Harmful Digital Communications Bill

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. There is something about Green MPs being interrupted tonight and I am pretty glad we did not see the Attorney-General do that at the International Court of Justice, but he did do a fantastic job on that occasion. When I was interrupted, we were talking about the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, a bill the Green Party supports. It is something we see a real need for. We also look at it as a bit of a good example of when we can be drafting laws for the modern internet age—laws that relate directly to the internet age in which we now live. So the Green Party is proud to support it. Obviously, we do not stand on the side of bullies. We oppose bullying. We want to see a rational, smart, and effective use—

💬 Maggie Barry: Except if they’re challenging leadership.

If there is one bully in this House, we know where she is sitting, do we not, and when we are talking about bullying, we see bullying not only in parliamentary locations like this, not only on the street and in the media but also online, and what we see is some pretty nasty bullying on venues like Twitter. I am not going to talk about the member Maggie Barry when it comes to bullying, because there is some irony. There is some irony when this bill is introduced by the Minister Judith Collins. If I can think of a single Minister or a member of this Parliament who probably bullies more than anybody else on Twitter and online, it is that Minister. So there is some irony there, but we all like to work with the Minister and work with the Government to make sure we have a robust, effective legislative solution, and we think it is high time that we actually looked at legislation in this area.

Obviously, everyone knows bullying has been happening probably as long as humans have been around. I am not going to bore the House with tales of my pretty extensive bullying—being the victim, of course—during primary and high school. Bullying has always happened, but what we are seeing now is a different kettle of fish. In the internet age, what you can see is anonymity. You can see imagery and videos posted without the victim’s knowledge or approval, but also there is the pervasiveness. It can stay online despite being perhaps embarrassing video material. As we have seen so graphically with the Roast Busters scandal, sometimes once the material is up, it is virtually impossible to ever get it down, because it has been copied and shared so much. So it is important that we do design our laws to work for 2013, and we know that some of our bullying laws have not been up to scratch. They were written in the pre-internet environment. It is time to modernise our laws.

I have got to say that I did have a bit of a chuckle, because I think this might be unprecedented in the sense that it is the first bill ever to use the word “viral” in the explanatory statement, talking about potential viral videos to reach global audiences. It is interesting to see that word used in legislation.

I think it is also important to point out that it is not the internet’s fault that we are seeing internet bullying and bullying on social media sites. It is not the internet’s fault. The internet is simply a platform. I think members might get the wrong sense, and I think it is important we go into the select committee deliberations with that front of mind, because the internet is simply an enabler. It is a fantastic tool that is shaping our global society and economy, and what we should not be doing is curbing that openness, that freedom, which makes it so powerful, on some crusade to stop something that has been happening for ever, of course.

Of course, bullying is nothing new, as I have said, but what we see when we look at the data in this country from, I understand, the Law Commission is that one in 10 New Zealanders has experienced harmful communication on the internet. When you look at the regulatory impact statement, you read that NetSafe, which does fantastic work, deals with only around 75 complaints of cyber-bullying every year. So it is not a large amount, but I am sure that for those 75, it has had profound consequences and has made a huge difference to their lives.

So the Green Party supports this bill. We look forward to the select committee process. We urge people who have experienced bullying in their lives to make a submission, particularly if it is online bullying. We want to see a healthy society where our kids, primarily, are protected. We want to look after them. We want to empower parents, who—I think, even in the internet age with legislation such as this—will always play a critical role when it comes to dealing with bullying. We want to give kids the skills and the experience to be able to deal with bullying. But I acknowledge that in the internet age sometimes you need a remedy. Under the status quo the only remedy a person has, if, say, infringing content is posted online, pretty much is to go to court, which is a costly, time-consuming, and quite a daunting enterprise for victims of bullying. So setting up this new communications tribunal with a communications commissioner as a remedy to try to persuade internet service providers, for example, or third party content providers to remove infringing material, I think, is a good, cost-effective, hopefully efficacious solution, which would make a difference. Obviously, the ability to still go on to the court for criminal charges is still a potential remedy, but it is good to be able to save time and, hopefully, get that material down as fast as possible using the communications tribunal.

