Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010, which will strengthen the existing child sex tourism offence regime and make amendments to child sex offences committed outside Australia. I welcome the fact that the bill also introduces new offences for steps leading up to the actual sexual activity with a child. The coalition has previously called for a strengthening of the current system.

Sexual offences against children are an extremely serious and growing problem that affects children themselves as well as their families in Australia and in every country in the world. The Child Wise website reports that over the past two decades trafficking in human beings has reached epidemic proportions and that no country is immune, estimating that one-third of the world’s human trafficking takes place in Asia and that 30 per cent of the victims are children. Sex trafficking is one of the largest forms, with the majority of victims being young women between the ages of 12 and 18. The site also notes that between 50 and 80 per cent of the children rescued from brothels in parts of South-East Asia are infected with HIV.

Accurate statistics and the full extent of child sex trafficking are impossible to calculate because it is an illicit trade. The United Nations in 2003 estimated that 1.2 million children are trafficked annually around the world and that one million children—the majority of whom are girls—become part of the commercial sex trade every year. Some are as young as five years old. I also note that World Vision states that an estimated two million children are enslaved in the global commercial sex trade. The physical and mental effects on the child involved can and do last a lifetime. They are wounded physically and emotionally and, as I said earlier, many have HIV and AIDS. Depending on their background and nationality, many will experience rejection by their families as well as their communities, in addition to abject fear, immeasurable shame and absolute despair.

The coalition is committed to strengthening the existing child sex tourism offence regime. In 2005 the coalition government enacted a range of offences directed at the use of a carriage service, such as the internet or a mobile phone, used for the exploitation of children. But the challenge for the Australian Federal Police, the state police and various law enforcement agencies is that the rapidly and constantly advancing technologies, the anonymity, the speed and the international coverage of the internet and the involvement of organised crime groups are now providing unprecedented opportunities for child sex offenders and online grooming of children by sexual predators. This bill will see the introduction of new offences for using a postal service for child sex related activity, increasing the coverage of offences for using a carriage service for sexual activity with a child or for child pornography or child abuse material, and a new scheme to provide for the forfeiture of child pornography and child abuse material and items containing such material.

In 1994 new Commonwealth offences were enacted to target Australians who engaged in the sexual abuse of children overseas. The events have extraterritorial application which, of course, means that Australian citizens, residents and bodies corporate can be prosecuted even if they commit these offences whilst overseas. To put it simply, as the Australian Federal Police states very clearly:

It is a crime for Australian Citizens or Permanent Residents to engage in, facilitate or benefit from sexual activity with children (under 16 years of age) whilst overseas. These offences carry penalties of up to 17 years imprisonment for individuals and up to $500,000 in fines for companies.

Such offences have provisions applying that enable offences committed overseas to be investigated and prosecuted within Australia itself. The Australian Federal Police actively monitors and prosecutes child sex tourists, often resulting in significant jail sentences. Through the Bali Process the AFP also provides training to law enforcement agencies within the region to help combat child sex tourism and related offences. I saw this very appropriate quote on the World Vision website:

Abuse a child in this country; go to jail in yours.

Possessing, producing or distributing child pornography material or child abuse material within Australia, or unlawfully importing such material into Australia, is currently a criminal offence by Commonwealth, state and Territory offences. However, these existing child pornography and child abuse material offences do not have extraterritorial effects with many countries not having effective laws that prohibit child pornography and child abuse material or lack the capacity to actually enforce them. This means that an Australian could travel overseas and make or purchase child pornography or child abuse material and escape punishment even though the very same behaviour, if committed in Australia or through the internet, would be a serious criminal offence. Part 1 will introduce new offences for possessing, controlling, producing, distributing or obtaining child pornography or child abuse material outside Australia.

My involvement with the member for Riverina in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications inquiry into cybercrime has highlighted for the member for Riverina, me and others on the committee, the very serious and growing role the cyber environment is providing for sexual predators, for cyber bullying and for cyber tourism offenders. A study conducted last year by AVG found that Australia had the highest incidence of cybercrime in the world, with more than 39 per cent of Australian users having experienced cybercrime compared to 32 per cent in Italy and 28 per cent in the US. To ensure that internet related child sexual exploitation is comprehensively covered in the light of such rapidly changing technology and the anonymity that the internet provides, this bill will make a range of amendments to ensure that the Commonwealth carriage service offence regime reflects modern offending, such as offending on mobile phones and the internet. These enable the more recent practice of ‘live’ internet child abuse and child sex tourism.

