Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to place the Greens' position clearly on the record. The Greens support this bill, especially now that amendments (1) and (3) have been agreed to. I think the belief is universal amongst everyone in this place that child sex abuse is a scourge. It is unthinkable and we must fight it. So what we are dealing with here now is not a debate about whether the bill will be agreed to. We are dealing with whether or not the majority view of the Senate should be respected. And the majority view of the Senate gave effect to a basic principle of the rule of law, and that is that when people are convicted of crimes, especially when they are convicted of heinous crimes, it should be left up to judges to make the decision about what the appropriate sentence is. There's a very clear reason for that and a very simply understood principle. That is that it is difficult for parliament to think in advance of every conceivable situation. In the context of this bill, in particular, it is important that we—and, as I say, the Greens support this bill—have strong responses to offences but that judges be given the capacity to consider individual situations.

I'd ask members of the public to consider their teenage daughter or son who is at high school. What if they sent a text message to the person they were seeing at the time, their partner, who happened to be in the year below them? What if that text message was of a sexually explicit nature? What if those two people happened to fall on either side of the dividing line of the relevant age? That young person might be committing an offence. Should they be required to go to jail? That is the question that we are debating now, and the Greens are saying that that question should be left up to a judge. And that is why, historically, most people who defend the rule of law, like the Greens, oppose the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing. Now, it is clear that the majority of the Senate, certainly up until this morning, opposes mandatory minimum sentencing and supports the rule of law. This House should support the rule of law as well. There is unanimity in this place about supporting the bill. There is unanimity in this place about stamping out child sex abuse. But there should also be unanimity in this place about preserving the very important principles of separation of powers and the rule of law.

It has been said in the submissions to the inquiry into this bill, by legal experts, by everyone who would also agree that we need to take strong action to stamp out child sex abuse, that we also need to make sure that we preserve the independence of the judiciary. The Greens will act on principle and defend the independence of the judiciary at the same time that we support strong laws to tackle child sex abuse. Others had said that up until yesterday they agreed with those matters of principle, and it appears now it's a case of: 'These are my principles. We agree with them strongly, but, if you don't like them, we've got others.' It only takes a strongly worded headline or a push from a minister and they change their position, and that's disappointing because the decisions that we make about matters of principle, defending the judiciary, defending the separation of powers and the importance of the rule of law have very-long-lasting consequences. So I repeat: the Greens give support to the bill as it's been amended in the Senate. We're glad the House has agreed to amendments (1) and (3), and the House should also agree to amendment (2).

I also add two final matters. We as the Greens have raised some technical issues that there were with the bill. We don't think that should stand in the way of supporting it. Lastly, if I might ask, Mr Speaker: in the context where we are moving an amendment that's in the negative but we are also calling divisions to satisfy the separation rule, I would appreciate some clarity about which way ought to be called if you want amendment (2) to stand.

See this speech in context