Smith Murray: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20330] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be supporting the first reading of the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. When we approach legislation like this a question we do not ask ourselves often enough is whether it is necessary. Generally I think we are an overlegislated society. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I thought you were supporting this. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: We will be supporting this bill. We are an overlegislated society and we tend to think that the solution to all problems is to pass yet another law. Instead we should be focusing very much on public self-regulation. We can do that through education of such a nature as values education which United Future has been pushing hard and civics education. Law tends to be something of a blunt instrument when it comes to finding solutions to problems and we should be looking at it more as a last rather than a first resort. 
The question we need to ask ourselves about any legislation that we look at passing is if we did not need it 10 or 20 years ago why do we need it now. This legislation answers that issue very clearly and that is why we are keen to support it. The technological advances that have taken place over the last 10 years are such that things that were not envisaged at that time as interfering with privacy are now commonplace. In particular as we know the use of very small cameras and particularly cameras in mobile phones means that people can take photos extremely surreptitiously and in situations where it is really an invasion of other people’s privacy. In that respect the use of such equipment is unnecessarily intrusive on the public. Not only that; it is intrusive in a way that is very demeaning. Therefore a new law such as this is justified to cater for that situation. 
Another question that I think we always need to ask ourselves about legislation is whether it is the minimum necessary to remedy the key problem. Very often we find ourselves passing law that penalises 99 percent of the law-abiding population in order to catch the 1 percent who are offenders. Again United Future thinks this bill takes a balanced approach and is framed in a way that will catch people who are offending without unnecessarily intruding on the 99 percent of people who are law-abiding. In particular some degree of purpose as far as the use of the film is concerned is an essential component of the law. There are situations where family members quite innocently end up taking family photos that show a toddler in a paddling pool without any clothes on or something of that nature. The last thing we want to do is to start curbing family photos and to make everyone in that sort of innocent situation a criminal. But it is important that we capture what is the increasing prevalence of pornographic imagery that is being used on the Internet and that is being sold and displayed without a person’s consent and in a way that is offensive and objectionable. 
The rationale that we should also look at when passing laws is that protecting one person’s rights will always restrict another person’s rights and extending one person’s rights will always restrict another person’s rights. From time to time when passing legislation we do not give enough credence to that maxim and we are happy to extend some people’s rights and therefore restrict others. One example of this that I have had very recently in the past few days came from a constituent who called me with a concern that Income Support had assessed him for the married rate of the benefit simply because he had become engaged. Society’s condoning of sexual relationships outside marriage and de facto relationships means that Income Support now seems to assume that if one is engaged one is in a de facto relationship or at least sleeping together. I think that is a very unfortunate consequence we have got to—that people who as in this case have got engaged and are intending not to sleep together until they get married are suddenly treated as if they are living together. That is one of the things that has happened as a consequence of the changes that have been made in our society. 
We also always need to ask whether we need legislation and whether it is unduly restrictive. In this case as I said it is not and therefore United Future members are keen to see this bill go ahead. No doubt at the select committee the bill will need some close examination and possibly some fine-tuning. I noted that for example the explanatory note refers to the police having an exemption if they unwittingly capture intimate images. It appears to me as I look at the bill that that word “unwittingly” is not included. The provision is broader in that it exempts the police from prosecution for capturing any images in the course of their duties. There is a question of how far we go in that instance. 
It is a little unfortunate that this bill has come before the House at a time when the police or at least some sectors of the police have been caught with a lot of pornographic images on their computers. I do not want to overstate the case because the vast majority of police are quite above reproach in that regard but a minority once again spoils it for the majority and the police have got themselves into a situation in which people are questioning their integrity. It is most unfortunate that we have that situation and then a bill suddenly arrives in Parliament that will deliberately license police to take covert filming. That is something we can cure only by restoring the reputation of the police and by the police becoming an agency that is beyond question in terms of its values of the way that officers uphold the laws of the land and the way that officers uphold the moral as well as legal expectations of society. 
I do not want to take up more time in talking about this bill. We look forward to dealing with it at the select committee and looking at the matter in detail then progressing the bill through the House. I am pleased to see that this issue is something that other countries are also covering. Of course it is an international problem and one that can really be addressed only on an international front. Once things go on a website a country has a certain lack of control. I am pleased that our law enforcement agencies are actually becoming more and more sophisticated at tracking down the source of Internet publications. 
By way of an aside I tell members that the police are currently trying to track down somebody who has been misusing my name and approaching people purportedly to try to raise money for United Future. The police are looking to find that person so that they can charge him or her with fraud offences and I hope they succeed. [ 
Interruption 
] There are not too many Smiths who are MPs for United Future I say to Mr Franks. 
We will support this bill and we look forward to its progress.