George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I move government amendment (1) on sheet HV208:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 25), after item 4, insert:

4A Before subsection 18C(3)

Insert:

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (1), if an act done by a person consists of:

(a) making a statement; or

(b) making a comment; or

(c) making a remark;

(whether orally, in a document or in any other way), then the making of the statement, comment or remark may be reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to harass another person, even if the statement, comment or remark is not made in the presence of the other person.

(2D) For the purposes of subsection (1), if an act done by a person consists of:

(a) making a statement; or

(b) making a comment; or

(c) making a remark;

(whether orally, in a document or in any other way), then the making of the statement, comment or remark may be reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to harass a group of people, even if the statement, comment or remark is not made in the presence of one or more members of that group.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the meanings of the words 'intimidate' and 'harass' in section 18C as it would appear, assuming the bill is passed. The bill proposes to expand the meanings in two ways. In the first place, there is within the bill an expanded meaning given to the term 'harass' so that it is clear that a single act may constitute harassment and that it is not necessary for there to be a multiplicity or series of acts for the prohibition against harassment to be violated. That, of course, depends on the circumstances of the particular case.

This amendment adds a further clarifying definition to the words 'intimidate' and 'harass' by making it clear that those prohibitions may be violated even if the statement, comment or remark said to constitute intimidation or harassment is not made in the presence of the other person. There are many circumstances which we can envisage where conduct may be intimidating or constitute harassment even though it is not made face to face. An obvious example is stalking a person through social media and uttering intimidating or harassing remarks through social media. Another example would be delivering documents or letters through the mail or sending an email to a person which contained intimidating or harassing conduct.

To put the matter beyond doubt, this amendment makes it clear that conduct of that kind and indeed any conduct not in the presence of the person who is the victim which would otherwise constitute harassment or intimidation does constitute harassment or intimidation, notwithstanding that it was not made in the presence of the victim.