Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Sexual offending against children is as abhorrent a crime as any a person can commit. The public rightly expects that the parliament makes it as easy as possible to catch these predators, prosecute them and put them in jail, where they can't harm children for a very long time. This bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019, amends the Commonwealth Crimes Act and the Commonwealth Criminal Code to make a number of improvements to better protect 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'. These include provisions:

… to:

an—

…   …   …

…   …   …

and—

In contributing to the debate on this bill today, I will focus my comments on the measures within the bill which relate to the sentencing of child sex offenders, measures which I strongly believe in and which I am gobsmacked to hear that the Labor Party will seek to remove from the legislation by amendment today.

I am one of many Australians who feel that courts across this country have lost their way when it comes to sentencing of child sex offenders. Every week we read of horrific cases of child abuse where offenders get a suspended sentence or six months in jail or just a few years in prison for the rape of a child. These light sentences are wildly out of step with community expectations. They amount to the courts taking a deliberate risk, an unacceptable risk, that a convicted paedophile will abuse a child again in the future. I've spoken previously on the public record about the need for courts to better differentiate between lower-level crimes and perpetrators of the worst category of crimes, like child sex abuse and terrorism—offences where we should not be releasing offenders back into the community just to test a theory that they might be rehabilitated and won't again cause harm.

For property crimes or drug related crimes we accept as a community that there is a level of risk when an offender is released, and we tolerate that risk because it is ultimately in the interest of the community that these people are given a chance to rehabilitate, prove they can live within the law and contribute positively to society. This logic of giving an offender a chance has absolutely no place when it comes to terrorists or people who sexually abuse children. I do not accept that a court should roll the dice on the abuse of children by giving a convicted child rapist a second chance. The risk that an offender may abuse another child because the court speculated on their likely rehabilitation is not a risk we should ever accept. It isn't contested that a convicted paedophile is a risk to children after they're released from prison. That's why we have sex offender registers that record where these offenders live. Those registers are not an academic exercise. They are there to record the names and locations of people we know to pose a risk of abusing children again.

What kind of system is this, where we catch a person who abuses children, convict them in court and then let them out again while acknowledging they still have a high risk of harming another child? The only time when we can be sure that convicted paedophiles won't harm children is when they're in prison. Yet the courts consistently pass up the opportunity to apply anywhere near the maximum life sentences, even for the most horrific examples. The difference between an offender walking free from court after being found guilty and an offender receiving a seven-year mandatory jail sentence—which this bill provides for, with a number of offences—is over 2,500 days, during which a predator is in the community and has the opportunity to inflict more abuse on children.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. Evidence presented to the Senate inquiry conducted by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, showed that, according to one study, 20 per cent of child sex offenders were caught reoffending again within six years, and that's just the ones who were caught and convicted. So, in at least one in five cases, letting a child sex offender walk free can be expected to result in more children being abused, and this should be utterly unacceptable to us as a nation. We know that the rate of convictions resulting in custodial sentences is low, meaning many child sex offenders are released straight back into the community. From 1 February 2014 to 31 January 2019, 40 per cent of sentences for Commonwealth child sex offences did not result in a custodial period. For those offenders who did receive a custodial sentence during this time, the most frequent custodial period recorded was just six months. Again, this is completely unacceptable, and something must be done. That's why we need mandatory sentencing for child sex offenders.

Personally, I hope that the provisions in this bill are just the first step towards a complete recalibration of sentencing for child sex offenders in this country. People who rape and sexually abuse children are the worst of the worst, alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists. And, far from a reduction in the sexual abuse of children, instances of child sex crimes are escalating dramatically. Last year, the Australian Federal Police received almost 18,000 reports of child exploitation involving Australian children or Australian child sex offenders. This number has almost doubled from the previous year. That's ample evidence that current sentencing does nothing to deter people from committing these crimes. Eighteen thousand reports of child abuse—sadly, there would be an equally disturbing number of cases which aren't reported.

