Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened to the speeches of previous speakers on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010. It is always something that is impressed upon you as a parent that, but for the grace of God, these things could have an impact on any of our lives. When we have a country and a parliament utterly committed to the stamping out of the trafficking and abuse of children, you have to ask the question: why is it that something which is seen so clearly by us does not seem to be so clear in other parts of the world? I am not saying that we have a completely clean slate in this country. Obviously there are evil people within this country who have preyed on children here and overseas. We have a complete disregard for them. But why is it that there are some places in the world where there is such acceptance of this that it is almost to the point of an industry? I wonder why that is.

I offer the suggestion that it happens in places where the democratic spirit and the governance of true democracy are not as strong as they are here and in other places in the developed world. I think that that is an important element in all this. In some places it might not be a central government; it might be a provincial government or it might be the administration of justice in a small town, in Asia or Africa. It is in those places where, as I said, the democratic belief, the governance and the controls are weak and corruption can result in these problems.

It would be right to say that in this country there is no offence, no crime, more disturbing than crimes against children. This is particularly so where sexual offences are those crimes. It is right that we have a disregard for offenders in these matters. We call them rock spiders and we call them subhuman, because they use power and trust to take advantage of those that are weaker than they are. These evil people cause damage that will last for the whole life of the victim. There are few victims that will ever be able to recover completely and go on to lead a normal life.

Indeed, I would say that there is great doubt that, on the other side, a person that has committed such a crime can ever be trusted in our society again. Those that I have met working in the prison system will often just confirm that view, that such offenders are beyond rehabilitation. Although I have spoken before against the death penalty, I think that it is appropriate that those who commit sexual offences against children languish in prison for as long as possible, to reflect on their inhumanity and their evil so that they can come to know a sense of the greatest shame, which will be with them for the remainder of their lives.

We are united in this place against such evil and to impose not only the greatest penalties but also the greatest certainty of offenders being caught. Although I will go into the bill in more detail, the point I would particularly like to make is that it was through the previous government’s action on these matters that we saw the creation of the Australian Federal Police team to combat online child sex exploitation, which comprises experienced investigators, forensic analysts, psychologists and IT experts. I believe that the AFP’s role is absolutely critical in the safety of our children both here and overseas. I say that because it is through the internet that those with perverse or sexual interests in children can be identified. The AFP can identify those whose internet searches reveal such interests. I also believe that it is through the internet that these suppressed evil urges are let loose and, if these people can be identified and prosecuted for offences to do with child pornography, they can be stopped before they try to actually assault a child.

In Australia we have had legislation regarding these specific matters for some time. Commonwealth child sex tourism offences were placed in the Crimes Act 1914 via the Crimes (Child Sex Tourism) Amendment Act 1994 and some amendments were made in a 2001 amendment act. On 18 December 2001 the then federal government signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. It was ratified on 8 January 2007, entering into force one month later, on 8 February 2007.

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010 and I join with other members in support of every attempt to provide the means to fight the evil that is out there. While we may have concerns about the practical applications of these offences outside Australia, the Australian people can always be certain of bipartisan support in the parliament when these matters are debated. Indeed, I understand that there was strong bipartisan support for the establishment of the Australian Federal Police Online Child Sex Exploitation Team in March 2005 by the then Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison. I would also say that Senator Ellison and I had some conversations at the time, and I share his views and his great concerns about dealing with these evil crimes.

