Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I started to say in my speech yesterday, Labor does not support mandatory minimums. We know that they can lead to fewer prosecutions and convictions, sometimes leading juries to acquit rather than sentence, and can conflict with the role of the judiciary. People will not have an incentive to plead guilty or inform the police on others' actions if they know they face a mandatory sentence. It builds in the incentive to fight and appeal against convictions. Even former Prime Minister John Howard has previously commented:

… as a matter of principle I don't agree with mandatory sentencing … in the end I do think these matters ought to be determined by judges and magistrates.

It's a shame Mr Howard isn't getting rolled out for his opinion on mandatory sentencing.

The Law Council of Australia has urged the Senate to reject mandatory sentencing in bills, because of the real risk of unintended consequences with potentially life-shattering outcomes. There is no evidence that mandatory sentencing has the effect of reducing crime rates. Dangerously, this particular piece of legislation will have the unintended consequence of the proposed mandatory minimums possibly applying to teenagers. Examples of this provided in the Law Council of Australia's submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee included: an 18-year-old sexting a 15-year-old would lead to a mandatory sentence of five years for the 18-year-old; an 18-year-old sending an intimate image to a 15-year-old would lead to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the 18-year-old; and where a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old might be sharing sexual images with each other in a consensual relationship, the day the older partner turns 18, the 18-year-old would be looking at an automatic five-year sentence. I agree these things may be criminal and, in accordance with the law, those people should be punished, but I'm not sure that the punishment of a five-year minimum sentence would serve that particular crime. We want responsible use of the internet and mobile messaging by our kids and teenagers—I have three children: a 15-year-old, an 11 year-old and a nine-year-old—and I would not find one person who disagrees with that. I hope that our kids are sensible and don't engage in such behaviour, but, if they do, I don't want them to go to jail for a mandatory minimum term of five years.

The financial impact of this bill is stated as being largely limited to the costs associated with housing federal prisoners, and its overall financial impact on the states and territories will be negligible. This is yet another example of the Turnbull government fudging the figures on this. They have cut $184 million from the Australian Federal Police funding in the 2017-18 budget. This significantly reduces our federal law enforcement's capacity to hunt down perpetrators of this crime. The AFP needs funding to fight the paedophile rings that operate on our doorstep. This is a global challenge for our law enforcement agencies and the AFP; it reaches far beyond our borders. Children are being enslaved by paedophile rings with links to Australia, and sexual acts with adults are being live-streamed over the internet. These crimes are horrendous. Children are being held as sex slaves known as 'pay-per-view'. The children are routinely raped and that is streamed live via encrypted online video. The Australian reported that last year the AFP assessment centre received more than 8,000 reports of child exploitation. As of 21 September, it has already received more than 6,776 reports of child exploitation for this calendar year. These criminals are producing thousands and thousands of sexually explicit materials, depicting children being abused and brutalised. We must stop the online exploitation of children, and we must stop it within our communities.

Labor always has and always will fight to protect children here and overseas from exploitation, abuse and sexual crimes. We are proud of our record under the Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments, and our achievements include—some of them we are all incredibly proud of—in 1994 introducing world-leading offences targeting Australians who engage in the sexual abuse of children overseas; bringing federal, state and territory governments together in 2009 to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, which includes a funding commitment of $63.6 million over four years from the Commonwealth government; introducing new child abuse offences and protection measures in 2010; and establishing the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—the first inquiry of this type at a national level. The royal commission, among other things, inquired into how systems have failed to protect children. It made many recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to sexual abuse in institutions. I look forward to the Redress Scheme. Labor's achievements also include appointing Australia's first National Children's Commissioner in 2013 to advocate for the rights of Australia's young people in and introducing the vulnerable witness act in 2013.