We note from the regulatory impact assessment that the costs are incredibly low. We are looking in the order of around, I think, $115,000 per annum—not an insignificant sum but a sum that is manageable and, hopefully, will make a real difference to people as they go about their lives. We note the safe harbour provisions for those people hosting content—that they are protected under statute, if they remove the infringing material based on a complaint—which we think is good. We will be looking for the detail in the Justice and Electoral Committee on exactly how those provisions will be used.

The fish hook I will be looking out for in particular is the crux of the legislation, which is what is called a new communication offence, which obviously can be taken to the tribunal or ultimately up to the court. The offence is to “cause harm”—quite a broad definition. Some members in this House no doubt have caused harm to political opponents. Other members might, as part of their campaigning for a more progressive or better country, have caused harm to a potential polluter or criminal. So it is quite a wide definition and we will be looking at how that is going to apply in detail. Obviously, in a free and open country with robust rights of freedom of speech, we do not want to be constraining freedom of speech because someone’s feelings might get hurt and the new methods of cyber-bullying provide cheaper and faster ways to get satisfaction, as they would say.

We also want to see protections for other legitimate forms of freedom of speech, such as for parody or satire, which is something I have attempted to do in the copyright sphere. What we want to do is protect legitimate victims, but we do not want to give people a new legal means to try to stifle free and open democratic speech. That is what we will be looking out for. We would like to acknowledge the work of the Law Commission and the work of the Government, and we welcome the select committee process. Thank you. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to take a short call on the first reading of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. We have heard that the purpose of this bill is to mitigate the harm caused to people by digital communications and to provide the victims of that communication with a quick and efficient means of redress. It makes it an offence to send messages and post material that is harmful online and it is punishable by 3 months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.

I think it is especially important that we encourage our young people to make submissions on this bill, because we have already heard that the Law Commission found that one in 10 New Zealanders has experienced harmful communications on the internet, and that number doubles for those between the ages of 19 and 29. Other research has shown that one in five New Zealand high school students has experienced some form of cyber-bullying or harassment. Frankly, that is not acceptable, and it certainly would be our wish that as many young people as possible can actually submit on this bill so that their views can be known. This is about sending a strong message to those who continue to harass and harm others online. Time is up for them. I commend this bill to the House and I commend it to the Justice and Electoral Committee for detailed submissions.

Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. As my colleagues have said, it is definitely time that this legislation came into the House.

I am the chair of the board of Mahurangi College, and on a daily basis we deal with students who are bullied or traumatised. I think that many of us adults now realise that—and I believe that, as Kate Wilkinson said, young people should come and speak to the Justice and Electoral Committee—what is so awful about this type of bullying is that there is no escape from it. It follows these young people into their homes. It follows them, and they fear opening their Gmail account or their MSN Hotmail account. They fear looking at their phone when there is a text message. They have fear all the time.

We have several questions that we hope will be fleshed out during the period of time that this bill is with the select committee. When I was a kid, a troll was a person who lived under a bridge in The Three Billy Goats Gruff. Today trolling is something that happens on Twitter or other accounts. For those New Zealanders out there who, like me or my mum, do not know what I am talking about, that is when no matter what you post online, somebody decides they are going to say something negative about it. There will never be a good comment from a troll on Twitter. It will be interesting to know whether that will actually, at the end of the day, be considered harm under this bill. Does a person have the right to tweet on an account or post on Facebook or whatever and not be harassed in that way? It is basically digital stalking.

We do believe that it is time for the bill and we commend the Minister of Justice for bringing the bill to the House. We note that point 8 of the regulatory impact statement has got a definition: “Harmful digital communications, cyber-bullying and digital harassment can take a variety of forms, including emails, texts, phone messages, blog sites, forums and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. These mediums can be used to intimidate, spread damaging or degrading rumours, publish invasive and distressing photographs, and harass people.” I guess that New Zealand First would see that as addressing what we call the invisible man theory. If human beings think they cannot be seen and if they think they cannot be caught, there are levels they will go to that they will not go to if they are looking a person in the eye or if somebody can see them take those actions.

We need to send a very clear message to not just those who are currently using this environment for harassment but, actually, all young people and all people using those social media sites that they are a public forum. Somewhere, somebody can see what you post and when you post it. I think that for selfies and things like that, people have taken a photo, sent it for a moment, and then been caught out thinking that it goes away. It does not take a second for somebody to take a snapshot of it, or—I am not quite sure what it is called, actually, on Facebook—they take a shot of the page and then it is there for ever.