With regard to bipartisan support, I also understand that there was support for the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004. In that act, new offences were prescribed for persons involved in the sexual abuse of children in a number of contexts. Those offences introduced by the Howard government included producing, distributing and accessing child pornography and child abuse material, taking away the anonymity of the internet. Those offences introduced included targeting and online grooming by sexual predators. Indeed, section 474.19 of the Criminal Code covers the use of the internet for child pornography—and that was part of the amendments in the 2004 act. Section 474.20 prescribes an offence as being possessing, producing, supplying or obtaining child pornography material for use through a carriage service.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004, and then the establishment of the Australian Federal Police Online Child Sex Exploitation Team in March 2005, represented a strong effort by the former coalition government in the area of protecting children. Nevertheless, in response to developments in technology as well as the ever-changing threats to children from the evil inherent in some people, governments must always be on their guard to ensure that the legislation meets the threat. That is why, on 13 September 2007, the previous government introduced into this place the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism Offences and Related Measures) Bill 2007. That bill, which lapsed when the election was called, included in its purpose provision for the forfeiture of child pornography and child abuse material and equipment containing such material. It also intended to update the language and structure offences regarding child sex tourism. It included a preparatory offence to capture the behaviour of people preparing to commit a child sex tourism offence. It intended to add new child sex tourism offences to capture the procuring and grooming of a child for the purposes of child sex tourism. It would also have made it an offence for Australian citizens and residents to possess, control, produce, distribute or obtain child pornography or abuse material while overseas.

That brings me to this bill, which aims to strengthen the existing child sex tourism offence regime. What is clear is that there are already a number of federal and state laws criminalising the possession, production or distribution of child pornography or child abuse material within Australia or illegally importing such material into Australia. A number of countries around the world, however, do not have effective laws against child pornography and child abuse material or lack the capacity to enforce them. As a result, an Australian traveller overseas can make or buy such pornography or abuse material and escape punishment, even though this same behaviour, if committed in Australia or through the internet, would be a serious criminal offence.

In particular, this legislation imposes penalties upon those planning and taking steps toward child sex tourism, with penalties of 10, 12 or 15 years. The penalty for the carrying out of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 will now be increased from 17 to 20 years in jail. I also appreciate the new aggravated offences which impose up to 25 years in jail for the sexual abuse of children by a person in a position of trust, where the child has a mental impairment. Other aspects of the legislation include strengthened postal offences for distribution of any form of material and the forfeiture of child pornography regardless of whether an offence was proven. As I said before, the only concern we have is the ability to implement some aspects of these laws. Apart from that and what may come out of subsequent inquiries, this has our support.

It was reported today in the Courier-Mail and other media that the Australian Privacy Foundation has asked the minister to rule out charging youths for sexting—that practice where photos of young people in various states of undress are sent by themselves to others they know. The Australian Privacy Foundation wants no criminality involved in this situation. I agree that sexting is not in its original sending intentionally child pornography, yet it may be the next time it is transmitted or the time after that. I think that, when you look at the intention involved, there could be an offence. I would, however, say that it is not healthy behaviour of teenagers to win favour with their friends by sending them fully or partially naked photos, nor is it right for so-called friends to pressure other young persons to have their photo taken and send it to others. How often have we heard of rising actresses who have gotten their big break only to be embarrassed by the emergence of compromising photos taken some years earlier? I think there is a need for some penalties in these cases in order to discourage this unhealthy behaviour. I would, however, say that, given that the intention was not originally to be child pornography, the distinction can be made.

I reiterate that I support this legislation, as I will always support legislation that takes steps to protect children. It is a harsh reality that there are evil people out there who will destroy the lives of vulnerable children for the sake of their own depravity. These less than human people exist in every nation and, sadly, there are some Australians who prey on children. Perhaps they try to prey on children here, or perhaps they pursue their depraved ambitions overseas via child sex tourism, or perhaps they use the internet, but through this legislation and the build-up of legislation, particularly since 1994, they are criminals and they are a threat, and it should be the intention of all Australians to pursue them, to identify them and to confine them in the prisons of this nation. They deserve only the full force of our laws, and they should remain in prison. Some people say that everyone deserves a second chance. What I would say is that there are some mistakes you only make once. Crimes to do with children are those ‘no second chance’ options. In the same way the damage and the hurt committed against children will affect them for the rest of their lives, so should be the consequences for evil action. I look forward to the passage of this bill.

See this speech in context