Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill 2009 because the safety and security of children is undoubtedly the most important concern for parents. In fact, it should be a priority of governments at all levels. Nothing, quite frankly, is more important. Governments at both the state and federal levels need to do more beyond the rhetoric and this bill is a small step in that direction. Its main purpose is to strengthen criminal history checks for people working with children. I know that, generally speaking, as a society we do have to strike a balance and give people who have served their time the opportunity to perhaps be rehabilitated. But, at the same time it, is my strong personal view that when it comes to children we should not take any risks. They should not be the guinea pigs at the end of the line to see whether or not someone has been adequately rehabilitated. They are vulnerable. They are deserving of not just our guidance but our serious protection. We just cannot take the slightest chance when it comes to their safety. As a relatively new mother, I understand that and feel that with great intensity. No other parent is different from that.

People who work with children are afforded an extraordinary privilege but also a responsibility. Parents place enormous trust in them and it is incumbent upon governments to ensure that they can be confident that systems are in place to ensure that no-one who may not be suitable is given the responsibility and the entree of working with their children. I am sure that is an expectation that parents hold. Unfortunately, many state governments around the country in the administration of some of their departments and child protection do not take that responsibility seriously and do not provide adequate resources. We see the human tragedy resulting from that.

As shadow minister for early childhood education and child care, I am pleased that this bill—in ensuring that those who have a potential problem are prevented from working with children—will actually help protect the reputation and integrity of early childhood and childcare professionals. We have some extraordinarily dedicated and talented people working in this industry across the country and in every corner of Australia. As I have visited childcare centres and preschools, I have met some remarkable people who are very passionate about their work and for whom, very often, remuneration is secondary. Indeed, they could go off and do other things and be paid more generously but they have a passion and a commitment to children and early childhood development. They do have a tough job. It is a very important job. I think it is appropriate to take this opportunity to thank all of those people who have a passion for working with young children—all the teachers, carers, social workers and others—and who help nurture and shape in such a positive way the future generation.

The aim of this bill, as I see it, is to reinforce the fact that safeguarding our children from physical, sexual and other forms of abuse must be a priority for law makers and governments. It implements the agreement that was reached at COAG on 29 November 2008 to enable the jurisdictional exchange of further criminal history information for people working with children. This agreement followed an agreement under the Howard government in April 2007 to a framework to improve access to interjurisdictional criminal history information by child related employment-screening schemes.

The current provisions in the Crimes Act do prevent the disclosure of a person’s full criminal history. The bill, however, does carve out an exception to these provisions, allowing for the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information, including information on pardon, quashed and spent convictions of those who work, or who seek to work, with children. The exchange of the information permitted by the bill will be subject to safeguards to ensure that the information is dealt with appropriately and to limit any potential misuse of information. The Minister for Home Affairs made assurances to the House in his introductory speech on 20 August 2009 to that effect. It is appropriate to consider a person’s full criminal history when assessing their appropriateness to work with children because, while there is a belief that people do deserve a second chance, in this case the safety of children is the first and primary priority.

While we are talking about police checks and criminal records, I want to take the opportunity to talk about the need to further protect children. In my view, we do need to strengthen sentences for those who commit crimes against children, particularly those who commit paedophilia. Unfortunately, we only tend to discuss the issue when it makes front-page news, like we did a few months back when convicted paedophile Dennis Ferguson was forced to move out of his latest abode. It is just a matter of time before we once again see an outraged local community—concerned mums and dads and grandparents—holding placards and rallying against having another Mr Ferguson as a neighbour. It has happened at least four times in the last five years, and the scene will be replayed over and over with this individual and with others.

Each time, we see public opinion divided into two camps: the larger one believing that this repeat offender ought not to be living in their community, certainly not near their children or where children go to school or play, and the smaller camp decrying this sort of vigilantism and claiming that the particular fellow—as it usually is—has a right to live in the community having done his time. Let us just stop for a moment and look at the concept of having done time: what does our society consider, not just through our laws but through the sentences imposed by judges, an appropriate sentence to fit the crime of sexually penetrating—let us call it what it is: raping—a small child, or three children?