A 2004 study entitled Broken promises, shattered dreams: a profile of child trafficking found that a disproportionate number of these young people come from an ethnic minority background. Forty-five per cent of trafficking victims have never been to school or only partially completed primary school. Most of the girls who make up the 60 per cent of trafficking victims come from rural areas in their countries. One issue, however, is what impact these provisions have right across Australia. In my regional and rural electorate of Forrest, children constantly use the internet as a source of communication, particularly with friends and relatives who often live either close by in metropolitan areas or anywhere where they have friends. Furthermore, regional areas tend to have, in some instances, a more relaxed social atmosphere. At times you can be quite trusting of members of the local community with your children. You rely on this often in a sporting environment. I am concerned, really, that the combination of children in regional areas in a trusting environment and their constant use of the internet for social interaction may well lead them to becoming a target for predatory online sex offenders.

Whilst awareness and recognition of child pornography has increased over the past two decades, this emotive issue is, unfortunately, far too common in Australia and worldwide. I am aware that some Australians do travel overseas to sexually exploit children, as do other international travellers who are totally focussed on simply taking advantage of prostituted children. As stated by World Vision, some engage in actual sex tourism, expecting the anonymity I referred to earlier, the low-cost prostitution, the easily accessible children and the potential immunity from prosecution. I commend and acknowledge the role of the Australian Federal Police and the state police. I want to thank dedicated people like Mike Hickey from the High Tech Crime Operations section of the AFP and Detective Sergeant Jamie McDonald from the technology crime investigation section of the Western Australian Police.

The AFP annual report of 2008-09 states that 150 people were arrested that year with several operations led by High Tech Crime Operations. Operation Centurion led to the arrest of 138 Australians as result of a referral from the Croatian police via Interpol. Another 22 Australians were arrested during Operation Resistance, which began with a referral from Brazilian authorities and which resulted in the seizure of more than 15,000 videos and 500,000 images of child abuse. The AFP also collaborated with the High Tech Crime Operations area of Child Sex Tourism to facilitate a workshop in Phnom Penh, Cambodia with law enforcement counterparts in the human trafficking arena. The AFP’s work to combat transnational and online child sexual exploitation with international agencies such as Interpol, the FBI and the UK’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is strengthened through membership of the Virtual Global Taskforce. Collaboration with these international partners has seen the AFP identify and charge numerous offenders for child sexual exploitation and child sex tourism offences.

In my state of WA, the AFP works very closely with and has co-located with the Western Australian police to form a joint online child exploitation team. They work collaboratively on Commonwealth and state child protection investigations, and it works well. Their efforts protect our trusting children and those who are most vulnerable in society. No matter where they are in the world, they are all our children and it should matter to every one of us. They protect the most vulnerable, and I think their wider federal and international efforts should be respected and valued right throughout our communities and within this parliament. Quite often they provide the unseen intervention and they work continuously in an environment where at times they frustratingly witness the sustained abuse of children. I acknowledge and thank them for their dedication.

This bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is due to report on 15 March this year. The coalition believes very strongly that protecting children from all forms of predatory sexual offenders and exploitation through child pornography should continue to be a priority for every government.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How sad it is that we should be standing in this chamber raising these disgraceful facts, knowing that Australian men are inflicting such extreme abuse on children. The fact that this bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010, needs even more strengthening is an indictment of those who would commit crimes against children. The fact that we are strengthening the offences for Australians who are dealing in child pornography and child abuse material overseas is a very good thing, and I congratulate the government for bringing this forward. I note that the purpose of the amendments in part 1 is to ensure that all behaviour relating to sexual offences against children by Australians within Australia covered by state and territory offences is also criminalised when Australians commit these crimes overseas.

I deal with this area a lot, because it is of particular personal importance to me to ensure that we are looking at protection. I have long been working voluntarily in the field of fighting child sex trafficking and trafficking in children, so I spend quite a bit of my free time—whatever free time is available—working with other people to try to bring about some real change for the many young children across the world, and particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, who may become victims of child sex trafficking, sex tourism, offences in pornography, internet pornography and other things.