We can always do more to protect our kids. I am a parent raising the first generation of social media users. We all have a responsibility to keep our kids safe whilst using the internet. We need to be aware of how much time our kids are on the internet and educate them about the possible dangers of chatting with people on the internet. We can sit with the kids and explore the internet together and monitor the sites they use. We can lock certain sites down and have software that monitors our children's email and social media. We can also check with our kids' schools and other schools in our communities as to what safety measures are in place to make sure our kids can talk with us about what is happening online. They need to be cybersafe. We will be voting for this bill but we will be seeking to amend it in the Senate, as I have pointed out. We need to make this something that we do together, make it tougher and not use it as political pointscoring. We need to make it more effective, because we know this is the best way to stop sexual offenders.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by a community group in my community, called the Queen of Hearts Foundation, and the founder and director of that organisation, Michelle Ellery. In 2014 the Queen of Hearts Foundation was established in my community to run a community based resource centre that supports men, women and children. Their mission is to protect kids and support survivors of child sexual abuse and domestic violence on their journey for justice and healing. I would like to take this opportunity to read into Hansard how incredible the work is that they are doing for those vulnerable children who have been victims of sexual abuse. I must admit that, when I first learned of the incredible work that was being done, I had to remind myself we were still in Australia and these things still happen, irrespective of how much we all want them not to. So I thank them for their work and I put on record my thanks and gratitude for all that they do.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the measures contained in this bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017, which is the greatest crackdown on paedophiles in a generation. I have to agree with the member for Lindsay that we shouldn't do any political pointscoring on this issue. This is something that should be bipartisan. I have spoken about child sex abuse in this place many times, as someone who has family members who experienced it and because of my involvement with the apology to the 'forgotten Australians' and getting up the royal commission into sexual abuse and my continued ongoing patronage of CLAN and other organisations that support people who are no longer called the 'forgotten Australians' but referred to as survivors and also people who have experienced the horror of sexual abuse in institutions under the care of governments, churches and also private institutions.

I have had a number of different jobs in my time. To this day being a dad to my son, Jarrod, is probably the most important job I have ever had in my life. I am sure that all members would agree with me when I say that to victimise and abuse a child is one of the lowest forms of human behaviour. The only other thing I could think of that would be worse, maybe, is murder. The welfare of the children in our society is paramount. I am proud to have been Jarrod's father. As parents we go to extreme lengths to ensure the safety of our children. From the day they enter our lives, we become their most fierce protectors and we do our very best to keep our little ones safe and secure.

But in this job, as members of parliament, we have the capacity to extend these lengths to ensure the protection of every Australian child who doesn't have that protection, safety and security from their parents in their own homes and in our society. In my time as the member for Swan, child abuse is something that I have actively campaigned on. In my maiden speech I said I wanted to bring focus to the national issue of institutional child sex abuse and I shared the story of Shellay Ward, the seven-year-old girl who died in 2007 of starvation after years of abuse and being seriously neglected by her parents. What sort of society do we live in where a seven-year-old girl can starve to death under the nose of neighbours and the bodies that are set up by governments to protect children? Over the following 10 years, I have met with countless victims of child sex abuse—victims who bravely gave evidence during the royal commission, victims who suffered at the hands of those who they trusted and victims who have spent their lives recovering from the trauma of their childhoods. This is why it is so important to support this legislation. I have seen adults who were abused as children collapse under the trauma of their abuse. They have been broken by their childhoods and many have had long battles with depression or addiction and have required ongoing medical assistance. Many of them have chronic health issues that they deal with on a daily basis. Others have tried to move forward with their lives but have shared with me the struggles they have endured, noting difficulties in all aspects of their lives—in their work, in their relationships and when they have had children of their own.

Child abuse hasn't just happened in institutions. It happens in children's own homes. It happens at the hands of guardians. It happens at the hands of strangers and online, as we have heard from other members who have contributed to this debate. It is not exclusive to any demographic, nor is it exclusive to any neighbourhood or region of our country. We have an entrenched system that is failing the children of Australia.

