Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017. To state the obvious, sexual abuse of children is abhorrent. The very thought of children being harmed in that way breaks my heart and I'm sure it breaks the heart of all members of this House. To give you some context, a fortnight ago my wife Lea and I celebrated the 25th anniversary of our very first date. For those entire 25 years, and for a few years before, she's either been a frontline child protection worker or a lawyer representing people giving evidence in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, or in her current role, which is as a prosecutor dealing with child abuse.

On Monday, Minister Keenan associated the Australian Labor Party, including me, with paedophilia or child abuse in a grubby, disgraceful and unforgivable tactic in this chamber. He stood right there, at that front bench. He said, whilst pointing at the Australian Labor Party, 'What is there to prevaricate about? We want paedophiles off the street and we believe this legislation deserved bipartisan support.' That is something I will never forgive him for, even if he comes back into this chamber and apologises. I will never, ever forgive his comments. They were disgraceful. The Australian Labor Party has a long, proud tradition of standing up for Australian children. Minister Robert Tickner commissioned the Bringing them home report. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generation was delivered on my first day in this chamber. Prime Minister Julia Gillard apologised to the victims of forced adoptions. Policies flowed from these apologies, such as the Closing the Gap commitments and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which Prime Minister Julia Gillard kicked off. We have a long, proud tradition—like those opposite, I will say—of standing up for Australian children wherever we can.

The extent of abuse uncovered by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has shocked Australia and the world. For my wife to transfer from being a social worker to being a lawyer—I thought I'd heard it all, and I've heard stuff that would break anybody's heart. Night after night after night, especially when she came home from night duty after not being able to go to the gym after work, I heard horrible stories over the last 25 years. Then she was to go and work for the royal commission, for no more, where she heard worse details of child abuse. That royal commission shone a spotlight on a shame that has been hidden for far too long, and I know those opposite would agree. Around 8,000 survivors of sexual abuse have given evidence in private sessions in the royal commission, and I thank the royal commissioners for the great work that they do. That must be an incredibly difficult process. There were 8,000 children who had their lives broken by vile paedophiles or sadists or both. There have been 2,393 referrals to authorities from the royal commission thus far—thus far—because of a Labor Party decision, because of a Labor Prime Minister's decision, to hold that royal commission. When institutions that are charged with caring for our children violate that trust, it shatters all trust in all institutions. I look forward, two years on, to some redress movement from this government.

The royal commission has reported some of the impacts of child sexual abuse on the victims and survivors. They report that there are both short-term and long-term effects, and many may be lifelong. Children and adolescents face emotional, physical and social impacts. These impacts often extend into adulthood, affect life choices and mental health and may lead to victims committing suicide, I'm sad to report. The nature and severity of the impacts vary between survivors, but it's all often incredibly horrible. The impacts extend beyond the immediate victims, affecting their parents, colleagues, friends and, sadly, sometimes their families and the community.

There is no doubt that all children deserve our protection and support. I commend the member for Hotham for her stance in this area. We know, as parents and as good politicians, that children are our most precious resource—hope distilled, as I've described it in the past—and they are also, sadly, the most vulnerable members of our community. We must do everything we can to protect every single child in Australia. But we also know that there will be more children who will be abused. We won't be able to protect every child, no matter how hard we try, and sadly some children will have their lives broken by predatory paedophiles. And, worse, more often than not, that abuse will be perpetrated by a family member. The very nature of child sexual abuse makes it difficult for children to disclose and for others to detect. Where infant children are involved, communicating the abuse becomes even more difficult. But, wherever child abuse is reported or detected and then prosecuted, the perpetrators of this most sickening crime should feel the full weight of Australian laws. They should be punished and they should be locked up.

We must make our laws the best they can be to give every child the maximum chance of living a childhood free from harm. I want to keep my own children safe; I want to keep the children in Moreton safe; I want to keep all Australian children safe. So Labor will be moving amendments to this bill in the Senate. Those amendments will make this bill tougher, giving greater protections to children who are at risk of being abused. We are seeking these amendments so that the bill will impose higher maximum sentences and courts can lock up the worst offenders for life. Our laws reflect the ever-changing ways that paedophiles procure their child victims and export vile images to other paedophiles on the web. People who incite others to commit child abuse will be subject to aggravated offences. These stronger measures, put forward by the member for Hotham, on passing through the Senate, will protect children. We know that paedophiles manipulate; they create opportunities for abuse like you wouldn't believe. The royal commission has recognised that it is often difficult for parents and others who care for children to recognise the grooming behaviour used by paedophiles to trap their victim. We need strong protections so that, when grooming behaviour is recognised, it is punished. The perpetrators should face tough penalties appropriate for such a heinous crime.

