Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There will be no disagreement in this chamber, or from the overwhelming majority of Australians, that we should be supporting every component of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010. I want to acknowledge, as a Queensland MP who was very closely involved with the debates around the placement of Dennis Ferguson in 2008, that feelings run extraordinarily high, both about this kind of domestic sexual offence and about the fact that it can be committed, regrettably, by Australians overseas.

I want to acknowledge Hetty Johnston, who has worked very hard in this area for a number of years. I want to acknowledge the gravity of the offences that we are talking about and the fact that those who are involved are in many cases—though it is not for me to define—people who are unable to be rehabilitated. They present extraordinary and complex challenges both to the law and to incarceration facilities. A significant proportion of people involved in sexual offences of this kind have low IQs and are extremely difficult to deal with from juvenile level and upwards. That makes the challenge even more complex. Our support for the AFP would also be completely unquestioned. As you speak to people in the streets, they say, ‘Whatever funding is required to do this job, we would support that.’ I think the AFP could take that message on board: that, of all the inquiries the AFP engage in, there are some—not all, but some—for which there is uniform support. This would be one of those situations.

The community has a right to expect some form of safety and to know that the state will act on known risks to minimise those risks wherever possible. A question I often hear is, ‘There are thousands of these kinds of people, so how can you expect the state to find a solution for everyone?’ The state is responsible for every safety risk it is informed of and that it knows of. So, in this sort of instance, we have legislation maximising the ability of the state—in this case, the AFP and its investigation units—to apprehend these individuals. We are talking today about overseas offences. I note that Australia is a wealthy county. It is a country that is proud of its international reputation. It is a country whose citizens travel greatly and which has an obligation to make sure that this never besmirches our reputation. Australians travel often, they are wealthy and they are in a position to buy all sorts of goods and services. Unfortunately, an extremely tiny minority use this to their own advantage to possess, control, produce or distribute this kind of material.

I am very keen to see these kinds of changes implemented. They come in two parts. The first schedule is that all types of behaviour relating to these kinds of sexual offences committed by Australians are just as applicable before the law if committed overseas as they are if they are done before state and territory authorities within the country. Part 2 of schedule 1 introduces new offences for the use of a postal or similar service for these kinds of activities, because at the moment it is basically limited to ‘menacing, harassing or causing offence’, which in itself carries a two-year penalty. This legislation clears up those inconsistencies about the use of carriage or postal services in child sex activities. Also, in part 2 of schedule 1, there is now coverage of offences that use a carriage service such as the internet for child pornography. That is obviously important in relation to the news issues we have heard over the last couple of years. Changes relating to any distribution of child pornography, child abuse material or sexual activity with children were made in 2005—inserted in the Criminal Code—and that has been extended and improved. In part 3 of schedule 1 there are minor consequential amendments—changes to the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications Act—to further enable law enforcement agencies to be at the cutting edge of tracking down these kinds of activities by a small number of individuals. Schedule 2, noting that there is currently no specific Commonwealth scheme for dealing with child pornography or abuse material that is seized in investigations, sets out that that can now occur and that material can be forfeited.

I would be just like every other member of this place except that in Queensland in 2008 we had the local experience of having a known sex offender—one who did not have existing charges before the courts—placed in our community without any notification whatsoever. I would extend the debate around this bill today to say that it is my strong view that we should not patronise Australian communities and assume that they cannot deal with the fact that individuals like this have to be placed somewhere. I think every family out there would expect that the state can find somewhere safe for these individuals. I do not think that is too much to ask. We are looking at weighing up the respective rights of individuals. One side of the equation is a demonstrated risk to children; the other side is the community. So I think it is completely unacceptable to move an individual silently and secretly into a location and then expect the community not to react with abhorrence. All that one can ask is that these locations are not within walking distance of a childcare centre, a primary school or where young people gather. I do not think that people are asking too much. I do not think they should be called ‘rednecks’. I do not think they should be criticised for having those kinds of basic and completely justifiable fears. For all of the psychiatric evaluations telling us that the current location is ‘safe’, I can understand if a community does not quite share those feelings.

What we saw in 2008 was greatly disappointing not because it was done but because our community was turned into—as I described it then and I would describe it again—a Guantanamo Bay. It got to the stage where there were so many police trying to protect the community from a sex offender—but in many respects it was more like they were protecting a sex offender from the community—that we had a massive diversion of police resources to one location. It was unsustainable. It was disappointing that at the community rally there was absolutely no indication that the state government would respond to the community’s concerns. They effectively stonewalled the community. I think that was unacceptable and it further inflamed the situation. It presented lessons for other communities that will have the same problem in the future. When we finally did ask for a meeting and put simple requests to the minister, we were again stonewalled—but not before some hand-picked members of the community were brought up, given tea and scones, massaged by the minister and then encouraged to support the status quo. That was disappointing, but then a week later we realised that the feet were moving much faster than the body above the water and things were eventually moved, and this poor unfortunate individual was moved.

In that time, Crikey had a feast as well. I was disappointed to see their mid-June 2008 article where they referred to politicians ‘seizing upon the issue to boost their political stocks’ and obtaining plenty of coverage by referring to this location as Guantanamo Bay—when they had not actually even visited to see exactly what was going on. They then referred to it as ‘a moment in the sun’ and ‘an opportunity to boost a political margin’. Without reading this in depth, you could see the author word-crafting himself into complete irrelevance to a community’s concerns. The dubious contribution from Crikey did very little except attempt to highlight, if not isolate, members of elected parliaments in this country who simply stand up for a very basic concern that the community holds.

I do not pretend that there are any easy answers, but my one line is: do not deceive people, do not keep secrets, do not try to hide people and, for goodness sake, do not secrete them into ordinary parts of the community and expect local people not to find out and be absolutely aghast when they do discover what is going on. We have to find a solution. State legislators will have to find a solution. Federally I think we have done the right thing with Commonwealth legislation. But I make my final point: if the intent is purely to deny elected members a victory in finding a solution to a problem like this then Crikey has done ordinary people no service, although it might well have earned a few laughs from political people who enjoy reading its columns. There is a bigger issue at stake here, and that is that there are very few simple solutions but legislators need to be supported to develop what has been put to this chamber today and the equally challenging but far more widespread concern of domestic child abuse right here in Australia. This will not be easy for state legislators, but there is one thing that I as a federal member will not stand for, and that is state agencies secreting these individuals into communities quietly, silently and secretly and not treating communities like adults. We need to have this debate. We need to find locations for these individuals and protect the safety and the rights of communities that, after all, have not broken the law or engaged in these abhorrent acts.

See this speech in context