💬 Denise Roche: A screenshot.

A screenshot—thank you very much.

I would also like to know whether—when we actually get down to the nitty-gritty of this—when somebody is actually found to have breached the law and caused harm, we are going to try to come up with a digital solution to remove that item from the internet. There are images out there that, once they have been taken down from one site, have been shared and placed in so many other places. How will we pull those back? Whose responsibility is that? And how long does the period of harm have to be? Let us just take, for example, young people in their 20s today who go out and, like all of us, party. They party with their friends. I know a young man, for example—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Oho!

I do, I do. I know several young men, but I will talk about this one particularly. He is not the young man yonder, so we do not have to worry about that. I know a young man who went out partying with friends and who imbibed too much of the alcoholic beverage and found himself on the floor singing rollicking pirate songs, I think they were, and a video was taken. That young man now wants to climb a corporate ladder, and that video has appeared. That video has appeared on YouTube. Does his prospective employer go to YouTube, as has been mentioned before, and go and have a look at Facebook and other things to see what this young man has been doing, and will that affect his ability to climb the ladder of any corporation or company? I would like to know how long ago the image had to take place or how long the posting has to have been there. How long is the extension of harm? What if a photo was put up one day, and now, 10 years down the track, actually creates harm inside an employment environment?

We really need to have some strong digital citizenship training inside our schools around those things. I believe if a penalty is applied, that will drive some more of that training around the digital citizenship that is required, both for those who post for very reasonable reasons and for those who actually post to harm others.

New Zealand First has some concerns around the safe harbour provision. I go to the explanatory note of the bill, which, under “Safe harbour provisions”, says: “The purpose of this is to ensure that a content host cannot be held liable for content they host that is posted by another person, but which the host does not know about.” My question is upon whom does the burden of proof lie with regard to that statement? Is it the victim, who now needs to actually prove that the host was aware that this posting was up and that they did not remove it when they had the abilities to do so? And would a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old be able to do that? Is this workable for a 12-year-old and a 13-year-old? They are among the many victims that I see. So those are questions we would like have.

I am a little bit concerned by Gareth Hughes’ comments that the internet itself is just an enabler. It sounds a little bit to me like the argument of the gun lobby in the States that, actually, it is not guns that kill people; it is people with guns. There is a responsibility on the hosting agency. There is a responsibility on those people who carry those sites.

We have concerns. If we recognise, for example, that that is actually a problem, then why do we say that it does not have to be mandatory? There is a section in the explanatory note of the bill that states: “While not a mandatory authority, this would have significant persuasive powers in relation to website hosts or ISPs operating outside New Zealand jurisdiction.” We run into that cross-country jurisdiction issue. It is going to be something that will have to be looked at very carefully, and it is a continuation of the issue of how international law is going to need to be aligned around these issues. But if we recognise that it is harmful, why are we placing it on a voluntary basis? Why are we not saying that this needs to be put in place before you can broadcast here? Other Governments do that. Other Governments make decisions about websites that will or will not come into their nation.

I also want to just highlight another area, clause 10 of the bill, “Proceedings may be brought in District Court”. I highlight clause 10(1)(c), where the principal of an educational establishment, if the individual concerned is a student at the establishment, and with the consent of the student, can bring proceedings to the District Court. Who pays for that? Where is that money coming from? If it is a teacher, does that mean that the teacher themselves must bring the case? I would argue that the board of trustees, as a good employer, has a responsibility towards any teacher who has had damaging information posted about them by students, to actually pursue the removal of that material from the internet. I have known students who took their phones with cameras into classes, took videos of their teachers behind their textbooks, and then put them up for comment from other students and so on and so forth, or who graded teachers, etc., and not in a constructive way. Teachers are appraised, appropriately, but putting videos up on Facebook to let every man and his dog write what they think about them is not appropriate. So I have some issues around the fact that, first, if a principal brings proceedings, there is a cost to the school for that, and, two, that as a good employer, teachers should also be covered by this. A principal or board of trustees should be able to take this action to protect their staff.

But, all in all, it is time for this legislation. New Zealand First will support it—

💬 Scott Simpson: Good.

