Adams Amy: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2538. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move That the Harmful Digital Communications Bill be now read a second time. Bullying is not a new problem but its reach and its impact have increased considerably in the digital age. In its in-depth report to Parliament on the issue the Law Commission found that one in five New Zealanders aged between 13 and 30 have experienced harmful communication on the internet and these numbers are increasing all the time as more young people engage. Bullies and harassers use emails text messages and social media sites to intimidate people spread damaging or degrading rumours and publish invasive and distressing photographs. There are a number of reasons why harmful digital communications are more worrying and potentially more serious than off-line bullying: their ease and speed of dissemination their potentially viral nature the persistence of the information and the difficulty of removing it and of course the facility for anonymity. For all of these reasons and based on the very real damage we have seen inflicted this kind of harassment is unacceptable and must stop.This bill represents world-leading legislation to tackle cyber-bullying and I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor the Hon Judith Collins in bringing this bill to the House. The bill seeks to prevent online bullying and harassment and reduce the devastating impact of perpetrators’ actions. It will empower victims by providing a quick low-cost and effective way to right the wrongs done to them. Our proposals make it clear that it is not OK to use digital communications in harmful ways and that those responsible for causing serious harm will be held to account.We have to recognise that in the modern digital world it is becoming increasingly prevalent for perpetrators to use social media to bully and hound their victims. We need look no further than the Roast Busters case where we had young Kiwi men take to social media to continue to harass and demean their victims far beyond the time and place of the initial attack and it is happening more and more. Last Thursday we saw the whole of this Parliament stand in unison and outrage against the Roast Busters case and the impact the case and its handling had on the victims. Yet now not a week later some MPs are rallying against the prompt passage of the very bill that would allow us to better protect women in these situations from being revictimised through explosive fast-disseminated means. The Harmful Digital Communications Bill is making an effort to address some of the harm caused by revictimisation through online tools. It is farcical to be outraged one moment at the way these young men gloated about their conquests on social media and then in the same breath oppose key legislation that would prevent their victims from being attacked once more on the same platform. I would like to think that this entire House could bring itself to support a bill that can prevent victims of sexual abuse from being revictimised through social media in the same way that members were outraged at the criminal acts themselves and provide effective means to deal with those who set out to cause such harm.The suggestion that has come from some quarters that the existing laws are adequate to deal with abusive material on a website is wrong. The current law could require a young person to go through a drawn-out court process to prevent abuse or harmful information being spread on the internet. This can be immensely costly and lengthy. In stark contrast this bill tackles cyber-bullying head on and simplifies the process for getting abusive material off the internet in a quick and proportionate way.There are also claims from some quarters that this bill is out of line with what is happening overseas. In fact bills dealing with these issues are being passed in similar jurisdictions all over the world. What opponents fail to mention when describing the new Australian law is that Australia already has a cyber-bullying criminal offence which has been in place for more than 10 years. Their recently passed legislation to set up a regime also has many similarities to the approved agency in this bill. The United Kingdom relies on existing law both civil and criminal to deal with harmful digital communications. A number of offences in the United Kingdom are used regularly to prosecute people for offensive or harassing communications. However like us they have acknowledged that the internet can provide new means by which to cause harm and recently enacted a new offence in February this year for revenge porn where intimate photos or videos are taken with consent but released without consent. There is a gap in current New Zealand law where revenge porn is concerned as it is not currently illegal but this bill changes that. In each of these countries criminal sanctions are part of the mix and it is proper that they should be provided for the most serious cases in New Zealand.Despite what is being said the bill will not criminalise children. I cannot make that any clearer. Children are those under the age of 14 years. This bill creates new criminal offences that will be subject to the same youth justice processes that apply to other criminal offences. This means the offences will not apply to children but will certainly apply to young people aged 14-16 and to adults. Those young people will go through existing youth justice systems in New Zealand. This is not inconsistent with the approach taken in Australia which has had a similar offence as I say for more than a decade and where only eight prosecutions of 300 have been for people under 18. Although there is a perception that harmful digital communications are mostly an issue for children and young people this of course is not the case. The Law Commission’s report noted many cases involving adults who suffered harm and who could not get redress. NetSafe has noted that half of the people it assists with harmful digital communications are in fact adults.While we are on the subject of misinformation it is worth turning the spotlight on the actions of some of those multinational companies that have been actively lobbying around this bill. Let us be really clear: global giants like Google are not public interest groups. Their interest is in their profit and having a market that is as unregulated as possible. It should be noted that Google was among the top 10 spenders for Washington lobbyists last year. It spends millions defending its interests and is now spending more on lobbying than some drug companies and weapon makers are. It is incredible to me that members of this House are more interested in parroting lines produced by global multinationals which do not pay their taxes here in New Zealand than in supporting a bill that addresses the harm and abuse by cyber-bullying of New Zealanders. Anyone who thinks that our law can stay static in the face of new technology is either ignorant or wilfully blind. The speed at which information disseminates and spreads and survives and is able to be found with a search engine from anywhere in the world bears no resemblance to the search of a card catalogue at your public library 50 years ago.A lot of the commentary around the bill has been around the criminal aspects but in fact the vast majority of the bill is about civil enforcement and advice and education from the approved agency. Currently people harmed by digital communications find it very difficult to stop the abuse and have their tormentors answer for their actions. For example defamation proceedings through the court are not seen as practical or cost-effective. The new civil enforcement regime addresses these issues by establishing an approved agency backed by the District Court. The approved agency will offer advice and use informal methods such as negotiation mediation and persuasion to resolve complaints. The vast bulk of complaints will be dealt with in this way. For the very serious complaints the District Court will act as a backstop with the ability to make various orders. For example the court may order the removal of harmful content or the identification of anonymous bullies. This approach is intentionally novel and forward-looking and reflects the Government’s focus on finding practical solutions that work in the real world.The bill provides practical assistance to people of all ages and as we know from the tragic case of Charlotte Dawson anyone can be a victim. Crucially the bill will be particularly helpful for children teenagers parents and schools especially where cyber-bullying takes place. For the most part the approved agency will do this by resolving complaints but it will also work hard to prevent such harm through education and advice.The bill creates a new cyber-bullying offence because there are gaps in New Zealand law. These include: existing laws on threats and intimidation which do not always apply when there is emotional or mental harm; publishing without consent intimate recordings or pictures that were made with consent such as revenge porn where the Crimes Act currently only criminalises making or posting intimate recordings taken without knowledge or consent; and malicious impersonation where current law allows for impersonation to be prosecuted where it is to obtain a benefit or cause loss but not clearly where it is for the purpose of causing distress or harm. I note some issues have also been raised in relation to the operation of a “safe harbour” provision and I have requested further advice on these concerns.This bill’s purpose is to prevent and mitigate the harm caused by abusive and destructive digital communications and empower victims by providing a quick low-cost and effective means of redress. The bill contains a number of safeguards to balance the freedom of expression with the reduction of harm. With the committee’s proposed changes I am confident that the bill will more effectively achieve these objectives. I commend the bill to the House.