I was looking at some of the things that have been raised over a period of time and I noted that in LAWASIA’s Children and the Law Conference last year there was a session on trafficking in unborn children. When I was doing my research generally on what was happening in the protection of children in many and various forms, I felt very proud to read the speech that one of Australia’s very own magistrates was invited to give there. The magistrate stood and said this. I will quote from the magistrate’s introduction to the speech. He said: ‘Firstly, I want to share with you an excerpt from a report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the sale of children.’ The report that he read from states:

In September 2003 a fishing boat from the Indonesian island … was allegedly intercepted heading towards Malaysia. According to information received, eight babies were found on this boat, packed in Styrofoam in fish boxes punctured in order to allow the babies to breath.

I think the most pertinent and poignant point here is the comment the magistrate made:

When a baby’s life is being supported by little more than holes punctured in a styrofoam box we begin to see the true nature of this crime. Through a process of de-humanisation, these babies essentially become little more than commodities, packaged and sold for the right price.

It was that that led me to believe that there is a powerful load of work that the Australian people and the Australian parliament can be involved with in the protection of children. It is sad that not enough men are prosecuted within developing nations purely because families do not have access to legal representation. They cannot afford to acquire legal representation to prosecute somebody who has taken their children from them and sold them into unspeakable acts.

It is a sad occasion. I hope that eventually, when I can spend more time on this issue, we can change the access arrangements. I hope that, from within our AusAID budget and our aid proposals for developing countries and our Asia-Pacific neighbours, we can offer the provision of legal aid to people—to families who have no means of getting food each day for their children, let alone means to acquire legal representation to prosecute somebody who has committed the greatest atrocities on their children. Some day I hope that I can galvanise enough pro bono offers from international lawyers not only from Australia but from other countries interested in the Asia-Pacific and that we can start to make inroads in giving a voice to children in developing countries, where legal representation is clearly not available to them.

In looking at such countries I am very interested in the way in which Cambodia works. When you are in Cambodia you see great big advertisements on the backs of buses saying, ‘Child sex abuse is not acceptable.’ You see warnings on this issue. The government is trying to do the best they possibly can in the interests of the children of Cambodia, but how can the government prevent so much from happening when poverty is so great? It is a fact that human trafficking is the fastest-growing crime in the world, second only to the sale of illegal drugs. That is why they are up against such a major hurdle and obstacle. And this does occur in most countries in the world.

In Cambodia, hundreds of thousands of girls and boys are bought, sold, kidnapped and then forced to have sex with grown men. Many of these men come from Australia. Many of these men come from developed nations and go there purely to commit atrocities on children for their own gratification. The more that we can strengthen our laws to cover international boundaries and the more that we can ensure that Australians will be prosecuted for the crimes that they commit on children in another country, the better it will be.

In looking at the issues that affect those children, we find that many of them are born into poverty and sold for sex. The people who go to places like Cambodia, Indonesia, many of the islands in Indonesia and Thailand, and other developing nations think that they are involved in nothing more than a prostitution ring. They think it is a prostitution process, just an exchange involving prostitution. In fact, they are committing rape of the worst kind: they are committing rape of a child. It is a fact that there is no shortage of children offered for tourists when they go into developing countries.

We often see programs on how, in many countries—for example, in places like Bangkok and Amsterdam—prostitution is widely accepted. It is a multibillion-dollar industry. We assume that prostitution is about consensual adult sex, but the fact is that the business is not about adults. The real business, unfortunately, has come to be the business of sexual predators on children. It is a crime.

I have talked a bit about the parents’ extreme poverty. Parents may sell their children to traffickers in order to pay off debts or to gain some income. They may be deceived. Most times they are deceived, because somebody comes to them and says, ‘We will put your child into servitude in a house. We will teach them to be housemaids or to mind children’ when in fact most of them end up in the serious situation of sexual servitude in the worst possible places.

I was recently shown a program in which a contrived situation was set up in the US where people were entering into inappropriate conversations with young people on the internet. An entourage of men were turning up to houses where they thought there were young girls and boys, who had stated they were as young as 11 years of age. These men knew exactly what they were there for; they were there to have unlawful sex with young boys and young girls. The program, which might have been Dateline, was able to highlight and expose the many perpetrators of crimes on children in the US. When you go into developing countries the situation is far worse and children literally have no choices.

