Clendon David: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): It is good to see that there seems to be unanimity and support for the Harmful Digital Communications Bill and that is a good base for the beginning of the Justice and Electoral Committee conversation. I think that around the margins as the committee digs into the consequences and the implications of this bill there will be some conversations some debates and indeed some arguments to be had about how to ensure that it achieves what is intended in the purpose without overstepping the mark or creating undesirable outcomes. So it is a good thing that it has come to the House.It is not unusual to see legislators trying to catch up with technology. That has been the lesson of the last century or more—telegraph to radio to television and now of course to the internet. The internet I think is a game changer in technology. It is revolutionary to the extent that the characteristic that makes it so is its accessibility. Anybody with a couple of dollars to spend at an internet cafe and a free email address can create a Facebook account and they are in business. You are in a position to achieve a great deal and unfortunately you are also in a position to do some harm and to create some mischief. That is what this legislation seeks to remedy or try to put some reins on. The purpose of the bill is declared as being “to mitigate harm” caused to individuals by three digital means. I think that is sensible language. To mitigate is to endeavour to make good. Clearly once something is on the web once an accusation has been made once some sort of threat has been extended through digital means then it is out there. It is not something you can undo entirely. Mitigation is I think the appropriate approach to undo the mischief to the extent that that is possible to do the least harm in a sense to put right to the extent that that is possible.I do think that the select committee might have to have a bit of a think about the definition of “harm” given in the legislation which talks about “serious emotional distress”. With all the best will—I think that that is a good starting-off point but I dowonder about what the manifestation of it will be. How will it be demonstrated or proven ultimately to the satisfaction of the court that somebody has suffered serious emotional distress? A young teenage boy a youth for example might be very reluctant to admit to distress albeit he might have good reason to feel that. There are situations where I think that definition may prove inadequate or even a burden. Off the top of my head I cannot offer anything better at the moment but I do think that a worthwhile debate to have would be to see whether it is the most adequate definition of harm that the legislation can come up with.I think that it is a strength of the legislation that it has such principles. For example it talks about preventing anything that is indecent or obscene. Clearly the definition of what might be indecent or obscene is very much about context. In many situations a naked human body need not be deemed indecent or obscene and would not be but in some contexts it will be. I think that basing this legislation around those key principles will enable this agency as it evolves and indeed the courts to establish a sense of context to determine reasonably in a given context whether something is indecent or obscene or whatever else the apparent harm might be. So I think it is a very sensible and in fact quite subtle approach but also a very robust one. I commend the drafters for having come to that point.We have heard a lot about the fact that this bill can be seen as defending the well-being of young people and that is very true. But it is also the reality that adults grown-up people can also be subject to cyber-bullying. People in abusive relationships might establish some physical space between themselves and abusers but the electronic abuse can continue. I think we need to keep in mind that it is not only about young people. Clearly there is much to be said about this.I do think it is a positive thing that this agency will also have an educative function. Young people are vulnerable in part because they make themselves vulnerable. So to the extent that this agency will have that educative function or duty I think that is a helpful thing in order to keep putting the message out there that there will be some organisation whose task it is to endeavour to educate our young people particularly about protecting themselves against these forms of abuse. I think that is a very helpful thing.So I do commend this bill. I think it is a good starting-off point for what could be a very helpful piece of legislation and I wish the select committee well in its deliberation. Thank you.