I would like to share with the House a couple of stories. I refer first to a story not in our country but in New Zealand with the story of two half-sisters, Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson, of Masterton, New Zealand. They were two beautiful girls who fell victim to the broken system that existed. Their story spans 10 years. There were 10 years where they could have been removed from the physical and sexual abuse they faced, but instead they were returned to their abusers again and again. Saliel was born in February 1989 and was the second child of Charlene Aplin. In November 1990, Charlene had Olympia Jetson, who was followed by two more children in the following two years.

In 1992, Charlene Aplin applied for a nonviolence order and spent time in a women's refuge. By 1993, Charlene had reconciled with her husband, but after further domestic violence and court involvement the marriage ended. At the end of the year, Charlene Aplin contacted police, concerned that the girls may have been suffering from sexual abuse. Evidence was inconclusive, and the girls received counselling. In 1994, Saliel and Olympia's elder sister repeated the sexual abuse allegations. Police were once more called, but no evidence was found. The counselling was continued. I saw a program on CI which featured this particular episode. These girls were submitted to a situation where they had to give evidence to the police in front of their abuser. Of course, they weren't going to reveal the details in front of their abuser. This is how ridiculous the system is.

Soon after, Charlene Aplin began a relationship with Bruce Howse. In March 1994, Charlene Aplin contacted Child, Youth and Family—CYF—and the police after a dispute between her and Howse. It is alleged Saliel and Olympia, at the ages of five and three respectively, had suffered injuries inflicted by Howse. In an interview the following month with CYF, the children reported physical abuse by Howse again. By the middle of May 1994, all Charlene's children were removed and placed with her parents. By the end of the year, Charlene reported to CYF that she was concerned that her parents were not caring adequately for her children. This woman complained her parents weren't looking after their grandchildren and she wanted to return them to an abusive situation. This is how silly our systems are.

On 1 August 1996, the court ruled that Saliel, Olympia and their brother could return to their mother and the abuser, Howse. By November, their eldest sisters returned to live with them and, by Christmas, Howse's five other children were also living with them. In April 1997, Charlene Aplin again took legal steps to protect herself from Howse, but soon the couple reconciled again. In October 1999, Charlene Aplin and Howse had a daughter. Domestic violence was reported to the authorities on several occasions and eventually Charlene left Howse and took all the children to her parents' home again, the home where she thought they weren't being looked after.

In 2000, after living with her parents for six months, Charlene Aplin moved the family to Ashhurst, and Howse attempted to take the baby from the house. The police were called. A separate violent incident saw police called again. The family moved to Woodville briefly, before returning to Masterton, where Aplin again reconciled with Howse. At the end of September, Howse left home after a violent incident. Soon after, he returned home and abducted the baby. Charlene Aplin retrieved the child and further fights ensued before another reconciliation.

In 2001, Charlene Aplin was pregnant again. She and Howse briefly separated but again reconciled. The pregnancy wasn't easy, and Olympia and Saliel were often left on their own in the care of Howse and their elder sister whilst their mother spent time in hospital. In July, another baby girl was born. After the following three months, on 3 August, Olympia's school contacted Charlene Aplin to say that Olympia had made an accusation of sexual abuse. By the following Monday, she had withdrawn that accusation.

On 20 November, a fight erupted between Howse and Charlene Aplin. The police were called and Howse was taken to his son's address. He phoned Charlene Aplin several times that night threatening to kill them all. He returned to the home the next day and was asked to leave permanently. Howse said Aplin had no legal right to keep him out of the house. On 1 September, Saliel had an argument with Howse and told him she was going to nark on him. Two days later, on 3 December 2001, Saliel and her little sister Olympia were stabbed. Each received a single knife wound. They both died in the early hours of 4 December, having bled to death, stabbed by their abuser, their stepfather. This followed a decade of physical and sexual abuse not by one but by two men. The system had failed them, and it fails so many children around Australia and in other countries around the world. This is why this legislation is what's needed to defeat these people, to put them away and to never let them have contact with children again. If I had my way, I would bring back capital punishment for people like that. This man got 28 years in jail. Hopefully he'll rot and die in jail, because that's what he deserves.

