Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the measures contained in this bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017, which is the greatest crackdown on paedophiles in a generation. I have to agree with the member for Lindsay that we shouldn't do any political pointscoring on this issue. This is something that should be bipartisan. I have spoken about child sex abuse in this place many times, as someone who has family members who experienced it and because of my involvement with the apology to the 'forgotten Australians' and getting up the royal commission into sexual abuse and my continued ongoing patronage of CLAN and other organisations that support people who are no longer called the 'forgotten Australians' but referred to as survivors and also people who have experienced the horror of sexual abuse in institutions under the care of governments, churches and also private institutions.

I have had a number of different jobs in my time. To this day being a dad to my son, Jarrod, is probably the most important job I have ever had in my life. I am sure that all members would agree with me when I say that to victimise and abuse a child is one of the lowest forms of human behaviour. The only other thing I could think of that would be worse, maybe, is murder. The welfare of the children in our society is paramount. I am proud to have been Jarrod's father. As parents we go to extreme lengths to ensure the safety of our children. From the day they enter our lives, we become their most fierce protectors and we do our very best to keep our little ones safe and secure.

But in this job, as members of parliament, we have the capacity to extend these lengths to ensure the protection of every Australian child who doesn't have that protection, safety and security from their parents in their own homes and in our society. In my time as the member for Swan, child abuse is something that I have actively campaigned on. In my maiden speech I said I wanted to bring focus to the national issue of institutional child sex abuse and I shared the story of Shellay Ward, the seven-year-old girl who died in 2007 of starvation after years of abuse and being seriously neglected by her parents. What sort of society do we live in where a seven-year-old girl can starve to death under the nose of neighbours and the bodies that are set up by governments to protect children? Over the following 10 years, I have met with countless victims of child sex abuse—victims who bravely gave evidence during the royal commission, victims who suffered at the hands of those who they trusted and victims who have spent their lives recovering from the trauma of their childhoods. This is why it is so important to support this legislation. I have seen adults who were abused as children collapse under the trauma of their abuse. They have been broken by their childhoods and many have had long battles with depression or addiction and have required ongoing medical assistance. Many of them have chronic health issues that they deal with on a daily basis. Others have tried to move forward with their lives but have shared with me the struggles they have endured, noting difficulties in all aspects of their lives—in their work, in their relationships and when they have had children of their own.

Child abuse hasn't just happened in institutions. It happens in children's own homes. It happens at the hands of guardians. It happens at the hands of strangers and online, as we have heard from other members who have contributed to this debate. It is not exclusive to any demographic, nor is it exclusive to any neighbourhood or region of our country. We have an entrenched system that is failing the children of Australia.

I would like to share with the House a couple of stories. I refer first to a story not in our country but in New Zealand with the story of two half-sisters, Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson, of Masterton, New Zealand. They were two beautiful girls who fell victim to the broken system that existed. Their story spans 10 years. There were 10 years where they could have been removed from the physical and sexual abuse they faced, but instead they were returned to their abusers again and again. Saliel was born in February 1989 and was the second child of Charlene Aplin. In November 1990, Charlene had Olympia Jetson, who was followed by two more children in the following two years.

In 1992, Charlene Aplin applied for a nonviolence order and spent time in a women's refuge. By 1993, Charlene had reconciled with her husband, but after further domestic violence and court involvement the marriage ended. At the end of the year, Charlene Aplin contacted police, concerned that the girls may have been suffering from sexual abuse. Evidence was inconclusive, and the girls received counselling. In 1994, Saliel and Olympia's elder sister repeated the sexual abuse allegations. Police were once more called, but no evidence was found. The counselling was continued. I saw a program on CI which featured this particular episode. These girls were submitted to a situation where they had to give evidence to the police in front of their abuser. Of course, they weren't going to reveal the details in front of their abuser. This is how ridiculous the system is.

Soon after, Charlene Aplin began a relationship with Bruce Howse. In March 1994, Charlene Aplin contacted Child, Youth and Family—CYF—and the police after a dispute between her and Howse. It is alleged Saliel and Olympia, at the ages of five and three respectively, had suffered injuries inflicted by Howse. In an interview the following month with CYF, the children reported physical abuse by Howse again. By the middle of May 1994, all Charlene's children were removed and placed with her parents. By the end of the year, Charlene reported to CYF that she was concerned that her parents were not caring adequately for her children. This woman complained her parents weren't looking after their grandchildren and she wanted to return them to an abusive situation. This is how silly our systems are.

On 1 August 1996, the court ruled that Saliel, Olympia and their brother could return to their mother and the abuser, Howse. By November, their eldest sisters returned to live with them and, by Christmas, Howse's five other children were also living with them. In April 1997, Charlene Aplin again took legal steps to protect herself from Howse, but soon the couple reconciled again. In October 1999, Charlene Aplin and Howse had a daughter. Domestic violence was reported to the authorities on several occasions and eventually Charlene left Howse and took all the children to her parents' home again, the home where she thought they weren't being looked after.

In 2000, after living with her parents for six months, Charlene Aplin moved the family to Ashhurst, and Howse attempted to take the baby from the house. The police were called. A separate violent incident saw police called again. The family moved to Woodville briefly, before returning to Masterton, where Aplin again reconciled with Howse. At the end of September, Howse left home after a violent incident. Soon after, he returned home and abducted the baby. Charlene Aplin retrieved the child and further fights ensued before another reconciliation.

