Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens of course are supportive of the stated objectives of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 and we support most of the provisions in this legislation. The explanatory memorandum states:

This Bill better protects the community from the dangers of child sexual abuse by addressing inadequacies in the criminal justice system that result in outcomes that insufficiently punish, deter or rehabilitate offenders. The Bill targets all stages of the criminal justice process, from bail and sentencing through to post-imprisonment options.

Senator Watt went through the schedules to this bill in some detail and made it clear that the Australian Labor Party does not support schedule 6. I can indicate to the Senate that that is also the position of the Australian Greens. It's worth pointing out, before I go to that in detail, that there were some submissions to the committee inquiry into this legislation which raised some technical concerns with various other parts of this bill, and that is why the Greens, in our dissenting report to that inquiry, recommended that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted without mandatory minimum sentencing and with consideration of the technical concerns raised in various legal submissions to this inquiry.

With regard to mandatory minimum sentencing, unfortunately the government has continued its evidence-free ideological agenda of attempting to legislate—and, in some cases, legislating—mandatory minimum sentencing. We will also be moving amendments in the committee stage which seek to remove schedule 6 and insert a requirement for a review. Ultimately, the government's position here is ideological, because evidence just doesn't support the government's agenda. There is any amount of research by sentencing experts, by criminologists, by justice experts, that has found that mandatory sentencing actually increases the likelihood of recidivism because, among other reasons, it makes offenders less likely to plead guilty and cooperate with authorities. For lower level offences, it places offenders in prison, where they are in, basically, a learning environment for crime and associating with people convicted of similar offences. It reinforces criminal identity and fails to address the underlying causes of crime.

To put into shorthand what all that evidence taken collectively shows, people who commit crimes, including crimes against children, don't believe they're going to get caught. So the best way to deter people from committing those crimes is to increase the chances that they will be caught. Because they don't believe they're going to be caught, mandatory minimum sentences do not play into their thought processes, such as they are. This is well known and has been well known for decades. But no. In come the Liberals, as usual, for political purposes and ideological purposes, wanting to go out and say they are tough on crime, when, in fact, the evidence shows they are anything but.

We understand the evidence in this context, and our amendments are based on that evidence. Like Senator Watt, I'll be very interested to hear what some of the government senators can offer, by way of evidence, that shows that this kind of approach will deliver the outcomes they say it will, because all of the available evidence shows that it will not. I'm not after sweeping motherhood statements here from coalition senators; I'm after actual evidence.

As I said, we submitted a dissenting report to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this legislation. In a submission to that inquiry, the Sexual Assault Support Service wrote:

Whilst we are strongly supportive of reform to strengthen punishments against those who sexually abuse children, we do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that mandatory minimum sentencing is an effective response.

Of course the Greens consider sexual offences committed against children to be extremely serious. We believe serious sex offenders should receive appropriate sentences that are, as submitted to the inquiry by knowmore, which is a nationwide free legal service for victims and survivors of child abuse:

… in line with increasing societal understanding of the seriousness of [sexual crimes against children] and the enduring impact of such offences on survivors.

However, the Greens, along with knowmore and most other legal experts and associations, do not believe that this includes mandatory minimum sentencing. One of the reasons we don't believe that kind of approach includes mandatory minimum sentencing is that it undermines fundamental rule-of-law principles and puts at risk enduring public safety outcomes. Sentences should be determined by the courts on the merits of each case, and mandatory minimum sentences fly against that principle.

One matter we will seek some clarity on, when we move into the committee stage of this legislation, relates to the offences of causing a child to engage in sexual activity with another person, using a carriage service, where the other person is also a child. I would place the minister and his advisers on notice that we would like to understand how, in that case, it would intersect with other pieces of legislation. For clarity, where the alleged perpetrator is themselves a minor, how would those provisions operate?

As I've said, we have an amendment to remove schedule 6 from this bill. We won't be opposing this legislation. We would like to see it passed without schedule 6, but we won't be opposing the legislation, because, as I indicated at the top of my speech, most of the provisions of this legislation are strongly supported by the Greens.