Child sexual abuse is one of the most heinous crimes. To rob a child of their childhood—to abuse those too young to understand or those too afraid to say no—is monstrous. I have another example. I met a woman who, from the age of eight to 14, was raped by her stepfather continually for six years. The only way they found out was the fact that she fell pregnant. This is back in the late seventies in Victoria. She was taken to court. It was one of the first ever sexual abuse court cases in Victoria. The stepfather got 2½ years jail. That is not satisfactory; that is not protection for children.

For too long our laws have been inadequate. The bill introduces reforms which criminalise emerging forms of child sexual abuse and strengthen community protections from child sex offenders. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 targets all aspects of the child sex offender cycle by strengthening measures at the time of charging, bail, sentencing and upon release. Under the new laws, child sex offenders will spend longer in jail and will be less likely to be granted bail and parole. There has been some discussion that there shouldn't be mandatory sentencing. My support for mandatory sentencing for these people is absolute. They will face mandatory minimum sentences and be closely supervised following their release. They shouldn't be released.

The advancement of technology has seen emerging forms of child sexual abuse. These laws are adding an offence of providing electronic services to facilitate dealings with child abuse material. As it currently stands the code doesn't specifically criminalise the provision of electronic services—for example, website or chat fora, often hosted on the dark web—to facilitate online dealings with child abuse material. This amendment bill will make it an offence for a person to provide an electronic service with the intention that the service be used for access to child abuse material.

We have heard some doubts in this area, in that teenagers might end up in jail. I can tell you a story about a young Aboriginal child in the north of Western Australia who lived in a community where his abusers were his own peers. He was seven and his abusers were 10, 11 and 12, and he was repeatedly raped by these abusers. It is in the environment where these kids live and grow up that we need to take hold of these situations and address these issues. This kid eventually became involved in a system that taught him self-respect, and the abuse stopped; he was so proud, and he wore a special T-shirt. Then the government withdrew funding for that program. It amazes me that as a society we can see something that is working successfully to protect children and then we withdraw funding that assists in those areas. If it takes emotion and the necessary hard line to protect children in our society, that is what we need.

The amendments in this bill also add an offence of grooming third parties using the post or a carriage service to procure children for sexual activity. These measures also clarify that live-streamed child abuse is captured in existing Criminal Code offences. Recently in the UK there was a story about people grooming children online. When the authorities got into the system, they found that over 3,000 children not only had been groomed online but had been blackmailed to take photos performing sexual acts for the people who put themselves up as their peers and friends online, and then they abused them. These men were all from the Middle East, aged from 21. This is the type of stuff we need to stop. The new offences will criminalise the transmission of communications using these services to a third party who is not the child victim, with the intention of making it easier to procure a specific child for sexual activity.

The coalition's new laws ensure the sentencing of child sex offenders is reflective of the gravity of this type of offending. For too long we've read news stories of paedophiles being released on parole after a menial sentence that in no way represents the years of damage their actions have caused—and there is a stat regarding the time they spend in jail. These new laws also increase penalties for certain offences, including grooming offences and offences for using a carriage service to engage in sexual activity.

Since 2012, only 58.7 per cent of those convicted of Commonwealth child sex offences have received a term of imprisonment. This will stop that. That 58.7 per cent of child sex offenders will go to jail. They need to go to jail. That's over half of those sentenced walking free after committing these types of crimes.

In closing I'd like to thank the minister for bringing this legislation on a subject that is dear to my heart. My sister suffered sexual abuse and in the process died, when she was very young, at the age of 12. This is the type of thing we need. We need stronger laws and we need to be far more specific about what we are going to do with these people. I would like to thank those on the other side of the chamber who have supported this for the speeches and contributions they've made on this legislation as well. This is something that we can do as a parliament and as individuals.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017. There is no-one in this chamber who wouldn't agree that the changes we're seeing in society, the changes we're seeing with the internet around child sex abuse and in making it easier for a lot of things to happen that have never happened before because the internet didn't exist—that all of this is really frightening. When my two children were young there was no access to the internet for them. There was no social media. In a very short time the online world has, sadly, made our children more vulnerable.

