Henderson Emily; Mallard TrevorDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I intend to do a couple of things tonight as I rise to take the final call on this bill the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill. I do want to answer as a member of the Justice Committee some of the questions that have been raised about particular decisions we took. I want to honour the contribution of the wahine toa Louisa Wall appropriately to my left who has not been lucky"—because you don't get luck like this unless you are working so consistently and so hard and for the right causes. Your luck is the result of extraordinary energy and determination and we all here tonight honour you for what you have done for our vulnerable people over the years.I want to start by saying that I've been really very very struck by some of the things that have been said tonight and it seems to me that this bill is more than just a good piece of legislation; this bill is a really interesting moment in our collective conscientiousness in this House—because my colleague Karen Chhour had it right: it's about shame and what shame does to victims. There's an old saying—and I am the product of a 1970s second-wave feminist mum and dad—that rape is a tool to control all women because it is the constant fear that we carry around and I know also our rainbow community carry around on their shoulders all the time. When I walk home tonight at the fine old age of 49 I will be watching doorways and under trees because rape is a fear that all women carry all the time.This bill is about shame. Rape and the fear of rape is not just the violation itself; it is the fact that sexual degradation is what rape is about. Sexual shaming is what this bill is about. It is about the fact that for long longstanding reasons sex is something done to women that is degrading in a way it is not to cis men. And I say that with no disrespect to my male cis colleagues in the House. I have heard you tonight I know you are with us but this is the background to this bill. Mr Mitchell I'm so honoured that you brought your experience as a father to us tonight because I suspect that for many men that is truly the only time many cis men—that may be the only time you actually feel that burden of shame and helplessness that so many women and rainbow people carry every day. And it is used to keep us under control. It is used to keep us fearful. Well no more.Under the previous regime that Louisa Wall's bill is designed to address it is that sense of sex as degradation to women that is present in the legislation. So if you look the ways in which this sort of act of digital communication sexual acts—if you look at how it is characterised—you have the Crimes Act section 216G; that's about up-skirting effectively. It is the crime where someone has non-consensually taken intimate video recordings of someone. And that's fine; it's a good law but what I'm saying is it buys into that thing: sex is shaming but if you didn't consent to it then you deserve some protection. There is no requirement of harm in section 216G of the Crimes Act.If you then look at the other major candidate it's the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. And I do take the point that this was a good attempt but it was a good first attempt because what it did was take the case of the woman or the queer person who dares to consent to a sexual image being taken of themselves. In that case if you want protection from the law you have to prove serious harm has been done to you that the intent was to harm you that harm would have occurred to a reasonable person in your shoes and that it did actually occur. And what we have watched time and time again is the courts in this country fail to recognise the effect on largely women who came before them seeking help under this section as harm—"You weren't damaged enough." And I cannot help thinking that the idea that the woman had consented to that initial image has something to do with it. If you want coverage under that old toxic masculinity we've been carrying around so long you'd better be really beaten and bloodied if you want protection.That is why I so honour this bill and I so honour the people in this room tonight who have stood together to say "No more." Because the crucial point about this bill is it defines the act from the perspective of the victim. You do not any longer have to show your scars or your bruises or the tears in your genitals because it is recognised that the harm is implicit. And that is a massive step forward for the vulnerable people in our community for your daughter for my queer son and my daughter for my women friends for their daughters and their sons. This is a massive step forward to the rejection of shame and the right standing and the equality of all of us in this country.That is why when we looked at this bill we decided that we would try to create a discreet offence in new section 22A. I take my friend and colleague's point that some aspects are not in this bill—deep fakes for example—but that is because what we were concentrating on here is the breach of trust in interpersonal violence and in interpersonal relationship. I look forward to your Supplementary Order Paper and the debate that will follow.We also refused to accept the idea of express consent. And this was again to answer Jan Logie's comment because we refused to allow the possibility that it could in fact be weaponised against the victims again. Consent express consent—the idea was to talk about how children or young people might want to convey their consent so that the perpetrator would have to think through the process and whether they actually had consent. The problem is as we heard from our submitters that consent can be weaponised because consent can be coerced; it can be persuaded. We are talking about children at times who are too immature to make that decision. We rejected the idea of express consent. We went for consent simplicita. We also decided to take away the concept of consent for children and I'm pleased that we did that because going back to that same situation there is such pressure on our young people. It is unnecessary to have to interrogate that point.Finally we made the response to the situation easy. We made it possible to get interim orders up fast rather than having to wait because porn and revenge porn run around the world 15 times before a court has even got its robes on.So I want to finish by saying to the people who submitted to us: you do not need to be shamed. You took back your power and right here in this House right now we're holding on to that space for you. Don't be shamed any more. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time."