Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise in support of this bill and I want to first congratulate member Louisa Wall for another step forward in the protection of women and in fact all people from sexual harm. And I rise also as a member of a Government who have already taken some very strong steps and this is—as my colleague Ginny Andersen has just said—another little brick in the wall we are building against sexual harm being done to people in our community.When I look at this bill there's two lenses through which I view it. The first is as a mum and a mum of teenagers. The fact is that the world has moved on somewhat from when we were young and the unfortunate fact is sexting and the solicitation of intimate pictures and recordings is very very widespread even among children as young as 12 and 13. These kids are not in any position to understand just how long term the consequences may be of having taken photos of themselves that are really intimate. Nor frankly are many of the people who solicit them able to really take cognisance of what it might do to the girl who they are now annoyed with or have fallen out with when they then go on and post those things online. They are not cognisant of the harm they do. And we know how vulnerable and in fact how limited is the teenage brain. I think it was Nigel Latta who said teenagers are wrong in the head and he was right. As a mother I can say that every day.The other lens through which I view this is as a Family Court lawyer. Now in the Family Court you constantly see couples who are irrationally angry with each other as part of the grief process that they go through in separation. That is a state in which rationality and kindness and respect for others does not often get a look-in. The number of cases in which recordings or pictures made in a consensual circumstance are then taken and weaponised we know from the research done is not a small number. In fact one of the figures that's been quoted by NetSafe is about 5 to 6 percent of New Zealanders which is about 300000 people. That's an awful lot of harm. So it is very very timely that as my colleague Vanushi Walters has said we move away from a framework in the old legislation six years ago which was still requiring a high threshold of harm and effectively putting the onus back on victims to show that there was deep damage done to them. It was in a way a form of blame and I am delighted to see it go.So I just want to look precisely at the areas of the law that are going to be changed here. So section 22 under the old Act says there must be an intention to cause harm; that harm must be a reasonable consequence of the act for the ordinary reasonable person in the victim's position; and finally it must cause actual harm. But when we're saying harm the definition is extremely high. It is serious emotional distress". That's a high threshold added to what is already a high threshold given the need for a reasonableness of consequences and actual consequences to be proven. The fact is that while some judges thankfully as my colleague on the other side of the House has pointed out do recognise the immense harm that is done by these behaviours some don't. And there are instances of judges not taking seriously and not considering the harm done to be of a high enough standard. And for that reason it is an absolute delight to look at section 22A inserted into the Act by clause 4 of this bill which would simplify matters to remove the requirement of any intent to cause harm—remember those stupid teenage boys not thinking seriously. It would remove the requirement to prove any harm. It makes it clear consent has to be free and informed and the defendant doesn't have to have known there was no consent."