There is huge growth in the number of people who are viewing and sharing child abuse images. The volume is so large that the Australian Federal Police can't investigate and prosecute more than a very small proportion of the crimes. The AFP receive more than 10,000 reports of child sexual exploitation every year. That's the known number, but it would appear that children often do not report disturbing online activity, even when the offender attempts to contact them outside the internet. If we just look at online grooming, sexual solicitation incidents: in a significant US study, only one-quarter of the children who had encountered a sexual approach reported it to a parent, and only 10 per cent of approaches were reported to the police, to the internet service provider or to any other authorities, such as a teacher. Very little research has been undertaken on the impact on children of these attempted solicitations. The same study indicates that approximately a quarter of the children who had been solicited for sexual purposes reported being extremely upset or afraid, with younger children—those 10 to 13 years—reporting a greater adverse impact. In spite of that, they're not necessarily reporting what we all know is a crime.

Similar findings have been reported in the small Australian survey of adolescent students. Only one-quarter of the children who had been sexually solicited told a parent. No reports were made to police. One-third of the children didn't disclose the solicitation at all. These studies, known as the Finkelhor and NAPCAN studies, provide support for the view that children often keep cyberfriendships—that's the name they're given—a secret from parents and sometimes friends.

We know there is a crime happening there. We have a real problem. Sexual predators are making use of technology on apps that the rest of us use every day, like Snapchat, FaceTime and Skype. Not just Australian children, but children in countries all over the world, are victims of cyber sex abuse. The modern day patterns of behaviour and the use of technology that enable 21st century paedophiles and criminals to harm our children are a frightening evolution of these disgusting people. So reforms that target and punish the offenders are welcome in this bill. We will vote for this bill and wholeheartedly support the object of keeping children safe. There are many things we support in this bill, including the new grooming offences that are contained in it, and the clarification that this bill provides on the scope of some of the child sex offences that are contained in the Criminal Code.

I particularly support the change in terminology. As a former journalist I know words are not something that you take lightly. They have meaning and implications for people. I support the change in words to describe the material in question. 'Child abuse materials' is a much stronger phrase than 'child pornography', which doesn't recognise the seriousness and exploitation of these images. Children are harmed in their creation, but the abuse is repeated every time someone else views those photos, and each of those people should be punished.

In their efforts to be tough on the sexual predators of children, though, I think the government have failed to take the really tough steps that should be put in place for the sake of children everywhere. That's why we will move amendments in the Senate to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. We want to see higher maximum sentences. We believe courts should be able to lock up the worst offenders for life. Predators who go overseas to prey on vulnerable children should face tougher penalties. We want to see the laws better recognise and respond to the technological ability offenders have to watch child abuse remotely through webcams and live streaming, and are sure that this is as much a crime as being in the same room as a child who is being sexually abused. We want to see the people who incite or direct the production of child abuse material—for instance, in online chat rooms—face severe penalties for encouraging people to do hideous things to children.

We want to see these people punished, we want them off the streets and we also want policies that work. Sadly, mandatory sentencing doesn't work, and I'm going to speak about that in a little bit more detail. There are a number of other amendments that we will move. As an example, we think that the defence based on a valid and genuine marriage, which currently exists for child sex offences, should be removed. Both the Law Council of Australia and Anti-Slavery Australia have called for this.

I add that, if you're serious about protecting children—which I believe everybody in this place is—why would you slash the Australian Federal Police budget? They are already unable to investigate the reports that they get. The AFP suffered a $184 million cut in the last budget, and 151 AFP officers have been let go this year. Seriously, a bill won't make up for the fact that the capacity to enforce the law has been weakened by this government.