Having sat through two Senate committee inquiries into sex offence crimes, I can list several arguments used against mandatory sentencing for sex offenders which I find to be particularly spurious. The first of these arguments—and this is the one most commonly brought up by legal groups and by the Labor Party—is that there isn't evidence to show that tougher sentencing will deter people from committing these crimes. We've had an increase of almost 100 per cent in reports of child abuse, and you don't want to even try and send a stronger deterrence message? Surely any attempt to increase deterrence is worth a try. What's the downside? That paedophiles spend longer in jail? Good—they deserve to. Deterrence is certainly not the only reason, or even the main reason, to implement mandatory sentencing. In my view, the No. 1 reason for mandatory sentencing is the increased community protection from having predators behind bars for a significantly longer period than we're currently seeing. A paedophile can't harm a child while they're in prison; when they're out of prison, they can. It's that simple.

Another spurious argument against mandatory sentences is that reoffending after release somehow proves that prison is contributing to the reoffending. I find this a completely backwards argument. If a paedophile reoffends after leaving prison, that demonstrates that the community would have been much safer if that person had still been behind bars. Courts should not be gambling on the assumption that paedophiles might learn their lesson and see the error of their ways. The consequence of them being wrong is another child being abused, when their abuser could've been in jail. Community safety and, most importantly, the safety of children must always come first.

That's why this government is legislating for additional mandatory jail time for a second or subsequent conviction for child sex offences—an important step. I note that the organisation Bravehearts has advocated for consideration being given to introducing mandatory life sentences for persistent offenders. I certainly support that proposal—most importantly, at the state level, as states have jurisdiction over so many of the most serious forms of child abuse. And, if the courts are giving weight to the chances of rehabilitation, why does the evidence show that current sentencing practices are delivering sentences too short for offenders to even complete the rehabilitation programs that they're offered in prison? The most common sentence, of six months, is not long enough to complete or even commence rehabilitation programs, according to state correctional services. The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for child sex offenders is doubtful, and I don't think we should be relying on their effectiveness, but it has to be better that offenders are in jail long enough to complete a rehabilitation program rather than being released before the program finishes.

I want to conclude my contribution today by reflecting on the views of victims of child abuse—people who deserve to be listened to because they know, more than anyone, the damage done by these heinous predators. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill heard that it is the common view of survivors that sentences for child sexual offences should be more severe and survivors report feeling let down after the stress and, often, trauma of the trial process. We heard that it is especially difficult for survivors when actual imprisonment is not imposed. The Carly Ryan Foundation submitted that:

Current sentencing for these and other appalling crimes against children is currently completely inadequate in each state often resulting in suspended sentences or sentences delivered of only a few months. The Australian community expects our legal system to deliver justice for such inexcusable and horrendous crimes against children and those victims of crime deserve this justice given the life long suffering endured if the victim survives the offence committed against them.

Victims of abuse deserve better. Victims of abuse deserve justice. They deserve to know that it will be a very long time before their abuser is back in the community. Most of all, those who are yet to come forward deserve to know that if they go through the pain and trauma of reporting their abuse then it will be worthwhile, and they won't see their abuser found guilty and convicted yet walk free from the court or just get a slap on the wrist of a six-month sentence.

That's why I'm so disappointed that Labor are seeking to deny justice to the victims of child sex crimes by removing the mandatory sentencing element from this legislation with their amendment today. In a democratic society, it is the job of elected parliaments to make laws, including sentencing laws. The constant suggestion that it's inappropriate for us in this place to make laws which reflect the views of the community because this limits judicial discretion is a tiresome misrepresentation of the role of democratically elected parliaments. We have courts and judges to apply the laws, not to make them. That's our job. So, to those who say we can't implement mandatory sentences for paedophiles because it implies that the community doesn't have faith in the courts to hand down adequate sentences, I say this. I can assure you that, when 40 per cent of convicted child sex offenders don't spend a day in prison, the community does not have faith in the way courts are sentencing for child sexual abuse. Now is the chance for this parliament to do as the community expects and send the strongest possible message that child sexual abuse is the most abhorrent of crimes and the perpetrators should be put behind bars for a long time, every time. I commend the bill to the Senate.