In 2001, Charlene Aplin was pregnant again. She and Howse briefly separated but again reconciled. The pregnancy wasn't easy, and Olympia and Saliel were often left on their own in the care of Howse and their elder sister whilst their mother spent time in hospital. In July, another baby girl was born. After the following three months, on 3 August, Olympia's school contacted Charlene Aplin to say that Olympia had made an accusation of sexual abuse. By the following Monday, she had withdrawn that accusation.

On 20 November, a fight erupted between Howse and Charlene Aplin. The police were called and Howse was taken to his son's address. He phoned Charlene Aplin several times that night threatening to kill them all. He returned to the home the next day and was asked to leave permanently. Howse said Aplin had no legal right to keep him out of the house. On 1 September, Saliel had an argument with Howse and told him she was going to nark on him. Two days later, on 3 December 2001, Saliel and her little sister Olympia were stabbed. Each received a single knife wound. They both died in the early hours of 4 December, having bled to death, stabbed by their abuser, their stepfather. This followed a decade of physical and sexual abuse not by one but by two men. The system had failed them, and it fails so many children around Australia and in other countries around the world. This is why this legislation is what's needed to defeat these people, to put them away and to never let them have contact with children again. If I had my way, I would bring back capital punishment for people like that. This man got 28 years in jail. Hopefully he'll rot and die in jail, because that's what he deserves.

Child sexual abuse is one of the most heinous crimes. To rob a child of their childhood—to abuse those too young to understand or those too afraid to say no—is monstrous. I have another example. I met a woman who, from the age of eight to 14, was raped by her stepfather continually for six years. The only way they found out was the fact that she fell pregnant. This is back in the late seventies in Victoria. She was taken to court. It was one of the first ever sexual abuse court cases in Victoria. The stepfather got 2½ years jail. That is not satisfactory; that is not protection for children.

For too long our laws have been inadequate. The bill introduces reforms which criminalise emerging forms of child sexual abuse and strengthen community protections from child sex offenders. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 targets all aspects of the child sex offender cycle by strengthening measures at the time of charging, bail, sentencing and upon release. Under the new laws, child sex offenders will spend longer in jail and will be less likely to be granted bail and parole. There has been some discussion that there shouldn't be mandatory sentencing. My support for mandatory sentencing for these people is absolute. They will face mandatory minimum sentences and be closely supervised following their release. They shouldn't be released.

The advancement of technology has seen emerging forms of child sexual abuse. These laws are adding an offence of providing electronic services to facilitate dealings with child abuse material. As it currently stands the code doesn't specifically criminalise the provision of electronic services—for example, website or chat fora, often hosted on the dark web—to facilitate online dealings with child abuse material. This amendment bill will make it an offence for a person to provide an electronic service with the intention that the service be used for access to child abuse material.

We have heard some doubts in this area, in that teenagers might end up in jail. I can tell you a story about a young Aboriginal child in the north of Western Australia who lived in a community where his abusers were his own peers. He was seven and his abusers were 10, 11 and 12, and he was repeatedly raped by these abusers. It is in the environment where these kids live and grow up that we need to take hold of these situations and address these issues. This kid eventually became involved in a system that taught him self-respect, and the abuse stopped; he was so proud, and he wore a special T-shirt. Then the government withdrew funding for that program. It amazes me that as a society we can see something that is working successfully to protect children and then we withdraw funding that assists in those areas. If it takes emotion and the necessary hard line to protect children in our society, that is what we need.

The amendments in this bill also add an offence of grooming third parties using the post or a carriage service to procure children for sexual activity. These measures also clarify that live-streamed child abuse is captured in existing Criminal Code offences. Recently in the UK there was a story about people grooming children online. When the authorities got into the system, they found that over 3,000 children not only had been groomed online but had been blackmailed to take photos performing sexual acts for the people who put themselves up as their peers and friends online, and then they abused them. These men were all from the Middle East, aged from 21. This is the type of stuff we need to stop. The new offences will criminalise the transmission of communications using these services to a third party who is not the child victim, with the intention of making it easier to procure a specific child for sexual activity.

The coalition's new laws ensure the sentencing of child sex offenders is reflective of the gravity of this type of offending. For too long we've read news stories of paedophiles being released on parole after a menial sentence that in no way represents the years of damage their actions have caused—and there is a stat regarding the time they spend in jail. These new laws also increase penalties for certain offences, including grooming offences and offences for using a carriage service to engage in sexual activity.

Since 2012, only 58.7 per cent of those convicted of Commonwealth child sex offences have received a term of imprisonment. This will stop that. That 58.7 per cent of child sex offenders will go to jail. They need to go to jail. That's over half of those sentenced walking free after committing these types of crimes.

In closing I'd like to thank the minister for bringing this legislation on a subject that is dear to my heart. My sister suffered sexual abuse and in the process died, when she was very young, at the age of 12. This is the type of thing we need. We need stronger laws and we need to be far more specific about what we are going to do with these people. I would like to thank those on the other side of the chamber who have supported this for the speeches and contributions they've made on this legislation as well. This is something that we can do as a parliament and as individuals.

See this speech in context