It is wonderful to see the work that the Australian Federal Police and other units do. As the member for Forrest has explained, the House Standing Committee on Communications is currently conducting an inquiry into cybercrime. We are hearing significant evidence associated with how people are inadvertently attracted on the internet, how young people are exploited and how crimes are committed against young children using the means of the internet.

It has also opened our eyes to how you can be unwittingly harbouring somebody’s graphic internet pornography sites within your own computer and not even know it. Your own home computer could be a botnet for a site that is used for the dissemination and distribution of child pornography. It is a very interesting inquiry indeed and I am sure that every member who is involved in this inquiry is becoming vastly aware of just how dangerous the internet can be. It is a very good tool if it is used in an appropriate and proper way, but it can most certainly be an enormous danger to our children.

This bill specifically talks about the distribution of child pornography and child abuse material overseas. On many occasions, evidence has been heard about the worst of child abuse and child pornography and the worst acts committed on young children—we are talking seriously young children here. This material has been distributed throughout the world to other sick people who think that they have a right to view these profoundly indecent acts on our children. There are hundreds of thousands of children who have been subjected to the most disgraceful acts. We have to put in place stronger and stronger legislation. It is sad that this country of Australia is required to continually try to beat the people who would commit abuse on children. It is an indictment of the people who believe, as I said at the start of my speech, that a baby’s life is nothing more than a commodity for the use of sexually depraved people.

The bill also talks about the means of child trafficking and how this feeds into the whole process of sexual abuse. It has become such a business that—and it has become a little more difficult to get children out and into this arena now because there is a bit more of a watchful eye over it—we are now seeing pregnant women being trafficked across borders. This is because it is easier and the child is safer—it is in utero. The ‘goods’ are in better condition than if they were put in a styrofoam box with a few holes punched in the lid. These children are in better condition when they go in utero in their mum. They are trafficked across the border and then the babies are born. In fact, the speech from the LAWASIA Conference that I referred to earlier described going to a house and finding babies—the mums had given birth and the babies had been payment for debts owed by families. There were other pregnant women there waiting to give birth and waiting for their child to be given as a payment for a debt in the family. In other cases, the mother had no choice—she had been trafficked herself and had no rights. When we see this type of behaviour and we see the advertisements for, and the hawking on the streets of, virgin children—young virgin children being the product that is sold—then the world really does need to take a good look at itself.

So it is with regret that I think we need to have this type of legislation, but it is with thanks that we are strengthening it. Men travelling from Australia looking to abuse children in other nations are on notice that there are people who will catch them and who will prosecute them. Those men will pay for the acts they are committing on children—and so they should. I stand today to support this bill in its entirety and I say to those who would commit atrocities on children that some day, hopefully, each and every one of you will be caught and each and every one of you will be judged in accordance with the crimes that you have committed.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than 200 years ago, horrified at what he saw, William Wilberforce stood in the House of Commons denouncing the slave trade. He declared:

So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear, that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition.

Yet even today, 200 years later, the trade in human lives continues. Unfortunately, today much of it is covert, more dreadful and entirely wicked. Society’s most vulnerable and innocent are victims. Rather than playing, discovering and developing their minds, children worldwide are being sexually exploited for money. UNICEF conservatively estimates that 550,000 children—and I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg—are at the moment the victims of commercial sexual exploitation. It truly is a horrible business. It is inexcusable that this trade continues, and I have seen firsthand the plight of victims. I was the leader of an Australian delegation, of which the member for Riverina was also a member, to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I commend the member for Riverina for her speech on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010. She has outlined very well some of the worst of what happens to children in this terrible trade.

While I was leader of the delegation we travelled to Cambodia and we met a child sex victim. This story is repeated many, many thousands of times throughout the world, but one girl’s story has haunted me ever since that visit. At the age of four, not even old enough for preschool, she was sold into a brothel. There she was forced to work, coming in contact with tourists and others. In her teens she contracted HIV. At 19, she had full-blown AIDS. No longer profitable for the brothel, she was tossed into the streets and left to fend for herself—and presumably to die. Thankfully Caritas, the Catholic aid organisation, of which I cannot speak highly enough, working in that country, took this young woman in, along with many others who had suffered a similar fate. With good nutrition and medication, this young lady was thriving, producing craft work for sale and saving and looking forward to a future.