I turn to the issue of mandatory sentencing. We do reject the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill because they won't work and they lead to fewer convictions. And that's not something any of us want to see; we want to see more convictions. The government's own Attorney-General's Department says that mandatory minimums should be avoided, as they can create an incentive for defendants to fight the charges, even in clear-cut cases. What that means is that victims are more likely to need to go to court—to go through a torturous court process—simply because of the application of mandatory minimum sentences.

Mandatory minimum sentences also mean that there is less incentive for people to plead guilty or to provide information to the police. We need the people who are identified and caught to spill their guts about the other people who are involved in these heinous crimes. We need to have leverage to be able to get information out of them. This is not just me, the member for Macquarie, having an opinion. This is looking at the facts and the evidence, and what that evidence shows us is that mandatory sentencing does not provide that opportunity. Mandatory sentencing means there's less incentive for people to plead guilty, and the other side of it is that juries are less willing to convict. We see, time and time again, that juries are much happier to make a conviction. That's what the evidence shows. You need only talk to the Law Council of Australia to see that evidence.

Lest there be any doubt about Labor's record in this area—and I would really urge the government to consider these things closely, not have some knee-jerk political reaction to them—Labor always has and always will fight to protect children here and overseas from exploitation and abuse.

We're proud of our record under Prime Ministers Keating, Rudd and Gillard, which included introducing world-leading offence categories targeting Australians who engage in sexual abuse of children. That was in 1994. We brought federal, state and territory governments together in 2009 to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, which included a funding commitment of $63.6 million over four years from the Commonwealth government. We introduced new child abuse preparatory offences and other protection measures in 2010. We established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the first inquiry of its kind at a national level. The royal commission, among other things, has inquired into how systems have failed to protect children and made recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse that occurs in institutions. We appointed Australia's first National Children's Commissioner in 2013 to advocate for the rights of Australia's young people, and we introduced the vulnerable witnesses act in 2013. We are committed to doing everything that can be done to protect children from harm and abuse, and we wholeheartedly support the object of this bill. We have no tolerance for child sexual abuse.

In the time that remains, I would like for a moment to put aside the fact that mandatory minimum sentencing is an easy, populist, but costly and discriminatory, criminal justice policy that has never actually worked and look at the fact that mandatory minimum sentencing also ignores judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is at the heart of our criminal justice system. It allows the law to be applied to the immeasurable ways in which a crime presents itself. If we remove judicial discretion, we may as well give the gavel to a robot—and yes, we're talking about child sex offenders. Unless those opposite have a crystal ball that allows them to know every way in which a crime will present itself, I think it is safer for us to look at the history of mandatory minimum sentencing and take our lessons from that.

There has been case after case where mandatory minimum sentencing has not worked. The impact of introducing mandatory sentencing for property offences in the Northern Territory in 1997 is an example of how vital judicial discretion is. I'm going to give you one example that unfortunately speaks volumes—that of a 15-year-old Aboriginal boy, Johnno, who stole pencils. He was taken from his remote community in the Northern Territory and imprisoned 800 kilometres away in Darwin. His mum had passed away when he was a baby, his father had been killed in a motor accident a few years prior, and at the time of his trial and sentencing his grandmother, who was his primary carer, was in hospital. But, in the hands of the jurisdiction with mandatory minimum sentencing, none of that could be taken into account. Johnno didn't need jail time to pull him into line. As it turned out, jail time in fact was the worst answer to this question. Five days out from the end of his sentence, Johnno hung himself with his bed sheet in his cell.

This isn't the same, and I know that those on the other side will say, 'Yeah, but that was pencils,' but this is a principle that runs through our legal system. Without the subjective guidance and discretion of judges we find ourselves in situations where kids are sentenced to jail for stealing pencils. The Law Council of Australia told the Senate committee inquiry that there would be similar unintended consequences. For instance, there could be conduct in a relationship between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old where images are exchanged and sexual stories shared, yet the day the older partner turns 18 they could be liable for mandatory prison time. That is a potential unintended consequence of this legislation and a key example of why the Law Council opposes mandatory sentencing in all forms.