I am sure many Australians would be disturbed to see how much time these people have to serve in jail if they are actually caught. This fellow planned his crime while doing time in Long Bay Gaol for a range of offences that include various assaults on children and indecent assaults on females. When he was released from jail, he and a partner tracked down a fellow inmate’s three children, aged six, seven and eight, abducted them from their home in Sydney, flew them to Brisbane and held them prisoner. He repeatedly raped them until the police arrived some days later. The judge in Ferguson’s trial said that the chances of rehabilitation were zero—zilch. He was sentenced to just 14 years—14 years for a crime that was so premeditated and so vile—a crime that no doubt, unfortunately, imposed a life sentence on the most vulnerable of victims, the three very small children.

Sadly, as we all know, this is not a one-off case. We appear to have a somewhat double standard when it comes to sexual offences. If they are perpetrated against an adult without their consent, it is an aggressive act and a very serious matter. If they are perpetrated against a child, it is less talked about; it is that molestation thing, that matter that we do not seem that comfortable talking about. The focus seems to shift to the sexual deviancy of the perpetrator and away from the victim.

While it is difficult to get a clear understanding of the sentencing for child rape vis-à-vis adult rape because many jurisdictions classify them all as sexual offences, there is evidence that we do not afford our children the same level of sentencing protection as we afford to adults. The Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council provides statistical information on sentencing. It found that in Victoria, from 2006-07 to 2007-08, the average effective sentence term for cases of sexual penetration of a child aged between 10 to 16 years was just 1.9 years for a single offence. It was just 3.3 years if the child was under the age of 10. In fact, if there had been up to 10 sexual offences committed against a child, those averages rose to just 4.8 and 5.2 years respectively. The median length of imprisonment for the rape of an adult was five years, with sentences varying from two to 20 years. I am not for one moment arguing that one crime is less heinous than the other. They are both abhorrent. But I do believe, and I am not alone in believing, that we have a very special duty of care to protect the most vulnerable in our community, and innocent, trusting children are very high on, if not at the top of, that list.

When I rose in parliament earlier this year to raise this issue, I pointed out that it is not something that people like to talk about, because they find it very disturbing and sometimes in polite company very distasteful. But it is a reality that we have to face, and as legislators even more so. It is estimated that, from an economic standpoint, child abuse costs our nation about $4 billion a year. The social price that we pay is, of course, much higher and the human cost is immeasurable. We see women who have been abused as children having a considerably higher risk of experiencing sexual violence in their adult life, more so than the rest of us, at 54 per cent compared with 26 per cent. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that the sexual offences that come to the attention of the police are only a very small proportion of the sexual offences that occur in our community. Sadly, most of our victims are victimised by someone they know, and this is a problem that also needs to be addressed. Tougher sentences certainly need to be looked at. The way that we view the crime of paedophilia needs to be rethought. The terminology we use to describe crimes against children should be much stronger. The outrage we as a community feel should not be confined just to a situation when a paedophile moves into our immediate neighbourhood. It needs to be a concern that is ongoing. Clearly the concepts of trust, protection and love within a family need to be reinforced in our society, and the value of children and good parenting needs to be supported.

We have seen the premature sexualisation of children in the media as a serious and growing issue. This does need to be examined, as does the trend to excuse unacceptable behaviour through moral relativism. We saw this recently with Hollywood rallying to absolve filmmaker Roman Polanski of his crime of having sex with a 13-year-old. So it is an uphill battle. We have the glamorous Hollywood protecting this sort of behaviour, and what sort of message does that send out to the community and to young people? So it is not a problem that has an easy, quick fix, but it is a problem that we need to acknowledge and discuss. This bill is a welcome and positive, albeit small, step in that direction.

See this speech in context