These four laws seem pretty logical, and I don't have any problem with them.

The beach issue... I suppose there needs to be some kind of control there, though it's a tougher issue because it would be all too easy to go overboard. What happens if a parent is photographing their child, and happen to catch a bather in the background?

There would need to be some very careful thought put into any laws along those lines.

I have no argument with this article - just as this article has no points of view or argument.

As a dry explanation of a law it is adequate.

A provision of background reasons for this law and comparison with similar laws in other states (eg. NSW) would have improved it.

Pete

"The first offence prohibits a person from observing...another person without their consent, while the subject is present in ...a communal change room (such as at a beach, swimming pool or gym). This offence hinges on a reasonable person’s expectation of privacy. The maximum penalty for this offence is two years’ imprisonment."
"The new offences do not prohibit a person from surreptitiously observing, photographing or filming a topless female or male bather at a public beach; or a child playing in a public park; or a person engaging in everyday (non-intimate) activities in a public place."

...Does this make any sense? This can look bad depending on which one applies.

"or a person engaging in everyday (non-intimate) activities in a public place"

...The non-intimate qualification suggests a paradox as well.

I am left wondering why these laws are necessary.

The first law seems fair enough - you can't photograph me in my bedroom without my consent. But, good grief - you mean it was legal before?

The second law seems unnecessary. If you don't want to be filmed having sex in public then do it in private, where it is covered by the first law. It seems like allowing such activities to be photographed is a good way to discourage them. Same for the third law. If you don't want you or your child's genitals photographed, don't expose them in public.

The fourth law is fine, but again was it legal to distribute pictures of me in my bedroom before? I hope not.

We had a simple rule before - everybody was responsible for their own privacy. Now apparently we are responsible for everybodies elses privacy as well. And if we get it wrong? If in taking a picture of my child running up from the beach I accidentally snap another naked child under the outdoor shower, am I risking 2 years in jail? Especially if in some fit of pique I refuse to delete it if asked?

To me this feels like a another wave of political correctness, championed by our politicians because it scores easy political points. They are just pictures! As far as I know, no one ever has been injured or killed by a picture. Except perhaps those taking them, who on numerous cases been harmed by those who didn't want them taken.

rstuart,

I think you make some good points even if your indignation seems, to me, to be a bit shrill. I'd offer a couple of comments: I get the impression that you are not a teenager/immature adult who would want to look up other people's clothes. Regretably there are many not in your (our) category. Do a search for sites displaying pictures taken without the subjects knowledge and you'll see what the future of digital technology holds in the hands of those who get off on "change room web cams" etc.

I'll take issue with you here: "As far as I know, no one ever has been injured or killed by a picture". 'Killed', perhaps not but (depending on how you classify suicide) but 'injured' definitely. Bullying is still rife in many schools and it now seems to add to the bully's cred to have someone take a movie of the bullying and circulate it. The psychological damage to the victims is, apparently, severe. Then there was the recent incident in Victoria of the videoing of a sexual assault. This was already illegal but it shows what is possible.