I point out that the government's own Attorney-General's Department says mandatory minimums should be avoided. This is not political. Prominent Liberals, including former Prime Minister John Howard, members opposite and Senator Marise Payne, have expressed concern about mandatory minimum sentencing in the past. I urge the government not to play politics with this issue. We are on the same side. We all want to see harsher penalties. In fact, as our amendments that will be moved in the Senate will show, we want harsher penalties than those opposite want. Children are too important for there to be word games around this issue. The Labor Party is serious about justice for the victims of sex crimes and appropriate punishment for those who commit these crimes. Like those opposite, we have no tolerance for the sexual abuse of children. That is why each of us is standing here today proposing that this bill go further, that this bill be harder, because these crimes should be met with the harshest of sentences, and it is best that we leave the judges to do the judging.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's with a heavy heart that I rise today—not because I don't support this bill, but because we need to enact legislation to try to prevent child sexual abuse. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 represents tough new laws. It represents the greatest crackdown on paedophilia in a generation. They say it takes a village to raise a child, but I also say it takes a village to protect a child. I want to thank the member for Swan, and the previous speaker, for their contributions. The member for Swan's contribution was heartfelt and a significant contribution to the debate.

Before I address the House in relation to the specifics of this bill, I would like to recognise a campaign that is being run by YGAP. We held a morning tea for it in my office yesterday. YGAP promotes a campaign called Polished Man, which seeks to raise awareness of sexual and physical violence against children. We had a number of people from this House come to my office yesterday to support the Polished Man campaign, and I would like to point them out specifically. They were: the Chief Government Whip, Nola Merino; the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, Angus Taylor; the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien; the member for Bonner, Ross Vasta; the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson; the member for Dunkley, Chris Crewther; and the member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski. This is not just a 'this side of the House' thing. It was also supported by members opposite, for which I'm very grateful: the member for Burt, Matt Keogh, and the member for Macarthur, Dr Mike Freelander. Importantly, the Minister for the Environment and Energy was there, and, most importantly, the Prime Minister also came and showed his support. The Prime Minister said, 'As we know, not all acts of disrespecting women or children lead to violence, but that's where it begins.' This is about respecting the women and children in our lives and showing them love. That is when we are closest to being our very best and when we are closest to God—when we are showing love. All of us have a vested interest and a duty to look after all of our children.

This event yesterday in my parliamentary office followed a similar morning tea that we had in my own electorate in Fisher, where I had prominent sporting men and businessmen attend the event, such as: Chris Flannery, the CEO of Sunshine Coast Falcons; Matt Soper-Lawler, the winger and top try scorer for the Sunshine Coast Falcons; Jack Hansen, the head coach of Alexandra Headland Surf Club; Ashley Robinson, the general manager of Alexandra Headland Surf Club and the chairman of the Sunshine Coast Falcons; Clayton Williams, a local businessman; and Peppi Bueti, a local businessman. The media got behind us as well, as they did yesterday. People like Danielle Ford, Dan Toney, Charles Hodgson and Hailey Francis painted nails to support the cause of Polished Man.

People might ask: 'Why polish a nail? What's that got to do with sexual assault against children?' I think it would be fair to say that most men don't walk around with a polished nail. The purpose of the Polished Man campaign is to engender a conversation, particularly amongst men, so that we can start to drive a culture in our country that speaks up against violence against children—that we as men, in particular, say, 'Enough is enough.' It is utterly unacceptable for men to disrespect women and children by committing acts of violence against them and even more so when those acts of violence involve acts of sexual violence. For a person to have an instant moment of sexual gratification which will leave a child scarred for life, physically and mentally, is abhorrent and almost beyond words. What is it particularly about some men that they would rather put their own sexual gratification for a short moment above the life of a child who will carry that event with them for the rest of their lives? It's a rhetorical question, but I will never understand that attitude.

