Mapp Wayne: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20332] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As my very able colleague Dr Richard Worth indicated National supports this bill. But some interesting gaps have been raised by various speakers from across the House in this debate with regard to the role of security cameras and the like. I was thinking of some other gaps that occurred to me. It comes back to the exemptions in the bill all of which as noted are related to the role of State servants—the police and suchlike. What about the role of say newspapers—which for obvious reasons take an interest in public figures—that may photograph someone in an intimate situation with a prostitute under the age of 18 as opposed to one who is under 16? On the face of it that would seem to be a breach of the legislation. 
Stephen Franks 
: Graham Capill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes. But arguably there is a public interest in precisely that kind of photograph because it would disclose a criminal offence and would probably indicate to the public that such a person should not hold his or her public position. On the face of it this legislation would appear to make that activity illegal. I do not believe that that can actually be the intention of the Government. One would think that there would at least be some form of qualified exemption for that particular role provided that the photos were not prurient. 
As has been well acknowledged those are things that can be fixed up by the select committee. But when a Law Commission report has driven this legislation when there is the whole array and apparatus of the Ministry of Justice and the many tens of millions of dollars spent on all the experts in that organisation and when there is a ministerial office staffed with dozens of people— 
Stephen Franks 
: Mostly in public relations. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: One can only assume as Mr Franks indicates that those people are all masters of spin. One would expect those kinds of issues to be brought out in the legislation because they are not terribly difficult to think of. It is not as though one has to go away and think deeply about the legislation or to do vast amounts of reading of international reports and so forth to ask what the potential problems could be here. What are the areas that we expect at least in the explanatory note of the bill to be acknowledged? It is completely silent on them. The Government has done Parliament and the select committee a bit of a disservice because it has given us ill-formed legislation and has essentially said that we should fix it—as we will have to. As people are aware every party in this House will support this legislation. It is unfortunate that it could not have been done better. 
One of the interesting issues in a part of the legislation that seems to be reasonably well drawn up is the distinction between intimate activity where privacy is an expected and a natural right and those activities that are personal and have a degree of intimacy but that are nevertheless perhaps not expected to be private. One thinks of the famous French photograph taken in 1950 known as  
Kiss at City Hall 
. That was clearly an intimate personal activity that would not infringe this legislation nor should it. Ironically not so many years ago the anonymous people in that photograph—because the photographer did not know who they were—sought to claim some 50 years after the event the reflected fame of being the subjects of the photograph and sought compensation or at least a degree of recognition. Those kinds of photographs do become iconic a reflection of the joie de vivre of life if you will. It is important that the legislation strikes the right balance and on balance it has at least understood that particular dividing line. 
A number of people have raised an interesting point about parents and babies. I think the legislation protects parents in that situation because it does after all refer to the expectations of privacy. I presume that if parents are taking a photograph of their baby they do not intend to have privacy for that photograph within the family. Clearly there would be an expectation of privacy should such a photograph be generally distributed in a manner that the parents did not expect. 
Obviously we support the legislation. It is driven as much as anything by the terrible intrusion on the privacy of and damage caused to Princess Diana some years ago by some very inappropriate and unfortunate photographs. Unfortunately they were taken by one of our own countrymen in a way that was really quite reprehensible and he was properly castigated for that activity. I believe that that activity would now be illegal under this legislation. I would like to know whether the Government is of the view that such photographs should be illegal. That is a question that perhaps the next Government speaker could answer—whether he or she feels that the legislation properly and adequately addresses that matter. 
In conclusion I say that National supports this bill. A number of deficiencies have been pointed out and the bill in particular addresses the role of newspapers which from time to time do protect the public good and expose the depredations of public figures. We would not want that function to be fundamentally restricted by legislation wherein we simply had not thought of the ramifications. I imagine that the select committee will properly and carefully consider all those issues. I think that this is one of those occasions when committee members should read the first reading debate because the debate across the House has picked up on a number of issues that will be of importance to the committee in its considerations. This legislation is important. One may think that it is being brought in at this stage primarily because the Government wants to appear to be doing something. It has taken the Government an awfully long time to do it I have to say and one trusts that the select committee will do its job well. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee