Worth Richard: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20323] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt at all that new laws are needed to curb secret filming of people in intimate situations. Where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy they should have legal recourse if they are secretly photographed when they are in a state of undress or when they are engaged in sexual activity or other intimate bodily activity such as using a toilet. This is a serious invasion of privacy and an affront to human dignity. So too is secretly photographing underneath people’s clothing—so-called ”up-skirt” filming. In connection with this first reading I would like to deal with just a few matters if I may and offer I hope some constructive criticism on this bill. 
Surreptitious filming spying and peeping are not new occurrences. However with the introduction of new technology especially mobile phone cameras which can download on to the Internet it is becoming much easier for techno-savvy people to invade the privacy of others and distribute photographs or videos of those caught unawares. As the previous speaker has said at the request of the Government the Law Commission recently issued a report that considers the issue of covert filming of others in intimate situations without their knowledge or consent including the subsequent distribution of recorded images. The Law Commission wisely in my view deliberately chose not to focus on wider issues of covert filming in general. So its report did not cover covert observation of people recording of non-intimate activities—for example walking down the street—or filming of people who could not reasonably expect privacy and perhaps an illustration of that would be filming topless bathers at a public beach. 
The Law Commission’s report defines “intimate covert filming” as the filming of others in intimate situations without their knowledge or consent including the subsequent distribution of those recorded images. One of the things that the Law Commission did was to review overseas jurisdictions’ responses to the problem against the background of course of current New Zealand law. The commission looked at a range of New Zealand statutes under which this type of conduct could fit including the Summary Offences Act the Crimes Act the Harassment Act the Human Rights Act the Employment Relations Act the Broadcasting Act the Privacy Act and the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. It found that there was no specific statute or provision that was designed for this type of problem. So the reality is that coverage by New Zealand law of this behaviour is patchy limited and circumstance specific. While some statutes fit some circumstances only very specific behaviour is captured. The current statutes are simply not able to handle the ever-changing nature of technology that makes such conduct difficult to legislate against. 
The previous speaker has made the point and I would like to come back to it in a moment that the Law Commission proposed a dual approach to dealing with intimate covert filming in New Zealand by criminalising making distributing and possessing covert films or images and then significantly by ensuring that there is an accessible civil remedy for the subjects of such filming. One of the things that it might have been possible to do was to create a specific statutory tort as the common law tort of interference with privacy has been developing in the New Zealand courts. Instead the Law Commission has proposed amendments to the Privacy Act to allow victims the opportunity to use the already established complaints resolution process under the Privacy Act. So the plan of the commission was that these amendments to the Privacy Act would also allow the Human Rights Review Tribunal an explicit power to deal with intimate covert filming cases and order the destruction and forfeiture of any images or equipment used in the making or distribution of such images. 
What we see today is the criminal side of the coin in the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. To make it clear beyond doubt the general policy statement in the explanatory note records that the bill implements the criminal offence provisions recommended by the Law Commission. It does not say as the Minister went on to say that there was further legislative action planned in the civil arena. I express again concern at the legislative policy of this Government that when there is a problem the problem is it seems always approached in a piecemeal and patchwork way. The commission has proposed an all-encompassing approach to deal with this issue. The Government in its wisdom or I would say its lack of wisdom has chosen not to take that approach at all. We often find in that setting and we have seen it a lot in this particular session of Parliament that when the Government comes again to add another piece to the patchwork quilt gaps appear—interstices appear—and that is of course what is likely to happen here again. 
I cannot help but refer to a statement in the explanatory note of the bill: “Criminal penalties such as imprisonment have a deterrent effect and”—this is the part I am emphasising—“sentences requiring reparation will also ensure that the victims will receive some compensation for the harm they have endured.” It shows a naivety on the part of whoever wrote that commentary to think that that will in fact be a practical possibility. Reparation is in the nature of compensation for harm. It is a reimbursement of loss—of a loss that can be measured in some monetary way. It is very difficult to see in the case of unlawful covert filming how there could be in the context of the criminal law such reparation awarded. It is quite possible in the context of the civil law but when one talks about criminal reparation in this context then quite clearly that particular sentence is a mishit of an extreme nature. 
National hopes this bill will have a speedy passage. It is important that it be passed to deal with events in the community that cause us all significant concern. So National supports this bill its reference to a select committee and the subsequent further steps that will see it enacted into a statute of this Parliament.