Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Intimate covert filming is often regarded as a contemporary form of voyeurism: the act of a person visually recording others covertly as they undress, undertake intimate bodily functions—such as using the toilet or showering—or engage in sexual activity. With the aid of modern technology this behaviour can pose a significant threat to commonly held notions of privacy. The recordings of the images can then be held for future use or sharing with others—particularly by placing the images on the Internet—or for commercial gain. We indeed live in a very different world from the one we lived in previously. Generally, covert filming has a sexual element, but not always. However, it always constitutes an invasion of personal privacy, as it concentrates on behaviour and aspects of the self that are, for the vast majority of people, very personal and private.

Since 1997 most instances of intimate covert filming have been investigated as breaches of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. That Act relates to the making and distributing of objectionable publications. However, an inquiry into the operation of that Act by the Government Administration Committee highlighted the fact that that approach is no longer appropriate. This was because of the weight given to considerations such as breaches of privacy, which do not come within the reach of censorship law. Therefore the Government referred the issue of intimate covert filming to the Law Commission. In its 2004 study paper Intimate Covert Filming, the Law Commission proposed a dual response to intimate covert filming in New Zealand.

This bill deals with the criminalising of specific types of conduct engaged in by a film maker, distributor, or person possessing a film. Under existing legislation there is no provision that specifically prohibits the taking of a photograph or other visual record of a person who is nude, partially nude, or engaged in sexual or other intimate activity, or that prohibits the distribution of such images. The bill proposes amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 to create three new offences, in line with the Law Commission’s recommendations. These relate to making, possessing, publishing, importing, exporting, or selling images taken without knowledge or consent of a person who is in a place where that person could reasonably have expected to be private, and where that person is naked or has the sexual parts of his or her body exposed, partially exposed, or clad solely in undergarments, or is engaged in an intimate sexual activity or other personal bodily activity that involves dressing or undressing.

All the offences have a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years, other than simple possession. Possession without an intention to publish, export, import, or sell the intimate visual recording has a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 1 year. Upon conviction, the court will have the power to order a recording to be destroyed and any equipment used in the commission of the offence to be forfeited to the Crown.

This legislation provides the victims of covert filming with an effective response. The investigative and prosecutorial resources of the police can be utilised. The process of conviction and penalty will, I believe, have both a deterrent and a rehabilitative effect. I thank members for facilitating the rapid passage of this legislation through the House. I commend it to members in the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. This bill is one I feel very strongly about. In the past I had been critical of engaging Parliament in unwarranted legislation, but not this time. This time I believe that Parliament has got it dead right and, accordingly, National will strongly support the passage of this bill.

I want to take a couple of moments to set out exactly what we are discussing. Intimate covert filming is the making of a surreptitious visual recording of another person in intimate circumstances without—and these are the key components—that person’s consent or knowledge and in circumstances in which he or she would reasonably expect to be private. So what are we talking about? Essentially, we are talking about putting away modern-day peeping Toms. That is all we are talking about—people who are using modern technology to engage in old-fashioned peeping at other people in intimate positions.

I, along with my colleagues, believe extremely strongly that we need to stamp out this type of behaviour. I have a concern, however, that I want to raise now. There is absolutely no point in making this behaviour a criminal offence, enabling the police to intervene, if the police cannot organise their resources to take the appropriate action. The police have to look to their laurels on this issue. I am a strong supporter of the New Zealand Police, but sometimes the police make it very difficult for one to support them. It comes down to a clear resourcing issue.

Two examples come to the top of my mind. One is the incident where two women were involved in a car accident on the West Coast. They lay trapped in their car for 2 days, and the police, in their wisdom, decided to take a prosecution. I ask my colleagues how the public good was being addressed by taking that type of prosecution. My second example around police resourcing is to do with the issue of the gun shop owner who is now being prosecuted because someone took a knife to a gunfight. How ridiculous is that? And the hypocrisy—

💬 Anne Tolley: It was a machete.

A machete is a knife. It is a big knife. That person took a knife to a gunfight and, amazingly, was shot. The police, in their wisdom, decided to take a prosecution. However, Police Constable Abbott can shoot a citizen in Hawera who is carrying a golf club and, of course, there is no prosecution. The police took care of that issue themselves. I do not want to go off on a tangent but just make the point there is no use in putting legislation in place, unless the police can get their resources properly organised.

During the second reading debate my colleague Chester Borrows raised the issue of whether intimate audio recordings should be included in the bill, and I have to ask why not. I am sure Mr Borrows will address this issue himself when he takes a call, but I have to ask why not. Is someone less invaded if they are listened to rather than watched?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.