Curran Clare: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Labour also supports the referral of this bill the Harmful Digital Communications Bill to a select committee. As I think has been pointed out there are in the current environment a number of good reasons for us to be having a conversation about how harmful digital communications should be defined and what the remedies are for dealing with them. There is certainly no doubt that the Law Commission’s work on which this bill is based was an important piece of work. I would contend that it is not an end in itself that it is an evolving issue and that the Law Commission has attempted to come to grips with something that has not been addressed in this country before. So it is a good start. However I would contend that the bill that is in front of us although I guess you could call it also a good start is certainlynot without some fishhooks and some issues and I want to outline some of them tonight because it is absolutely critical that during the select committee process which Labour supports this bill going through there is a very good and open discussion.One of the most important things that we should not do with a bill such as this is to try to rush it through and treat it in a way that is reactive to a couple of big issues that are happening in society at the moment and have caused a lot of media attention. When we make laws in this Parliament we must make them in the cold light of day considering all of the issues and considering the wider issues of principle that lie behind such a new piece of law that is attempting to regulate what happens on the internet. This is new territory for New Zealand. It is new territory really in most of the world and we must as a small progressive country be mindful of the wider issues some of which I want to outline tonight in the House.Things that I think are very important are the 10 communication principles upon which the bill is based. I think that is a really good solid foundation for this bill. The second thing that I want to commend is the fact that this bill has got a very strong alignment with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and I absolutely commend the Minister of Justice for actually putting in front of this House a bill that draws such a direct link with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that is a good foundation upon which to start.Things that I have some questions around are to do with the safe harbour provisions which I will go into in a minute. The question mark I have around the concept of an approved agency—and I know there is a public discussion beginning around this—is whether it is a good idea for an agency that plays an advocacy role to then play a mediating role. Has that been properly thought through? Also what accompanying resources might need to be put into that agency in order for it to deal with what is likely to be an enormous number of complaints and issues? Sorting the wheat from the chaff—finding the ones that really do have to be dealt with—is going to be a major challenge. This is as I have said new territory and it is absolutely critical that we have thought all of those things through.Secondly I think there is also a question mark around costs. I know certainly from the previous discussions by my colleagues that the bill appears to be silent on where the costs get recovered. Those issues are really important. Is there a cost recovery role that should be thought about in terms of who actually pays for a lot of the change in practice that will result from this bill being enacted if it is enacted? A couple of things that I think raise alarm bells directly are the issues around the potential criminalising of children and certainly in the discussions in the select committee on this bill this is going to be of enormous importance and interest—thinking through what that actually means and how that can impact out there in our community.Just as an aside it was also drawn to my attention that the very purpose clause has a bit of a problem in it and needs a bit of a rewrite straight away. It states that “The purpose of this Act is to mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications”. Well “harm caused to individuals” does not happen by digital communications; it actually happens by people. I know that my colleague in New Zealand First raised a different perspective on that but the fact is that the internet is not a sentient being as I think my Green colleague Gareth Hughes pointed out. The internet does not cause the harm; it is the people using the internet who cause the harm. I think that is also pretty important for us to talk about.There are many things to discuss in this bill. There is going to be an enormous discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee about these matters. I just want to put on the record that I have reservations around having a piece of legislation that creates new criminal offences in the digital environment. My uneasiness is built on the premisethat bullying harassment and abuse is bullying harassment and abuse no matter what the medium is in which it occurs whether it is in the playground on the phone on your Facebook page or by text but then I certainly think that this is the discussion. This is the crux of the issue and I think it is important for every member in this House to have an open mind coming into the discussion on this bill.Is the internet a special place where a new paradigm is existing where issues can take off and in a matter of minutes and certainly hours there can be a maelstrom created and harm that might not happen in the physical environment? I certainly think that that question has to be considered. Therefore do there need to be new criminal offences and measures developed for actions that happen on the internet but do not exist in the physical environment? I certainly think that that is going to be one of the major issues for discussion at the select committee.