Constituents within my electorate also know the horrendous reality of how vulnerable children can be to trafficking. Norman and Adelia Bernard established the One Heart Association, funding the essential needs of up to 90 orphans in the Sang Khan Buri orphanage on the Myanmar border. They have relayed to me a shocking event, and this happened just recently—in fact, I rang the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs last sitting week and asked for a briefing. Due to the violence against the ethnic Karen, the children cross into Thailand, not knowing the fate of their parents. The orphanage is headed by a Buddhist nun, the Venerable Maechee Pimjai Maneerat, who was recognised as an Outstanding Woman in Buddhism in 2008 for her efforts assisting children, including teaching the children the Thai language.

Six months ago a young man offered to help teach the children at the orphanage as a volunteer and, as you can imagine, his efforts were appreciated by all. Then, early in December, another man visited the orphanage, bringing a gift of one sack of rice. He offered to help the Venerable Maechee and asked to photograph 10 of the young girls naked. The man was turned away. But on the night of 28 December 2009, nearby villagers saw and reported that a large truck entered the orphanage. It left before the morning light, and in the morning 50 children were missing. The boys and girls were aged between 10 and 16. Three of the missing girls had chosen to become Buddhist nuns. The volunteer teacher was missing as well. Local police were informed of the kidnapping. Village elders agreed to assist in the search. Here in Australia, Norman and Adelia contacted the Foreign Affairs office and the Thai ambassador, and talked to the Catholic Church. The children have vanished without trace. The reality is both appalling and upsetting. Child sex offences are universal but children’s protection, I am sorry to say, is not universal. I do not think that any society has the right to call itself a civil society when it fails to protect the most vulnerable in our community.

I commend this bill as another step towards protecting children, and I only wish that the government could move faster and be tougher. I know that our AFP officers have done an outstanding job, that we have seen some prosecutions and that penalties have been increased. I think one person a couple of years ago was jailed for 25 years. Why do people in this country, who would not want to see their own children or grandchildren or nieces or nephews abused in this country, think they have the right to go overseas to countries where people are poor in order to abuse the children of others? I have no idea what kind of mindset people have. These are husbands, fathers, brothers and sons of people in this country, and it is shocking to think that this still goes on—that they do not necessarily do it here but go overseas to some poor country and exploit the children there. It is truly disgraceful.

In 2007 the former coalition government introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism and Related Measures) Bill, with nearly the same measures as those proposed in this bill. Unfortunately the bill lapsed with the proroguing of parliament. Now, over two years later, we have the opportunity to put these measures in place. Commonwealth, state and territory laws currently criminalise child abuse and child pornography material within Australia. In 2005, the former coalition government responded to perpetrators using new technology, strengthening the provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and targeting the use of carriage services such as mobile phones and the internet. This bill builds on those reforms to ensure that the laws continue to remain effective and meet the needs of law enforcement agencies, combating contemporary offending. Without us as legislators in this place insisting on tough legislation to both track these people down and then prosecute them with the full force of the law, we will not stamp out this practice. We need a great deal of political will to do that and to give our AFP officers, who do an outstanding job, the ability to stamp out this pernicious practice.

This bill enhances the offences for using a carriage service for sexual activity with a child, child pornography and child abuse material, and new offences are established for using a postal service. Significantly, the bill introduces new offences for Australians, both citizens and residents, dealing in child pornography and abuse material overseas. Such abhorrent behaviour is intolerable and illegal for Australians in Australia and should, and now will, be illegal for Australians overseas—just as it ought to be. Australians who commit child sexual offences overseas will now be able to be punished even where foreign countries have deficient laws or are unwilling to prosecute.

