Tanczos Nandor: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6827] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like other parties the Green Party is supporting this bill and it is probably one of those examples of broad cross-party consensus that a law like this is needed and that the issues around intimate covert filming are highly significant and that New Zealanders do need protection from this highly invasive activity. Because of technological development the scope for this has increased the scope for the publication and broadcast of these kinds of images has increased and it is not just a question of the invasion of privacy but also the humiliation in relation to the public nature of these kinds of recordings. So it is very appropriate that the House is passing this legislation. 
I think the Government Administration Committee did a very good job and I made reference to that in my second reading speech in relation to some of the details of the bill. In that regard a couple of the items I will mention in passing are the issues around exempting Internet service providers from being liable for images broadcast through their services and that is quite right. The select committee retained the distinction between those who have a recording in their possession as opposed to those who have it for the purpose of publishing exporting or selling. It was quite right that the committee did that. 
The other issue is in regard to the requirement on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the recording was in fact taken without the knowledge or consent of the person and the difficulty in regard to say images done overseas. The select committee made the decision to leave that in place and expressed the view that it is an evidential matter that should be dealt with in court on a case by case basis. I think that was also the right thing to do. 
I would like to touch on my disappointment around the issues that Mr Borrows raised because I remember that he raised those items during the Committee stage. There was some debate about whether he was correct in his analysis and on having read the bill more closely I think clearly he is correct. I do not see how one can read the bill in any other way than the way he has indicated—that is it does not include either audio recordings or recordings taken by consent but then published without consent. The whole point is that the offences covered in the bill relate to prohibitions on making an intimate visual recording; on possessing an intimate visual recording; or on publishing importing exporting or selling an intimate visual recording. But the whole point is that all of those offences rely on the fact that it is an intimate visual recording as defined in the bill which is a recording made without the knowledge or consent of the person. 
If it is a recording made with someone’s knowledge and consent the bill clearly does not prohibit the publishing of those images without the person’s consent. I think it is a real lapse and actually quite arrogant of the Minister to not have addressed that matter because he did assure the House as Mr Borrows has said that he would look into it. I have the  
Hansard 
 of my own speech given on 14 March and the Minister said very clearly that he was looking into it. So that is on the record. 
 I think it is a bit of an affront that he did not at least address the issue and either clarify that it was not his intention to cover those things or amend the bill. He appears to have done neither and I think that is a disappointment. 
The other issue that Mr Borrows raised was around audio recordings. I agree with him that it is not covered. On further reflection though on thinking about it there are real difficulties in covering that. How do we start to define what is an intimate audio recording? Intimate visual recordings are defined by the nature of the images—the fact that someone is naked engaged in intimate sexual activity or engaged in showering or toileting or other things like that or the recording is made under their clothing and so on. 
But if we are talking about an audio recording it is a lot more difficult to define. We cannot tell whether someone was naked when an audio recording was made. The matter would come to bear I guess when someone is engaged in sexual activity but even that is quite ambiguous. The sounds that people make during sexual activity are not always unambiguously sexual activity. I can think of having a very good massage as an example of ambiguity in terms of the sound. So I think the audio issue does raise some other complexities which maybe the Minister did not want to address but certainly the issue of visual recordings taken with consent but published without consent is quite straightforward and I think rightly should have been addressed and I am disappointed that that did not happen. 
Having said that of course that does not mean we will oppose the bill. We think it does provide important protections and in that regard we look forward to all parties hopefully supporting it.