Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos (1) and (3) be agreed to and that amendment No. (2) be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendments Nos (1) and (3) and then, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendment No. (2). I move:

That Senate amendments Nos (1) and (3) be agreed to.

By way of explanation, the government will support amendments Nos (1) and (3). These amendments would see a statutory review of sentencing for offenders convicted of Commonwealth child sex offences with the findings to be reported to the parliament within four years of the bill coming into effect. A review of four years, rather than two or three as was suggested in the amendments by the Labor and the Greens, will ensure that the review properly captures the impact of this bill on sentencing outcomes for Commonwealth child sex offenders charged after the passage of the bill.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a lot that this bill gets right. Labor will always work with MPs and senators from all sides to strengthen our laws to protect our children. Nothing should get in the way of this objective. There is nothing more sickening than child sexual abuse. Children are the most precious and vulnerable members of our community and Labor will always support strong and effective laws to protect children from abuse and to punish their abusers.

I thank the government for agreeing to Labor's suggestion that there be a statutory review of Commonwealth sentencing practice in relation to child sexual abuse matters. That's what this first amendment deals with. That review is to commence within three years and to be completed within four. It will provide an opportunity to review the practice, the working, of the current settings of sentencing in this child sexual abuse area.

I would add that from the very beginning Labor have said that whether our amendments succeeded or failed in the Senate we would support this bill. That is what Labor did in the Senate last night—Labor supported this bill. The government has signalled that it will delay the passage of this bill indefinitely if Labor insist on our amendment to remove minimum sentencing from this bill. That's disappointing. The government has already delayed the passage of this bill for some eight months. Unlike the government, Labor will not allow the passage of this bill to be further delayed. For that reason, while we maintain our opposition to mandatory sentencing—because it does not work and makes it harder to catch, prosecute and convict criminals—we will not insist on our amendments relating to mandatory sentencing when the bill returns to the Senate. Protecting the welfare of children will always be Labor's overriding priority and concern.

Question agreed to.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now move:

That Senate amendment (2) be disagreed to.

The government will not agree to this amendment and that is on a matter of clear principle. The amendment would remove schedule 6 of the bill, which is the schedule that provides for mandatory minimum sentences for child sex offences that attract the highest penalties and to recidivist child sex offenders who have previously been convicted of a child sex offence. The government has taken the view since the inception of this legislation in 2017 that current sentencing practices for Commonwealth child sex offences are resulting in manifestly inadequate sentences that do not sufficiently recognise the harm suffered by victims or provide for adequate rehabilitation time in custody. The mandatory minimum provisions provided for in schedule 6 are critical and necessary to achieve this bill's overall intent of ensuring sentencing for child sex offences are drawn into line with community expectations.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. I think we're probably at the question, but I need to check. The question is amendment (2) be disagreed to. No further speakers? I'll put the question. If a division is required, it will proceed because it's on a motion moved by the Leader of the House. If it had been an amendment moved by a non-government member, it would have been deferred. The question has been framed in the negative, so it will be disagreed to. That will simply mean those voting aye are on the government side and those voting that it not be disagreed to are on the opposition side.

The question is that amendment (2) be disagreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side of the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of the two members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the reasons for the House disagreeing and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

Question agreed to.