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

I'll just speak briefly to the amendment moved by Senator Griff and outline why the government won't be supporting it. Firstly, the amendment moved is a departure from the bill's intent, which is to introduce a civil penalties regime as opposed to amending the Criminal Code. Existing criminal laws—Commonwealth criminal laws, I should point out—do comprehensively criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. It is an offence to use the internet, social media or a mobile phone to menace, harass or cause offence. There have been a number of successful prosecutions for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images under this offence. There are also extensive child abuse material offences which apply to the sharing of intimate images of children.

Broadly framed provisions of general application are generally preferred for Commonwealth offences. Broad provisions can be used to prosecute a range of criminal behaviours and avoid issues such as technical distinctions, loopholes and difficulties with prosecution that are associated with having similar provisions of slightly different operation against Commonwealth law.

The focus of this bill is the creation of a civil penalty process to provide victims with an alternative avenue for redress without requiring victims to go through the criminal justice system, if that is what they choose. Extensive public consultation during the development of the civil penalty regime confirmed that assistance taking down images is a key priority for victims. I should also point out that, to ensure a nationally consistent criminal framework to protect victims, the Australian government led the development of a national statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The principles are working to ensure a consistent approach by states and territories to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. They also ensure a consistent response and outcome for victims and perpetrators, no matter where they are located.

I want to highlight that, in not supporting Senator Griff's amendments, the government is in no way indicating a lack of support for, and/or a lack of importance of, having criminal provisions. As I say, we do have some existing criminal provisions at Commonwealth level, and at state and territory level there are also criminal provisions, and there are efforts underway to harmonise those. In this area, there is no single response that can satisfy the need. There needs to be a wide-ranging approach with a number of elements. Criminal provisions are important. Seeking to educate people is important. Non-formal resolution is important. What we're seeking to do through this legislation is to provide an avenue for resolution and an avenue for redress through a graduated civil penalties regime that is not currently in place. I just thought that context might be helpful for colleagues.