Policing and prosecuting crimes against children is a tough business. In 2003, under the coalition government, the AFP’s Transnational Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking Team was established to investigate offences relating to both slavery and sexual servitude, as well as child sex tourism. Further funding for AFP investigations was announced in the 2007-08 budget. The AFP’s child protection operation team investigates as well as coordinates multijurisdictional and international online sexual exploitation operations. They liaise with internet service providers and content hosts, the Virtual Global Taskforce, Interpol and the public. AFP officers sift through mounds of material chasing those attempting to groom children over the internet. They are also exposed to the graphic reality of child abuse. An officer must sit and look at each image seized, whether in hard copy, on computer drives or in any other form. They see the years of abuse suffered by children, and we should pay tribute to them for the work that they do. I know from talking to some of them that it is tough and difficult work and they need the support of us in this House to make sure the laws are strong and they can act.

I have been fortunate to meet AFP officers on the front line of combating trafficking overseas. Their dedication to identifying and prosecuting offenders and rescuing the children is commendable. The AFP has certainly led the way, showing great leadership throughout the Asian region and in developing partnerships with some of our neighbouring countries to make sure these people can be tracked across borders and brought back if they are Australian to face prosecution in this country.

UNICEF is another organisation that I must highlight for its proactive protection of children. Through partnerships with governments, the private sector and civil society, those in UNICEF advocate and advise on protective social practices and empowering children, as well as providing oversight and monitoring. Their information is invaluable to governments and their assistance to children who have suffered abuse is often unacknowledged. They work in very difficult conditions because of the lack of strong legislative instruments in many countries.

Those fighting to end child sex exploitation cannot do it alone. They require the assistance of governments worldwide. They need proactive legislators. They need the support of law enforcement agencies. Children can all too easily be spirited across borders. Offenders jump between jurisdictions, utilising loopholes in the laws of other countries. Each state must take a stand and pass necessary legislation and, if necessary, complementary laws ensuring that no jurisdiction is safe for child sex abusers and traffickers.

I did have an opportunity with the member for Riverina to attend a conference in Bali in 2006. There I met a number of women from South America and Africa. Indeed, there is a report by UNICEF on the particular problems on the African continent. The women of South America told me that the rate of disappearance of children on that continent is alarming and there is no mechanism, or there was not at that time, to chase these people across borders and bring down on them the full force of the law. They told me the problem was so acute that the Save the Children Fund had set up a website to try to track missing children on the South American continent. It is a terrible problem.

In 2007, with the member for Riverina and other members of the delegation across party lines, I attempted to establish the World against Abuse of Children, a list of like-minded parliamentarians who would work across borders to establish legislation to stamp out this pernicious practice of child trafficking. There are many agencies working to support victims and to try to ensure that people are prosecuted for these crimes, but what we do not seem to have is an organisation that asks parliamentarians around the world to become active within their jurisdictions and to make sure the laws are tough. There must be greater political resolve to ensure complementary legislation and general legislation which prevents the movement of children to jurisdictions which do not have robust protection laws.

We wrote a letter signed by all members of our delegation. There were 140 parliaments represented at that Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Bali and 13 countries responded to the letter. They included Cambodia, Chile, China, Croatia, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Monaco, New Zealand, Namibia, Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Thirteen countries out of 140 showed concern about the trafficking in children. Frankly, I think that is a terrible indictment. It is a very disappointing response. But those who did respond were passionate about it. I heard from the young woman who runs the Hong Kong office for Microsoft trying to track down internet pornography, much of it involving babies and most of it too horrendous for me to relate to members in this House. It was really and truly shocking. I think the member for Riverina has made reference to some of those practices. I just do not know that the Australian public are aware fully of what is going on in some of these developing countries that are our neighbours.

As I said, I hoped to start an international effort and urge the members of different countries to seek to push their governments to legislate to stamp out child abuse and trafficking. I urge members of this House to reach out to their international counterparts and say that together we can—we must—stop this activity. The protection of children has to be a priority in a civilised society.

As William Wilberforce stood in his parliament, describing the enormous, dreadful wickedness of the slave trade, he started its downfall. It starts with one step. He changed perceptions, resolutely advocating for the parliament to protect those most vulnerable. Anyone who has read the story knows what a difficult time he had and how many years it took him to stamp out these practices—and the personal toll it took on him. In 200 years, those people most vulnerable may have changed, but the role of this parliament has not. We are continuing to protect those most vulnerable—our children—and I am resolute in pledging my full support for this bill and even tougher measures and tougher penalties and more work with the international community across borders. I pay tribute to the men and women who dedicate their professional lives to stamping out this pernicious practice.