—and we look forward to it coming back to the House with some amendments. We understand that Mr Simpson agrees with us on that, so that is great. So we support the bill and commend it to the House.

I rise to take a short call on the Harmful Digital Communications Bill at its first reading. This is a bill in the name of the Hon Judith Collins. There has been a lot of discussion about cyber-bullying through society in New Zealand for probably the last 2 to 3 years, and it is a very serious issue. The Law Commission has done some excellent work in this space. Its report The News Media meets ‘New Media’ has been a document that has been helpful to the Hon Judith Collins in drawing up this bill.

Essentially, the bill creates a set of 10 communication principles that will guide an approved agency and the courts. It is all very well to talk about digital bullying and cyber-bullying and so forth, but it needs to be clearly defined. I think that the principle of creating an approved agency creating a new civil enforcement regime, which includes appointing an approved agency as the first port of call for complaints, is also useful because vexatious complaints will occur in this space and it does need to be filtered. That agency will be able then to investigate and resolve complaints directly and quickly, and the most serious complaints will be referred to the District Court. Those, I think, are excellent measures.

I will take this up in more detail at a further reading. In the select committee process aspects of this bill will be formalised and it will emerge as a very strong, and apparently well-supported, piece of legislation. I will not waste the time of the House by doing what the Green member did, which was to take cheap shots at other parliamentary colleagues. I will leave it at that and commend this bill to the House.

Labour also supports the referral of this bill, the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, to a select committee. As I think has been pointed out, there are, in the current environment, a number of good reasons for us to be having a conversation about how harmful digital communications should be defined and what the remedies are for dealing with them. There is certainly no doubt that the Law Commission’s work, on which this bill is based, was an important piece of work. I would contend that it is not an end in itself, that it is an evolving issue, and that the Law Commission has attempted to come to grips with something that has not been addressed in this country before. So it is a good start. However, I would contend that the bill that is in front of us, although I guess you could call it also a good start, is certainly not without some fishhooks and some issues, and I want to outline some of them tonight, because it is absolutely critical that during the select committee process, which Labour supports this bill going through, there is a very good and open discussion.

One of the most important things that we should not do with a bill such as this is to try to rush it through and treat it in a way that is reactive to a couple of big issues that are happening in society at the moment and have caused a lot of media attention. When we make laws in this Parliament we must make them in the cold light of day, considering all of the issues and considering the wider issues of principle that lie behind such a new piece of law that is attempting to regulate what happens on the internet. This is new territory for New Zealand. It is new territory, really, in most of the world, and we must, as a small, progressive country, be mindful of the wider issues, some of which I want to outline tonight in the House.

Things that I think are very important are the 10 communication principles upon which the bill is based. I think that is a really good, solid foundation for this bill. The second thing that I want to commend is the fact that this bill has got a very strong alignment with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and I absolutely commend the Minister of Justice for actually putting in front of this House a bill that draws such a direct link with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that is a good foundation upon which to start.

Things that I have some questions around are to do with the safe harbour provisions, which I will go into in a minute. The question mark I have around the concept of an approved agency—and I know there is a public discussion beginning around this—is whether it is a good idea for an agency that plays an advocacy role to then play a mediating role. Has that been properly thought through? Also, what accompanying resources might need to be put into that agency in order for it to deal with what is likely to be an enormous number of complaints and issues? Sorting the wheat from the chaff—finding the ones that really do have to be dealt with—is going to be a major challenge. This is, as I have said, new territory and it is absolutely critical that we have thought all of those things through.

Secondly, I think there is also a question mark around costs. I know, certainly from the previous discussions by my colleagues, that the bill appears to be silent on where the costs get recovered. Those issues are really important. Is there a cost recovery role that should be thought about in terms of who actually pays for a lot of the change in practice that will result from this bill being enacted, if it is enacted? A couple of things that I think raise alarm bells directly are the issues around the potential criminalising of children and, certainly, in the discussions in the select committee on this bill, this is going to be of enormous importance and interest—thinking through what that actually means and how that can impact out there in our community.

