Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Hansard source

I thank all the members of this House who have contributed to this debate, and also colleagues on the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, who scrutinised the bill and recommended that it be passed. In particular I want to thank members who shared their personal stories and convictions—they have expressed a commitment to act against the scourge of child sex offending. However, it's important, if we're going to take action and if we believe that people who commit these crimes need to be appropriately punished, that all of this bill be passed. I genuinely thought that the parliament would come together and pass the totality of this bill in a bipartisan way. That was my expectation. That was what had happened when we announced that we were cracking down on child sex tourists and taking away their passports. Within two hours of our making that announcement, the Leader of the Opposition got up and pledged the Labor Party's support of that measure.

Unfortunately, after a month of prevarication, apparently the Labor Party is going to move to amend this bill in the Senate. By doing so they will cut out the heart of this bill, which is to make sure that people who are committing horrendous acts against children actually serve time in prison. I think most Australians would be pretty shocked to know that only 58½ per cent of those convicted of Commonwealth child sex offences spend any time in prison at all. That means over 40 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders never spend one day in prison. There's no such thing as a minor Commonwealth child sex offender. They are all horrendous offences. To deal with that and to make sure that people are getting appropriate punishments for the harm that they have caused, we will insist that the courts apply mandatory minimum sentences that reflect the gravity of the crime that has been committed. We don't believe that having over 40 per cent of convicted paedophiles spend not even a day in prison is acceptable. We don't believe that having the most common length of time served by those that actually serve a prison sentence be just six months is remotely acceptable. I'm surprised anyone in this chamber does, quite frankly.

We already know that there's a problem with sentencing. It was confirmed by the High Court just last week in relation to a Victorian sentence, where they found that a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment for unprotected sex with a 13-year-old, which was based on other similarly low existing sentences for such crimes, was manifestly inadequate—confirming, I might say, some of the criticism of lenient sentencing that has been made by members of the government. The opposition knows this. They know that mandatory sentencing—I endorse what the member for Fisher was saying earlier—is not an option we will use in all cases. We use it for crimes which the parliament thinks are particularly serious and where we need to send a signal that people committing these crimes must serve time in prison.

We've done it in this parliament in relation to people-smuggling. The opposition did it, when they were in government, in relation to people-smuggling. Astonishingly, members of the opposition who spoke in that debate in favour of mandatory sentencing are now speaking in this debate against it. This just shows that their opposition to mandatory sentencing is fickle and hypocritical. They introduced mandatory sentencing for people-smuggling when they were in office. We have mandatory sentencing for Commonwealth offences in relation to people-smuggling and we have mandatory sentencing in relation to terrorism offences. The opposition apparently has an ideological objection to mandatory sentencing. If they win next year's election, will they repeal mandatory sentencing for people-smuggling? Will they repeal mandatory sentencing for terrorism offenders? Apparently they've got some objection to mandatory sentencing in principle. Some quite extraordinary claims have been made in this debate that I want to particularly address to show you the furphy of this absurd ideological proposition against mandatory sentencing for paedophiles. It is an absolute nonsense.

We've heard in this debate that mandatory minimum sentences might make juries feel sorry for paedophiles who they think are guilty of crimes and then move to acquit. Well, I have a lot more faith than that in the common sense of the Australian people who sit on juries. I don't believe they'll be moved to feel sorry for people who have abused kids and therefore ensure that they don't serve time in prison. I think that is a ridiculous proposition, quite frankly. We have also heard that if mandatory sentencing were to be approved by the parliament it would be a disincentive for people to plead guilty. But that completely ignores the reality that we have inserted provisions within this bill that would give an incentive for an offender to plead guilty by an appropriate reduction in their sentence. And we've heard that the bill will reduce incentives to cooperate with law enforcement agencies, which again completely ignores the fact that there are provisions within this bill for an appropriate discount for the sentence when offenders have cooperated with law enforcement—a discount of 25 per cent in both the cases I have just raised.

We've also heard—and this has been repeated ad nauseam by members—about this hypothetical case of an 18-year-old who apparently might go overseas and have sex with a 15-year-old, which completely ignores the fact that that is currently a crime. We're not changing the offences here; we're changing the way they are sentenced. Under current law it is, of course, a crime to have sex with somebody who's under the age of consent, which in most states is 16 years. Not only does this bill not apply to those under the age of 18 but the argument completely fails to take into account the safeguard that currently exists within the system that means we haven't seen cases like this prosecuted where it hasn't been predatory behaviour. It is that the AFP must make a judgement that it's in the public interest to investigate and prosecute a crime, and then the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions must do the same. They need to work out whether it's in the public interest for a prosecution to move forward. On a daily basis, they will make a judgement that a particular crime might not meet that threshold. The CDPP and the Australian Federal Police apply these discretions every day. So, regarding this hypothetical example, it's not a new offence. These offences could be prosecuted now. It's never happened before, because there's this discretion within the system. So, why would it happen moving forward? It is a complete red herring.

This government is taking the global lead in making sure that in Australia tough penalties apply to people who prey on children. In a world's first, we have made sure that Australians who are registered sex offenders can't go overseas to prey on children, particularly here in our region. The opposition—to their credit, as I said in my opening remarks—within two hours of our making that announcement pledged their support for that very important measure. These are world's-first changes, and the parliament, because we've got bipartisan support from the opposition, will pass them.

Unfortunately, in relation to this bill, there seems to have been a month of prevarication in which, apparently, the Labor Party, the opposition, were deciding on what they were going to do. Now they have come out on the side of some crazy left-wing ideology against mandatory sentencing, as opposed to joining with the government to send the message that the parliament finds these crimes abhorrent and, if you commit them, you're going to go to prison—something that is not happening now, because more than 40 per cent of convicted paedophiles don't spend a day in prison. That is unacceptable. Why do the opposition think that is acceptable? Why won't they join with us and support mandatory sentencing?

We are not going to tolerate people preying on our kids. The parliament has to send an appropriate message that the parliament won't tolerate it. I think we will be able to negotiate with the crossbench in the Senate to get this bill passed, because the crossbench is showing a lot more common sense than the Labor Party have been able to show. Apparently, what they are going to do when this bill reaches the floor of the other place is join with the Greens to gut it. They are going to join with the Greens to stop paedophiles from going to prison when they commit these horrendous crimes. I am astonished by that. The Labor Party should hang their heads in shame.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context