I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, line 23, after “records,” to insert “retains,”. Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 relate to a specific additional offence of retaining intimate images in a similar vein to amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 11 is again an amendment that was raised with me by the National Observatory on Violence Against Women regarding concerns in respect of section 3 and the offence concerning the recording of an intimate image without consent. The current offence sets a disproportionately high legal bar, in t…

As with the other amendments, I will not press these amendments, but I look forward to working with the Department to move matters forward.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 4, line 37, after “threatening” to insert “, private”. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are attempts to legislate for a criminal offence for the practice known as doxxing, where an abuser will publish private information such as home addresses or bank account details publicly on the Internet to terrorise their victims. The amendments have been tabled on the advice of the National Observatory on Violence Against Women and I would appreciate if the Minister of State could comment on this pra…

Can the Minister of State comment whether it is an offence under the legislation?

Doxxing.

It is important issue regarding a tool of abuse and is something that could be looked at. It is one of the ever-evolving things we encounter that can be used in the absence of the more normal ways in which to abuse or engage in harmful communications. I will withdraw the amendment but I hope that the Department will consider an amendment to make it an offence in some way.

This points to why a review in three years is probably too far away. I am happy to withdraw the amendments in the hope of having continued conversations around the practice of the practice or abuse of doxxing.

This conversation interests me. I understand the Senator's point about something that is done lawfully causing distress, but there are also situations where someone uses lawful measures as a tool to abuse. On Second Stage, I mentioned two people on whose radar I am. One of them has used the courts in a vexatious way to continue abusing me and has tried to summons me to court. He is lawfully sending me summonses but I have never met him. I have had to avoid taking leaflets from people on the streets because, since I…

I move amendment No. 16: In page 5, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “Harassment 5. (1) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse— (a) intentionally or recklessly— (i) follows, watches, pesters or besets another person, (ii) communicates with another person, or (iii) communicates with a third person about another person, and (b) by those acts seriously interferes with the peace and privacy of the other person or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other person, is guilty of the …

I wish to come back in on the issue of persistence. Removing the word "persistence" does not mean the offence only applies to once-off events. Rather, it allows us to begin to account for sporadic communication. In my experience, both my own experience and in supporting other women, sometimes abusive communication and harassment can be seasonal, for want of a better term. It can happen for a period of a few weeks on two or three occasions a year, and it heightens, then drops off and then heightens again. Currently,…

I withdraw it.

I move amendment No. 18: 18. In page 5, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) , the alleged victim of the offence may make an application to the Circuit Court for the purpose of waiving their anonymity under this section.”. Important provisions are contained in section 5 of the Bill related to the anonymity of the victim such offences. This is important but we cannot allow such provisions to silence victims who may wish to speak out and identify themselves. Amendment …

The Senator is right. It is a mistake.

I will not press the amendment. There is a mistake in it anyway.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 6, line 22, to delete “within 2 years” and substitute “within seven years”. Amendments Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive, relate to time limits under which summary proceedings can be taken under this Bill. I am concerned that two years since the offence was committed is too short, especially given the nature of these offences and the psychological distress and resulting delays in reporting that can occur. I am proposing three alternatives, that the time limit would be extended to seven years…

I have nothing to add. I will withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 22: In page 6, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: "Civil restraint orders 9. (1) A Court may, upon an application to it in that behalf, make an order, having regard to the evidence presented and if the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justices to do, that a person (in this section referred to as the respondent) shall not, for such period as the court may specify— (a) communicate by any means of communication with or about a named person, or (b) that the responden…

My main questions were on the timeline. The Minister of State has suggested that it has not begun but that there will be a consultation process. Does that apply to both Bills he mentioned? Is there a timeline for the consultation? For example, it is hoped to have it in the first quarter of the new year?

I move amendment No. 23: In page 7, line 2, after "her" to insert "and the deletion of "persistently" ". These amendments all relate to proposed changes to the harassment offence contained in section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. I am delighted the Minister of State is making these changes. I have had my concerns about the operation of that section and the harassment offence for some time. However, I am concerned at the relatively limited scope of the changes the Minister is proposing. I…

On how one defines what "seriously" means, I understand having to qualify particular things in terms of meeting a certain requirement for a certain offence. I do not necessarily think that removing the word "seriously" makes the offence a lesser offence. I am saying the word "seriously" is so arbitrary that not many people understand within the justice system what serious is. My problem is not that it lessens the offence whatsoever. It is that there is a real problem understanding and interpreting what types of abu…