Just as an aside, it was also drawn to my attention that the very purpose clause has a bit of a problem in it and needs a bit of a rewrite straight away. It states that “The purpose of this Act is to mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications”. Well, “harm caused to individuals” does not happen by digital communications; it actually happens by people. I know that my colleague in New Zealand First raised a different perspective on that, but the fact is that the internet is not a sentient being, as, I think, my Green colleague Gareth Hughes pointed out. The internet does not cause the harm; it is the people using the internet who cause the harm. I think that is also pretty important for us to talk about.

There are many things to discuss in this bill. There is going to be an enormous discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee about these matters. I just want to put on the record that I have reservations around having a piece of legislation that creates new criminal offences in the digital environment. My uneasiness is built on the premise that bullying, harassment, and abuse is bullying, harassment, and abuse no matter what the medium is in which it occurs, whether it is in the playground, on the phone, on your Facebook page, or by text, but, then, I certainly think that this is the discussion. This is the crux of the issue, and I think it is important for every member in this House to have an open mind coming into the discussion on this bill.

Is the internet a special place where a new paradigm is existing, where issues can take off and, in a matter of minutes, and certainly hours, there can be a maelstrom created and harm that might not happen in the physical environment? I certainly think that that question has to be considered. Therefore, do there need to be new criminal offences and measures developed for actions that happen on the internet but do not exist in the physical environment? I certainly think that that is going to be one of the major issues for discussion at the select committee.

I rise to take just a brief call to note the support of all of the House for this Harmful Digital Communications Bill. As the member Clare Curran has just been talking about, it is important to note that bullying is an attitudinal thing. It is a behavioural issue, where people decide that they want to impose their power and control issues on others. We know from the many cases around cyber-bullying the impact that this has had.

What I am looking forward to, as part of the Justice and Electoral Committee, is hearing some of the submissions. One thing I would like to say to those who are out there in the communities and listening tonight is that we want to try to encourage more young people to come forward. We know that when we went out with Green Paper for Vulnerable Children, over 10,000 submissions were heard. There were a number—almost 2,000—that came from young people. We would like to see a similar approach taken for this bill. We are keen to see that they would do that. It is one of our priorities to deliver better public services, but more important is to protect people from harm and, particularly, protect them from cyber-bullying.

This bill will approve an agency to become the first port of call for complaints. We think that this bill is actually a bill that will get a lot of interest. We are looking forward to the connections with our community and to hearing its concerns, and also to hearing some solutions around that. I want to commend this bill to the House and support its first reading. Thank you.

Raymond Huo, 5 minutes.

I would like to start my contribution by congratulating the judges and legislators in the UK on their great leadership in developing both the case law and the statutory law to keep pace with the developments of the internet and online media. The UK High Court recently ruled that Sally Bercow did libel Lord McAlpine via Twitter, and she has agreed to pay him damages. The court found that her statement on Twitter constituted a serious libel, both in its natural meaning and as an innuendo. For the victims, Lord McAlpine and his family, the defamatory statement caused considerable unnecessary pain and suffering. The judgment is one of great public interest and it provides a warning to, and guidance for, people who use social media.

In April this year the UK Parliament passed its Defamation Act 2013, which is likely to come into force early next year. The new legislation contains provisions that will reform the law of defamation, particularly in relation to internet service providers, and publishing on the internet. Probably the most important change for online content is in section 8, under which the new single publication rule replaces the longstanding multiple publication rule, which was established in an 1849 case. In the modern world this centuries-old law has been interpreted recently by the courts to mean that each new hit on a web page constitutes a fresh publication and, accordingly, a new cause of action. The limitation period for defamation of 1 year, therefore, effectively refreshes on a rolling basis, as long as the article remains online. As Labour’s associate spokesperson on justice, I think it is reasonable for me to say that our legislation in respect of online publication and social media is lagging behind the reality, and our legal regime is not robust enough.

The introduction of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill is something positive for us to start with. The purpose of this bill is to mitigate the harm caused to individuals by digital communications and to provide victims with a quick and efficient means of redress. I am not quite sure how the bill would provide victims with a quick and efficient means of redress. It appears that the bill creates a new civil enforcement regime and also creates new criminal offences. Harmful digital communications—cyber-bullying and digital harassment—can take many forms, such as communicating through emails, text messages, blog sites, and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The victims of harmful digital communications are often children and young people, who are particularly vulnerable and who require appropriate protections. The victims of harmful digital communications include politicians and business people, etc., as well.

