Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens would like to welcome the positive move that this bill makes in protecting Australians from those who would seek to use online platforms to abuse, threaten, extort or otherwise cause harm by the non-consensual sharing of or threatening to share intimate images. We are pleased that the government, in this instance, has finally listened to progressive voices around this chamber and the country. We have been calling for such legislation for many years now. It is refreshing to see this government seeking to expand protections for individuals, rather than seeking to harvest, store and share their most personal information themselves in the name of so-called national security. We are even more pleased that the government has taken inspiration from the legislation put forward by my colleagues in the ACT Greens, which include a broad definition of 'intimate' that acknowledges cultural context, including the depiction of a person without attire of religious or cultural significance. We are also supportive of the definition of 'consent' as something that must be expressed, voluntary and informed.

We are, however, disappointed—and, I must say, personally, deeply disappointed—that the legislation was brought on for debate in such haste that it did not allow for proper scrutiny, despite our best efforts to refer this bill to inquiry. The government has tried to dismiss our requests by citing previous consultation. However, consultation does not negate the need for scrutiny, particularly when many of those consulted are under the impression that they will subsequently be given the opportunity to give their thoughts, opinions and expertise in regard to the outcome. We are also disappointed that, in the government's haste to introduce this legislation, they seem to have forgotten one small yet crucial detail—to allocate any funding to the cost of running this scheme. They have instead pushed off to the 2019 budget the burden—and let's call it for what it is—of the necessity of matching the very critical sentiments and beliefs embodied in this legislation with actual funding dollars.

We have deep concerns around the adequacy of funding to be provided particularly to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to expand their powers. Much has been said of the merit of the scheme currently operated by the commissioner, but I am sad to inform the chamber, and I'm not sure whether many of us in here know this, that the aspect of the commission's work that will actually be implemented to carry out this scheme currently has working within it four persons—four individuals. I am hopeful that, presumably, somewhere down the track more money will be given to the commission to carry out this additional expanded critical work, but none of that certainty has been given. None of those assurances have been made, though these are all issues. This is really just one of the many issues that could and should have been considered during a committee process. We also have serious concerns about the implications for people under the age of 18 who will potentially face steep civil penalties under the proposed regime, and I will address this in more detail within my amendment.

Last year, Senator O'Neill rightly noted, RMIT University gave us insight into the nature of image based abuse and also the people who are most likely to be targeted. Unsurprisingly, the people who are targeted primarily are already marginalised and discriminated against. Fifty-six per cent of disabled Australians have been victims of image based abuse, as have 50 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. LGBTIQ people are victims of this horrendous abuse 36 per cent of the time. One in three people aged 16 to 19 and one in four aged between 20 and 29 have reported at least one form of image victimisation.

This speaks to the lived reality that is known by so many Australians, that technology facilitated abuse is now extremely prevalent in domestic and family situations. It is a horrible background drum to the lives of so many of our fellow Australians, and it is increasingly prevalent in the area of domestic and family violence, including tracking, harassment, surveillance and hacking, with image based abuse occurring or likely to occur once the relationship ends. A reality that we must confront and recognise is that the majority of perpetrators are male and that women are more likely than men to be victimised by an intimate partner or ex-partner.

The impacts of image based abuse are significant, with victims suffering high levels of psychological distress, consistent with a diagnosis of moderate to severe depression and/or anxiety. The negative implications of abuse can affect every aspect of a person's life, including family, employment, relationships and personal safety itself.

We believe that the legislation does complement state legislation that has been introduced around the country. It is also important for a national strategy in implementing the civil penalties regime to complement state legislation that criminalises the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

We also need—and I think this is a point that we cannot go past in this debate—fundamentally to recognise and acknowledge the role that social media and internet content providers must play in introducing proactive, not just reactive, measures to create safe spaces online. Quite frankly, I have grown tired, during the course of consideration of this legislation, of hearing the many, varied and well-constructed words of particular CEOs of various social media companies speaking at length about the wonderful things that they are doing in this space. You will forgive me if I express a little cynicism here, particularly when we are talking of carriers and organisations with billions of users that are seeking public praise for the employment of a couple of thousand people in these areas, allowing, on average, 30 seconds to be given to the review of each report. I rather believe that in this area it is important to look not to the rhetoric but to the material reality of the funds invested in dealing with this problem. It often is difficult to identify just how much is being spent in this space, but I don't think I will be going too far out on a limb if I suggest that many of these companies do not spend as much money annually protecting their users, for whom they have a responsibility of care, from these kinds of horrendous experiences as they do attempting to sell them various plastic products.

In conclusion, we welcome this piece of legislation to the parliament. It is far past time that we acted in this area, and I join with Senator O'Neill in expressing disappointment that it has in fact taken us five years to end up in this space and to act in relation to an issue which in that period of time has been wreaking profound havoc on the lives of so many Australians. I, in the course of consideration of this legislation, have been given the opportunity to reflect critically upon our role here as a house of review and what that means in a tangible sense. If you take the time to listen to the experiences of those who have been victims in this space, you cannot help but be gripped by a sense of profound urgency. However, I also cannot escape the thought that the seriousness of these situations requires us here to ensure that proper scrutiny is given to the framework which we then take forward to address these issues. People who experience this kind of intrusion into the most private elements of their lives deserve from us nothing less than the finest piece of legislation that we can put forward. However, things being as they are, we welcome this step forward.

I would like to close by expressing a wish that the government and the opposition, in so many unfortunate situations, weren't so often firmly aligned against the needs, rights and protections of individual Australians when it comes to personal data and communications online. It seems that the clarity which is gifted to us in relation to this issue is lost when we consider these issues. There is a failure to see the fundamental overlap between online safety and privacy concerns—safety simply does not exist without privacy and security online.

In conclusion, I ask us to go forward from this debate and consider in depth and detail the broader issue of the protection of all Australians' digital self as we move forward into an ever more technologically advanced Australian community. I thank the chamber for its time.