According to the World Health Organization, 150 million girls and 73 million boys worldwide under the age of 18 have experienced sexual violence. Just ponder on this: one child dies every five minutes around the world at the hands of an adult. That is part of the significance of Polished Man. We wear a polished nail on one out of our five fingers as one child dies every five minutes. All funds raised in the Polished Man campaign go to trauma recovery and trauma prevention programs for children who've suffered or who are at risk of suffering from violence and sexual violence around the world.

I turn now to the bill. This bill provides a comprehensive re-examination of the way in which we deal with those who commit the most heinous of crimes against our children. It amends various provisions that we currently have in our Criminal Code. It amends vulnerable witness protection measures to prevent children and other vulnerable witnesses from being cross-examined at a committal proceeding. We all know—well, some may not, but, as barrister of 16 years, I can tell you—this is an experience that many children find harrowing.

The bill also seeks to introduce a presumption against bail for certain Commonwealth child sexual offences. If a person is charged with an offence against a person, there should be a presumption against bail. They should be in a show-cause position where they have to show cause for why it is that they should get bail. It is not a landmark concept. Offences of violence in Queensland put an accused person in a show-cause position.

These provisions include additional factors which must be taken into account when sentencing federal offenders to ensure they are appropriate, given the nature of the offending. They create a presumption in favour of an actual term of imprisonment. This amendment will ensure that, unless exceptional circumstances exist, all child sex offenders serve an actual term of imprisonment, rather than receiving sentences that are wholly or partially suspended. It requires that when a court is making a recognisance release order for a child sexual offender the offender be put under supervision, and it sets rehabilitation treatment as a condition unless it's otherwise inappropriate.

The provisions include a presumption in favour of cumulative sentences. Many in this place who aren't legally trained perhaps wouldn't understand that. For example, in the United States we hear about people serving multiple life sentences. In Australia, generally sentences are handed down concurrently—it doesn't matter how many offences you commit; you generally get a sentence which reflects the one sentence. So, if you've committed five offences, you would generally only get a penalty as though it was one. That will not be the case under these provisions, and I think that that's a very good thing. Why do I say that? It is because, if an offender has committed an offence against, say, five or six children, and is sentenced as though it was one person, what does that say to the other four or five kids? What does that say to them? It really demeans the experience that they've been through. This amendment will provide greater disincentive, greater deterrence, for those committing similar offences.

These provisions will list community safety as a factor that can be taken into account to revoke a federal offender's parole without notice. They will require a period of time to be served in custody if parole is revoked.

These provisions will also introduce mandatory sentencing for certain Commonwealth child sex offences. The office of the Commonwealth DPP has advised that it appeals a high number of child sex offence cases due to manifestly inadequate sentences imposed by judges at first instance and for repeat offences. Mandatory minimum sentences will apply to the most serious child sex offences. Mandatory minimum sentences reflect the heinous nature of child sexual abuse. The provisions introduce mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders. Mandatory sentencing schemes will also apply to child sex offenders who have previously been convicted of a child sex offence, including state and territory offences.

Since 2012, only 58.7 per cent of convicted Commonwealth child sex offenders have received a term of imprisonment, and the average for those who do get a term of imprisonment is six months. This issue was raised, interestingly, by a very significant retired District Court judge, Judge Wall QC, who just last week criticised the recent sentences that were being handed down. He mentioned the case not of a child sexual assault but of a physical assault which led to the death of a child. He called them 'manifestly inadequate'. He also said that many of the judges of first instance—trial judges and sentencing judges—are concerned that, if they hand down too harsh a sentence, they'll be slapped down by the Court of Appeal. Whilst I am not a huge fan of mandatory sentencing in all cases, in this case it is called for. In this case, where we have the most heinous of crimes, we need to set a floor. We need to set a minimum so that judges can't go underneath that minimum. The Labor Party has itself supported mandatory minimum sentences in relation to child- and people-smuggling laws. (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to 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.