As part of the civil enforcement regime, this bill sets out 10 new communication principles to guide the functions of the court and the approved agency. Again, how will these principles enhance the means of redress? I look forward to the progress of this bill and also the input and submissions from the stakeholders. With regard to criminal offences, the bill creates a new offence of posting a harmful digital communication with the intention to cause harm. So overall the enforcement regime as introduced is largely civil, so there is a problem with cost—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

It is good to see that there seems to be unanimity and support for the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, and that is a good base for the beginning of the Justice and Electoral Committee conversation. I think that around the margins, as the committee digs into the consequences and the implications of this bill, there will be some conversations, some debates, and, indeed, some arguments to be had about how to ensure that it achieves what is intended in the purpose without overstepping the mark or creating undesirable outcomes. So it is a good thing that it has come to the House.

It is not unusual to see legislators trying to catch up with technology. That has been the lesson of the last century or more—telegraph to radio, to television, and now, of course, to the internet. The internet, I think, is a game changer in technology. It is revolutionary to the extent that the characteristic that makes it so is its accessibility. Anybody with a couple of dollars to spend at an internet cafe and a free email address can create a Facebook account, and they are in business. You are in a position to achieve a great deal and, unfortunately, you are also in a position to do some harm and to create some mischief. That is what this legislation seeks to remedy or try to put some reins on. The purpose of the bill is declared as being “to mitigate harm” caused to individuals by three digital means. I think that is sensible language. To mitigate is to endeavour to make good. Clearly, once something is on the web, once an accusation has been made, once some sort of threat has been extended through digital means, then it is out there. It is not something you can undo entirely. Mitigation is, I think, the appropriate approach to undo the mischief to the extent that that is possible, to do the least harm, in a sense, to put right to the extent that that is possible.

I do think that the select committee might have to have a bit of a think about the definition of “harm” given in the legislation, which talks about “serious emotional distress”. With all the best will—I think that that is a good starting-off point, but I do wonder about what the manifestation of it will be. How will it be demonstrated or proven ultimately to the satisfaction of the court that somebody has suffered serious emotional distress? A young teenage boy, a youth, for example, might be very reluctant to admit to distress, albeit he might have good reason to feel that. There are situations where, I think, that definition may prove inadequate or even a burden. Off the top of my head I cannot offer anything better at the moment, but I do think that a worthwhile debate to have would be to see whether it is the most adequate definition of harm that the legislation can come up with.

I think that it is a strength of the legislation that it has such principles. For example, it talks about preventing anything that is indecent or obscene. Clearly, the definition of what might be indecent or obscene is very much about context. In many situations a naked human body need not be deemed indecent or obscene, and would not be, but in some contexts it will be. I think that basing this legislation around those key principles will enable this agency as it evolves, and, indeed, the courts, to establish a sense of context, to determine reasonably in a given context whether something is indecent or obscene or whatever else the apparent harm might be. So I think it is a very sensible and, in fact, quite subtle approach but also a very robust one. I commend the drafters for having come to that point.

We have heard a lot about the fact that this bill can be seen as defending the well-being of young people, and that is very true. But it is also the reality that adults, grown-up people, can also be subject to cyber-bullying. People in abusive relationships might establish some physical space between themselves and abusers, but the electronic abuse can continue. I think we need to keep in mind that it is not only about young people. Clearly, there is much to be said about this.

I do think it is a positive thing that this agency will also have an educative function. Young people are vulnerable, in part because they make themselves vulnerable. So to the extent that this agency will have that educative function or duty, I think that is a helpful thing in order to keep putting the message out there that there will be some organisation whose task it is to endeavour to educate our young people, particularly about protecting themselves against these forms of abuse. I think that is a very helpful thing.

So I do commend this bill. I think it is a good starting-off point for what could be a very helpful piece of legislation, and I wish the select committee well in its deliberation. Thank you.

The Harmful Digital Communications Bill is an important measure dealing with contemporary issues of widespread and significant public concern. I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Justice for the energy that she has shown in bringing this measure to the House. I know it is widely welcomed by the community at large, who are concerned about these matters. I want to thank all members for the intelligent contributions that they have made in this first reading debate, and I wish the Justice and Electoral Committee members well with their deliberations on it.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.