There is one aspect of this bill that Labor will not accept and that I personally do not support—that is, the provision of mandatory minimum sentences—for one simple reason: mandatory sentences do not work. We know that. The experts know that and have told us that. The Law Council of Australia, the peak body for lawyers, says:

Mandatory sentences actually make it harder to prosecute criminals, by removing the incentive for anyone to plead guilty or to provide information to the police. There is every incentive to fight on and appeal against convictions.

The Australian Institute of Criminology, the Queensland Law Society, the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council and prosecutors, just to name a few, have warned that, in some circumstances, where an offender is facing a mandatory jail sentence, a jury may refuse to convict. I repeat that: a jury may refuse to convict. Mandatory sentences make a good headline grab for a media-hungry politician, but sadly, they don't work. Even the Attorney-General's own departmental guidelines recognise this. We need laws that work, that will make it more likely that we can lock up paedophiles. This should not be about political ideology and grubby political posturing; it should be about protecting our children. It's no use having laws that say judges must lock up convicted paedophiles for a period of time, if those same laws make it less likely that paedophiles will be convicted. Mandatory sentences take away the discretion of the judge to determine an appropriate sentence in the circumstance of that particular case.

It's very easy to say, 'Paedophiles should be locked up regardless.' Many people would agree. I would agree. My wife would agree mostly vehemently, and, as I said, she has devoted nearly 30 years of her working life to protecting kids and hunting down paedophiles. But it is the unintended consequences of mandatory sentencing that create the mischief. You will see sentences that do not fit the crime. It would be a tragedy to see laws designed to protect children actually convicting young people engaging in normal adolescent behaviour and sending them to jail. Let me give some examples that have been provided by the Law Council of Australia:

For example, a 15 and 17-year-old might be sharing sexual images with each other in a consensual relationship, yet the day the older partner turns 18, under this legislation that 18-year-old would be looking at an automatic five-year sentence.

The 18 year old student would be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years jail.

The 18 year old would be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years jail.

The 18 year old would be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years jail.

The 18 year old who sent the text message would be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years jail.

An 18 year old boy and a 15 year old girl are in a relationship and constantly exchange intimate images. The boy has previously been convicted for a child sexual abuse offence.

He would be sentenced to a further three years mandatory jail. These could be any children. We could say, 'Children should not have phones; children should not send images.' I know what the world should be, but we also need to reflect the world as it is. These could be any children making poor decisions in any family, in any suburb of Australia. This is not the behaviour that this legislation was designed to catch, but it could easily happen in a suburb near you. These kids would be caught nonetheless. They would go to jail because the impartial, informed judge would have no discretion. Judges would have no choice but to sentence these kids that I've mentioned in the scenarios to a minimum five-year jail sentence.

This is why we have judges who have discretion in sentencing. No politician would ever say that every judge gets every decision right every time, but I will guarantee that the Australian justice system gets it right more times than that of any other country. No-one can imagine the thousands of different scenarios that may come before a judge and be caught by these offences. Not having a mandatory minimum sentence will not prevent paedophiles from being jailed, but it will prevent some young people who do not deserve to be jailed from being jailed and potentially having their lives ruined and their families' lives ruined. As the Law Council of Australia has said:

When you take away the ability of a judge to take into account the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, their personal circumstances or the explanation for offending, you generate disproportionate and, often, unconscionable outcomes.

What Labor proposes is to have higher maximum sentences. We want judges to be able to lock up the worst child sexual abuse offenders for life. That would truly protect our children—without the unintended consequences of young adolescents being locked up for behaving like adolescents and making foolish decisions—and not punish them forever.

Labor is proud of its record on fighting to protect children, both in Australia and overseas, from all types of abuse and exploitation. In 1994 Labor led the world in laws that targeted Australians who engaged in sexual abuse of children overseas. In 2009 the Labor government implemented the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, an important initiative that was accompanied by an injection of $63.6 million. In 2010 it was Labor that made it an offence to target preparation for child abuse. In 2013 Julia Gillard as Prime Minister established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the first of its kind in the national forum and perhaps the most important inquiry ever to be conducted in Australia. As I said, it has made 2,393 referrals to authorities so far. In 2013 Labor appointed the first National Children's Commissioner to advocate for the rights of all Australia's young people. And in 2013 Labor introduced the Vulnerable Witness Act. Labor is strongly committed to protecting Australian children from all forms of abuse and exploitation. We have been consistent in our approach. There is still much work to do to tighten up our laws, to protect children so that our laws cannot be used as a tool to avoid detection or punishment.

The chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan, recently said in a speech:

Our work has shown that across many decades many institutions failed our children. Our child protection, criminal and civil justice systems let them down. Although the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of an individual lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the problems faced by many people who have been abused are the responsibility of our entire society.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers to make sure our laws are adequate and fit for purpose and to have faith in the expertise of our judicial officers. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to make sure that our laws don't have unintended consequences. It is our responsibility to make sure that our children are protected. Labor wholeheartedly supports the objects of the bill but will move amendments in the Senate to make it even tougher.

See this speech in context