Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

It doesn't look as though any other colleagues wish to contribute to the second reading debate, so I thank all colleagues for their contributions. As has been canvassed in the contributions of colleagues, Australians are immersing themselves in the online world through social networking sites, online games, smartphones and tablets. We all agree that the internet is a vital tool for education, research, entertainment and social interaction; however, we have witnessed in recent times that the internet can be used for the wrong purposes, which can lead to very tragic consequences.

Creating a safer online world requires broad community involvement from industry, schools, parents, children, support agencies and government. We all play a role in ensuring that Australians can safely and confidently take advantage of the great benefits of the internet and other digital technologies. The government will continue to consult with stakeholders and consider other actions that can be implemented to address online harms. I think all colleagues would concur that, when it comes to the online space and potential misuse, there is no single response; there needs to be a range of responses, which include education, civil and criminal remedies, and government, non-government and community efforts.

The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017 reflects part of the government's contribution to those efforts: our ongoing commitment to keep Australians safe online, in this case from a very specific abuse—that of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This is a significant issue that can have an adverse impact on victims, their families and the community. The psychological impact on victims can be significant and can have very negative implications affecting their reputation, family, employment, social relationships and even personal safety.

The reasons for non-consensual sharing of intimate images are varied. It can often occur as a result of a victim's ex-partner seeking revenge; it can also involve acquaintances or complete strangers distributing the images either maliciously or for other nefarious reasons. Whatever the reasons for sharing intimate images without consent, the practice is intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing of intimate images or through the threat to share. Often such threats are made in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce, bully or punish a victim. Other motives might include personal gratification, some sort of strange notoriety or even financial gain. The sharing of images can occur over various electronic services, including email, text, multimedia messaging, social media services, websites including other material of an explicit nature, message boards, forum websites and websites specifically designed to host images shared without consent.

The bill seeks to create a prohibition against non-consensually posting or threatening to post an intimate image on a social media service, a relevant electronic service such as email and text messaging, or a designated internet service, which includes websites and peer-to-peer file-sharing services. The bill establishes a complaints and objections system to be administered by the eSafety Commissioner, where victims or persons authorised on behalf of victims will be able to lodge a complaint directly to the eSafety Commissioner where there is reason to believe that an intimate image has been posted without consent or where a threat has been made to do so. The bill will facilitate the removal of an image where a person who initially consented to an image being shared has subsequently changed their mind and now wishes to have the image removed. People in this situation will be able to lodge an objection notice with the commissioner. The bill will introduce a civil penalty regime to be enforced by the eSafety Commissioner. Penalties of up to $105,000 for individuals and up to $525,000 for corporations can be incurred for a breach of the prohibition or failure to comply with a removal notice or other remedial direction issued by the eSafety Commissioner.

On 16 October 2017, the government welcomed the pilot launch of a new national portal for reporting instances of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The portal is a world-first for a government-led initiative, developed by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, and provides immediate and tangible support to victims of image based abuse. The portal gives victims a place to seek assistance and report instances of image based abuse. It provides clear and concise information about the practical steps victims can take to reduce the impact of the abuse. Since the launch of the portal, the eSafety office has received over 115 reports of image based abuse which related to nearly 220 separate URLs and locations where the images were made available. In addition, the eSafety office has received almost 60 queries regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and had over 48,000 total visits to the image abuse portal. Noting these statistics, it is essential that the eSafety Commissioner has the legislative backing to enable quick removal of intimate images shared without consent and to administer a civil penalty regime targeting perpetrators and content hosts who knowingly engage in this behaviour.

The sharing of intimate images without consent is a major concern in the community. This bill sends a clear message to all Australians that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society. The bill has been developed in consultation with many stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, victims, the eSafety Commissioner and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group.

I should just take a moment to put this bill in the wider context of the government's efforts in relation to online safety and make mention of the fact that when Mr Fletcher, from the other place, was the Assistant Minister for Communications and Mr Turnbull was the communications minister, they legislated the establishment of what was then called the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to be a one-stop shop for children, parents, schools and other organisations so that if bullying of young people was taking place online there was a place they could go for assistance. Also legislated as part of the establishment of the Children's eSafety Commissioner was the world's first legislated mechanism for take-downs of cyberbullying material as it concerns children. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner has, so far, had a 100 per cent success rate in having that material taken down.

I take the time to mention this because the tools and support that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner have are not as well-known as we would like them to be. Where children are in difficulty, there is a place they can go. Over time, the role of the Children's eSafety Commissioner has expanded to cover, in particular, services and support for women and for victims of domestic abuse. As a result of that expanded mandate, we legislated and changed the name of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to reflect the fact that they do have a broad remit. Julie Inman-Grant, as the eSafety Commissioner, is providing great leadership to the organisation and great support to members of the community. We're all very aware of recent instances of online abuse which have been in the media and some of the tragic circumstances that we have seen as a result of the contribution of those activities to the distress that individuals have.

In the context of this legislation, it's important that the civil penalties regime is seen as another tool, another avenue, another opportunity for people who are subject to image based abuse—the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Civil penalties are an optional remedy that sits alongside criminal provisions which are in place at Commonwealth level and are in place in most state jurisdictions. There is a process underway under the auspices of the ministerial Council of Attorneys-General to achieve consistency in the state and territory legislation when it concerns criminal provisions. Sometimes, when we're talking about civil penalties, they're presented as though these are being put forward instead of criminal sanctions. They're not. They're being put forward as another option that is available to address this scourge.

So, with those comments, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I know colleagues have a range of amendments that they will be seeking to move, and I'm sure we will have a good discussion in that context.