Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

Australia’s internet child pornography laws are far too lenient. I remind the House of the recent investigation by Queensland’s Taskforce Argos, with Interpol and the FBI, which infiltrated a paedophile ring in 2006, arresting 22 core members and identifying another 2,500 customers of child sex websites in 20 countries. The Australian’s Michael McKenna reports on this case:

Former Australia Post human resources regional manager Derek Richard Mara, 30, will next month fight to have his commonwealth jail term cut after he was convicted as one of the four founding members of the internet’s oldest known paedophile ring, The Group, which financed made-to-order abuse movies and picture shoots of children, some just a few months old.

The Americans convicted for their involvement in ‘The Group’ have been sentenced to more than 30 years jail and five were given life. Mara, who was also charged with indecent treatment of a child, was given six years with a non-parole period of 32 months. Under appeal, he may get less. We cannot accept this standard of punishment in a society that values the innocence of children. I asked the Attorney-General last week in parliament whether he thought the penalties imposed by the courts for this heinous crime were too lenient and whether he would review them as well as look at our inconsistent state and Commonwealth laws. I was encouraged by the Attorney’s response when he said:

… there may be scope… for federal legislation in this area… and it is appropriate to review the penalties.

How can a person with thousands of sexually explicit pictures and pornographic abuse videos featuring young children get away with a sentence of a few months in jail or a suspended sentence or a community service order or a fine?

In respect of this crime we are not standing up for children. We are not recognising the close relationship between those who view child abuse on-line and those who groom and procure then commit contact crimes. Our sentencing statistics indicate that those who say they are just looking are not committing such a grave offence, but make no mistake—a child abuse watcher is just as implicated as the real-life abuser. By creating a demand for the images they encourage ongoing abuse, whether for profit or not.

There are tens of thousands of people worldwide in the hardcore child-porn subculture preying on the children of poor and developing countries, who are coerced into appalling acts and filmed. The images are sold over the internet, often to educated, middle-aged, middle-class men who have children of their own and who lead outwardly blameless lives. Viewing these images, downloading these images and sharing these images are crimes the punishment of which is manifestly inadequate. We are letting a wave of sickness infect our society and we are sweeping it under the carpet.

In fact, a visiting American expert who works with the FBI was very blunt with me recently. He said: ‘You care more in this country about smoking than you do about someone sexually abusing your children. You put graphic warnings on the front of cigarette packs, but you refuse to crack down on online child abusers.’ When I look at sentencing comparisons for the crime of online child abuse I am convinced that the US has it right and we have it wrong.

State sentencing is hopelessly inadequate because offenders are often sentenced in lower courts where the maximum penalty is less than the penalties of district courts. There are instances of individuals with thousands of hours of explicit images, including rape and torture, who receive very short or suspended sentences. Courts are not always shown the evidence. Judges do not want to traumatise the jury, if there is one, with the images and sometimes choose not to view material themselves. The defence plays a sympathy card: the defendant is hopelessly addicted, depressed, receiving treatment, on suicide watch, will not do it again! Unfortunately, as the defenders themselves tell us, they are highly likely to re-offend.

I want to recognise and thank the state and federal police forces around the country. I visited the AFP High Tech Crime Centre recently and spoke with men and women, who, in conjunction with our international partners in the Virtual Global Taskforce, painstakingly trace these criminals using web recognition tools, Google and specialised software, in what is a truly international effort to crack down on the trade in these heartbreaking images.

No software tool removes the need to sit and watch this stuff—to have it get inside your head and haunt you. Some of these investigators have observed the same children, over the years, suffering continual abuse. Sometimes they are able to identify locations, identify victims and arrest their attackers. These investigators are truly special people and we should recognise and thank them for their extraordinary efforts.

See this speech in context