Hughes Gareth: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15164. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. There is something about Green MPs being interrupted tonight and I am pretty glad we did not see the Attorney-General do that at the International Court of Justice but he did do a fantastic job on that occasion. When I was interrupted we were talking about theHarmful Digital Communications Bill a bill the Green Party supports. It is something we see a real need for. We also look at it as a bit of a good example of when we can be drafting laws for the modern internet age—laws that relate directly to the internet age in which we now live. So the Green Party is proud to support it. Obviously we do not stand on the side of bullies. We oppose bullying. We want to see a rational smart and effective use—Maggie Barry: Except if they’re challenging leadership.GARETH HUGHES: If there is one bully in this House we know where she is sitting do we not and when we are talking about bullying we see bullying not only in parliamentary locations like this not only on the street and in the media but also online and what we see is some pretty nasty bullying on venues like Twitter. I am not going to talk about the member Maggie Barry when it comes to bullying because there is some irony. There is some irony when this bill is introduced by the Minister Judith Collins. If I can think of a single Minister or a member of this Parliament who probably bullies more than anybody else on Twitter and online it is that Minister. So there is some irony there but we all like to work with the Minister and work with the Government to make sure we have a robust effective legislative solution and we think it is high time that we actually looked at legislation in this area.Obviously everyone knows bullying has been happening probably as long as humans have been around. I am not going to bore the House with tales of my pretty extensive bullying—being the victim of course—during primary and high school. Bullying has always happened but what we are seeing now is a different kettle of fish. In the internet age what you can see is anonymity. You can see imagery and videos posted without the victim’s knowledge or approval but also there is the pervasiveness. It can stay online despite being perhaps embarrassing video material. As we have seen so graphically with the Roast Busters scandal sometimes once the material is up it is virtually impossible to ever get it down because it has been copied and shared so much. So it is important that we do design our laws to work for 2013 and we know that some of our bullying laws have not been up to scratch. They were written in the pre-internet environment. It is time to modernise our laws.I have got to say that I did have a bit of a chuckle because I think this might be unprecedented in the sense that it is the first bill ever to use the word “viral” in the explanatory statement talking about potential viral videos to reach global audiences. It is interesting to see that word used in legislation.I think it is also important to point out that it is not the internet’s fault that we are seeing internet bullying and bullying on social media sites. It is not the internet’s fault. The internet is simply a platform. I think members might get the wrong sense and I think it is important we go into the select committee deliberations with that front of mind because the internet is simply an enabler. It is a fantastic tool that is shaping our global society and economy and what we should not be doing is curbing that openness that freedom which makes it so powerful on some crusade to stop something that has been happening for ever of course.Of course bullying is nothing new as I have said but what we see when we look at the data in this country from I understand the Law Commission is that one in 10 New Zealanders has experienced harmful communication on the internet. When you look at the regulatory impact statement you read that NetSafe which does fantastic work deals with only around 75 complaints of cyber-bullying every year. So it is not a large amount but I am sure that for those 75 it has had profound consequences and has made a huge difference to their lives.So the Green Party supports this bill. We look forward to the select committee process. We urge people who have experienced bullying in their lives to make asubmission particularly if it is online bullying. We want to see a healthy society where our kids primarily are protected. We want to look after them. We want to empower parents who—I think even in the internet age with legislation such as this—will always play a critical role when it comes to dealing with bullying. We want to give kids the skills and the experience to be able to deal with bullying. But I acknowledge that in the internet age sometimes you need a remedy. Under the status quo the only remedy a person has if say infringing content is posted online pretty much is to go to court which is a costly time-consuming and quite a daunting enterprise for victims of bullying. So setting up this new communications tribunal with a communications commissioner as a remedy to try to persuade internet service providers for example or third party content providers to remove infringing material I think is a good cost-effective hopefully efficacious solution which would make a difference. Obviously the ability to still go on to the court for criminal charges is still a potential remedy but it is good to be able to save time and hopefully get that material down as fast as possible using the communications tribunal.We note from the regulatory impact assessment that the costs are incredibly low. We are looking in the order of around I think $115000 per annum—not an insignificant sum but a sum that is manageable and hopefully will make a real difference to people as they go about their lives. We note the safe harbour provisions for those people hosting content—that they are protected under statute if they remove the infringing material based on a complaint—which we think is good. We will be looking for the detail in the Justice and Electoral Committee on exactly how those provisions will be used.The fish hook I will be looking out for in particular is the crux of the legislation which is what is called a new communication offence which obviously can be taken to the tribunal or ultimately up to the court. The offence is to “cause harm”—quite a broad definition. Some members in this House no doubt have caused harm to political opponents. Other members might as part of their campaigning for a more progressive or better country have caused harm to a potential polluter or criminal. So it is quite a wide definition and we will be looking at how that is going to apply in detail. Obviously in a free and open country with robust rights of freedom of speech we do not want to be constraining freedom of speech because someone’s feelings might get hurt and the new methods of cyber-bullying provide cheaper and faster ways to get satisfaction as they would say.We also want to see protections for other legitimate forms of freedom of speech such as for parody or satire which is something I have attempted to do in the copyright sphere. What we want to do is protect legitimate victims but we do not want to give people a new legal means to try to stifle free and open democratic speech. That is what we will be looking out for. We would like to acknowledge the work of the Law Commission and the work of the Government and we welcome the select committee process. Thank you. Kia ora.