Senate debates

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

Bills

Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017; In Committee

9:36 am

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

Senator Leyonhjelm has asked me to look closely at his amendments, which I have done. I can seek to provide some context to this particular part of the legislation. Let me start with the exclusion of a drawing, painting or sketch from a definition of an 'intimate image' that Senator Leyonhjelm is seeking.

Under the bill, an intimate image can be a still visual image, such as a photograph, or moving visual images, such as video recordings. Images could be photographs, modified photographs, animations, drawings or other depictions of the person, such as what is known as morph porn, and fake pornographic videos also known as deep fakes. There are exemptions in the bill whereby, if an ordinary reasonable person considered the posting or the sharing of the image acceptable in certain circumstances, it would not be captured by the prohibition. Obviously, we have in mind there things such as satirical drawings or parodies.

Moving to Senator Leyonhjelm seeking to exclude 'outdoor public place' in the definition of an intimate image, the definition of 'intimate image' includes depiction of a private activity where material will be an intimate image of a person if it depicts or appears to depict the person in a state of undress, using the toilet, showering, having a bath, engaged in a sexual act of a kind not ordinarily done in public or engaged in other like activity in circumstances in which an ordinary reasonable person would reasonably be expected to be afforded privacy. It wouldn't include a situation where a person is in their swimmers at the beach or showering at the beach.

The government remains of the view that the current definition does afford protection in circumstances where they would expect privacy. I certainly appreciate the sentiment and the motivation of Senator Leyonhjelm and, as he requested, we did look closely at his amendments, but the government aren't, at this point, minded to support those amendments. Obviously, legislation of this sort is always kept under review in the light of practical experience and its real-world operation. The Senate has already determined that there will be a statutory review in three years time, but, in the outworking of legislation, if there appear to be issues before that time, that is naturally something that I'm sure all colleagues would want to examine.

Comments

No comments