtual classrooms and face-to-face presentations; had over 3.3 million website page views; made the iParent portal available to parents, providing advice on a range of online safety and digital content issues; launched the eSafety Women site, with resources and advice for women; and provided training for more than 1,900 frontline professionals across every state and territory to help women experiencing technology-facilitated abuse.

In the 2013 federal election, the coalition promised to establish the Children's eSafety Commissioner, and we delivered. At the 2016 election we promised $4.8 million over three years for the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to develop a national online complaints portal to help counter the effects of the non-consensual sharing of internet images. We also promised $16.9 million over four years for the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to develop an online seniors portal and outreach programs to support, coach and teach older Australians to improve their skills and confidence in using digital technology.

With the progression of this bill and the changes to the functions performed by the commissioner, we will again deliver for Australians on online safety. The claim that the government is failing to keep up is simply not right. In fact, the government is continually monitoring the changes in the communications and online landscape and, as the amendments before the House this afternoon demonstrate, continuing to update legislation and broaden the powers of the eSafety Commissioner as necessary.

The Children's eSafety Commissioner has been a considerable success in enhancing online safety for Australian children and for other Australians. I believe that this bill and the amendments contained within it, if passed into law, will allow the commissioner to have a broader and even more positive impact, extending across a wider range of vulnerable Australians, including older Australians, victims of domestic and family violence and people who have had their intimate images shared without their consent. I call on all members to support this bill.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Greenway has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.