Naylor Jono: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:707;Page:4850. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National):When we concluded on Thursday afternoon there was a bit of humour in the House. There were references to The Castle movie and all sorts of things going on but this is in fact a very serious bill and one that we do need to look at very seriously. To slightly recap just in my first few minutes what I said before we had to adjourn for the end of the parliamentary week we were talking about the very bad impacts that there are at times on young people in particular through online bullying and through social media that result in all sorts of terrible things like truancy at one end of the scale right through to depression self-harm and suicide at the more serious end of the scale. So it is very important that we have legislation in place to ensure that our young people in particular can be kept safe.There have been some people who have been a little bit concerned at the imposition on freedom of speech. Certainly I heard some members—or one in particular—talking about this during the Committee of the whole House. I just want to remind that member and anybody else who is concerned that this is an imposition on free speech that freedom of speech is something that we cannot just take for granted. It is not something that simply gives us the right to say anything we want whenever we want to whatever the consequences of that speech.I want to draw people’s attention to the principles in clause 6 of this bill because freedom of speech should still not give somebody the right to communicate in a way that discloses “sensitive personal facts about an individual”. Freedom of speech should not mean that their digital communication should be able to be “threatening intimidating or menacing.”; nor should it be “grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.”; nor should that communication be “indecent or obscene.”; nor should that communication be “used to harass an individual.” Freedom of speech should not be able to be used simply to make a false allegation about somebody. Free speech should not “contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.” and it should not “incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.” Free speech should not “incite or encourage an individual to commit suicide.” and neither should it “denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour race ethnic or national origins religion gender sexual orientation or disability.”Yes we have got to have freedom of speech. Yes we need to be free to be able to communicate but the principles that are contained in this Act need to be absolutely upheld and so I am very proud to be voting for this legislation as it goes through.One of the other arguments I have heard as we have debated this at the various stages of the passage of the bill through the House has been that people are concerned that perhaps this is too heavy-handed in its approach. At the moment the only thing that is available to somebody is to take some sort of action through the District Court which to me seems far more heavy-handed as an approach. This bill sets up an approved agency that will do what it needs to do to ensure that people are kept safe from harmful digital communication. For those who have said—and I have heard them speaking—that this is something that is too heavy-handed and we need to sit down and take a more softly softly approach particularly where this is occurring with teenagers I want to remind them of clause 8 in particular and to look through what the functions of the approved agency are.Clause 8(1) states that this approved agency will be set up “(a) to receive and assess complaints about harm caused to individuals by digital communications: (b) to investigate complaints:”—but here is the kicker—“(c) to use advice negotiation mediation and persuasion (as appropriate) to resolve complaints:”. That is the benefit of having an approved agency that has the ability to delegate its powers to others as well. That will ensure that we have the measured response that is most appropriate whenever a complaint is laid.Finally I just want to talk about a particular role that has been identified within this Act and that is the role of the “professional leader” in a place like a school. I reflect on my own time as a school guidance counsellor. At times young people would often feel like they had been bullied and they would want to perhaps do something about it but then when the push came to shove they did not want to have to front that for themselves. I think what is critical is that we have this ability for a professional leader to act on behalf of victims and to be able to take this complaint forward to the agency so that the young person who may be affected by this is not having to front up on their own and perhaps feel victimised all over again by having to face up to something within a system. So this particular role of a professional leader in a school who is able to act on behalf of young people is absolutely crucial.This is a good piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that is moving forward. It is showing that we are keeping up with the times and that we are wanting to keep our young people in particular free from bullying and I commend it to the House. Thank you.