Dean Jacqui: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2542. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very pleased to stand up to speak in the second reading of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. I am however very disturbed by the contribution that has just been made to the House by the Labour member Clare Curran. I think what is really particularly disturbing about that contribution is that first of all when one has a paucity of argument one tends to attack the process and there was a little bit of that. I have heard it before in other contributions from that member. There is a tendency to say: “We weren’t listened to.” “We were blocked.” and you know all of those things but that is not a real argument.So then we come to the real argument which is—and I did take notes—that this bill will criminalise young people who are caught up in its provisions. I have to say that although I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill and this is my first introduction to it I have done a little bit of reading—but I acknowledge that I did not go through the select committee process. But from my reading of this bill what really disturbs me about that member’s and that party’s response to the threat of cyber-bullying is that they do not seem to have an understanding that young people should know right from wrong. I mean is that not the job of a parent? Certainly it was my job when I was raising my children. Do we not teach our children right from wrong? Is that not what parents do? Whether it is “You don’t go down to the dairy and nick sweets.” or “You don’t cross the road against the red light.” or “You don’t send abusive messages by text.” is it not one of the basic tenets of our society that one of the basic things that we should do as parents is to teach our children what the decent thing to do is? And that includes not undertaking cyber-bullying whether you are under 14 or whether you are over 14. I want to hear other Labour members defending that position because I think it is indefensible.The next contention the next point of argument that that member brought along was that there is no education process—there is no education process. Well I tell you what there is. There is a very strong signal coming from those parties that have got the guts to support this legislation through the House that cyber-bullying is not acceptable. I simply do not accept furthermore that member’s and that party’s argument. I am interested to hear other people from that party making this argument which is an argument that is indefensible that children are going to be caught up in the District Court system and caught up in the law. I mean did they not pay any attention while this bill was going through the select committee and its first reading? My reading of this bill is that an agency is going to be set up with the express purpose of receiving complaints from individuals complaints that will be managed and dealt with inasmuch as they can be without having recourse to the District Court. That is the whole approach of this bill—recognising therein that cyber-bullying and revenge porn and all those other activities are best dealt with if they are being undertaken by young people outside of the courts system. So I want to hear the counterargument to that because to me the arguments that are coming from the other side of the House simply do not carry any weight.This approved agency is being set up. I was trying to think of parallels that we already have. Maybe it is somewhere along the lines of Project Turnaround or restorative justice. Those are the parallels that I am thinking about immediately when I hear that argument where you get some really decent people in our society who will be appointed to this agency the shape of which is yet to be determined and they are the people who will receive these complaints. It will be done out of the public eye because we are dealing with kids here by and large and we are dealing with schoolkids here by and large. They need recourse. Please do not tell me they do not other side of the House. They need recourse but of course it is not going to go straight to the District Court. It just defies sense to make that argument. It just simply defies sense.So here we have an approved agency that can receive a complaint in its community. Let us have a look at what that complaint might look like. It might be something like revenge porn. It might be something like a boy and a girl swapping photos of an intimate nature. It all seemed fine at the time. It was all you know laughs and giggles or something like that until they break up and then you get the Roast Busters scenario. So that person perhaps supported by their parents makes a complaint to the agency. The agency then decides whether there are grounds to proceed with an investigation or if this is just simply a matter of a boyfriend taking revenge and immediately taking it down—or is it vexatious? Is it not worthy of complaint?The argument came across that perhaps political satire would get caught up in this. Well political satire is an accepted form of communication and I simply do not believe that it will be caught up in this range particularly when there are 10 statutory principles which were recommended by the Law Commission that have been incorporated into this legislation. Those 10 statutory principles are based on criminal and civil law and regulatory rules. I will read the list. They include that a communication should not “disclose sensitive personal facts about another individual.”; “be threatening intimidating or menacing.”; “be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.”; “incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purposes of causing harm to that individual.”; “incite or encourage another individual to commit suicide.”; or “denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour race ethnic or national origins”—and so it goes on. I do not think political satire belongs in that list so again I would like to hear the arguments. Are we so sensitive that we are going to object to political satire? I think we need to be a little bit more grown-up than that.So young people can make a complaint to this agency. It is done in private. It is done with confidentiality. Hopefully the issue can be resolved to everybody’s satisfaction. It remains private. People learn a very good lesson and carry on with their lives. If the agency feels that the issue cannot be resolved in a negotiated manner then there is recourse to the District Court. The District Court will have powers to require individuals or organisations to take down offensive material and those organisations themselves will have recourse to the High Court to contest that.I simply reject the arguments promoted by the Opposition members. I think the members entirely miss the point. Whether that is wilful or they just entirely miss the point I am not sure. But if there are good strong arguments for not supporting the very measures that are going to protect our young people from cyber-bullying then I want to hear them. Thank you.