There have been many reports, many conferences and many books on this, and the UN has been extremely active, but none of this has resulted in diminishing this trade. One has to wonder where the resolve is. At a Pan American Health Organisation conference in Washington in 2007, governments from around the world came together to try and do something about violence against children. In speaking to this, Dr Paulo Sergio Pinheiro said:

For me, it is very shocking to see the high level of acceptability of violence against children, not just socially, but legally.

He is an independent expert and leader of the UN study. He said:

This is a key challenge: how to overcome the acceptability of violence against children.

I think it is a shocking state of affairs. He also said:

… it is Governments that have the responsibility to build a solid legal framework and to provide the support needed by families, schools and communities to adequately fulfill their role.

This is a very serious piece of legislation. It is a very serious issue. I hope that all members of this parliament will join me in a resolve to see the pernicious practice of child trafficking stopped.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank all members for their respective contributions to the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010. I would like to particularly thank the member for Stirling for his indication that the opposition supports these reforms. I would also like to thank the members for Werriwa and Calwell and the opposition members for their comments in support of this bill. The government agrees with all members that this is an important set of reforms. They will ensure that children in Australia and internationally are better protected from these heinous crimes. I particularly note strong endorsement by the member for Werriwa and the member for Farrer of the new aggravated offences in the bill, including those that apply to persons in positions of trust.

The member for Stirling referred to the bill introduced in 2008 by Senator Bernardi—the private member’s bill. I also indicate, to place this in some historical context, that in 2007 Senator Ludwig introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Anti-Child Abuse and Pornography Materials) Bill 2007. This pushed the then Howard government, after a few years of inaction, into introducing, in its dying days, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism Offences and Related Measures) Bill. However, the Howard government was too slow to act and the bill was in the parliament when the parliament was prorogued. That bill did not address the full range of issues that have been experienced by law enforcement in dealing with these offences. Therefore, the government has examined best-practice approaches and operational experience, both domestically and internationally.

In developing the bill before us, the government has also taken into account other factors, including the 2008 New South Wales Sentencing Council review of child sex offences, subsequent New South Wales reforms, experience from international investigations into global child pornography rings and developments in technology and its consequences for children. This has resulted in a more comprehensive and progressive set of reforms, including further expansion of the child sex tourism offence regime to ensure consistency with child sex offences applying domestically and new offences targeting sophisticated online child pornography networks and sexual activity committed online.

I welcome the comments made by the members for Stirling, Werriwa, Forrest, Riverina, Pearce, Cowan and Bowman on the AFP’s efforts to combat sexual offences against children. The government has dedicated $125.8 million over four years to improving cybersafety. The cybersafety plan consists of a comprehensive range of measures encompassing education, international cooperation, research, law enforcement and filtering. This includes increased law enforcement capacity through the expansion of the AFP’s High Tech Crime Operations team by a further 91 officers. This will ensure that law enforcement is fully equipped to carry out its work in addressing online child sexual exploitation. The Australian Federal Police, through its High Tech Crime Operations team, actively investigates child sex tourism and online child sexual exploitation. The AFP has forged strong relationships with international law enforcement partners, allowing for considerable collaboration in combating transnational exploitation.

The government also believes prevention and awareness-raising strategies are vital. One important initiative is the ThinkUKnow program, which I recently launched in Brisbane, with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the member for Brisbane, at the Ithaca Creek State School. The program is a collaborative effort between the AFP and Microsoft, providing education for families on how to create a safe online experience for the nation’s youth. These initiatives complement legislative measures, ensuring a multifaceted approach to combating child sexual exploitation.

The member for Stirling and the member for Indi raised the need for offences to carry penalties reflecting the seriousness of sexual offending against children. During the development of this bill, the government undertook an extensive review of state, territory and international child sex offences and penalties. Penalties in the bill are consistent, as far as practicable, with comparable state and territory offences. It is also important that penalties are internally consistent with the offences criminalising other types of behaviour under Commonwealth laws. The bill raises a number of existing penalties and introduces new, high penalties for offences involving aggravated circumstances. In particular, under the bill those participating in organised online child pornography networks will be subject to a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. These penalties indicate the high level of seriousness of such offending and will ensure that sentences are set accordingly.

I note also the comments of the member for Cowan in relation to so-called ‘sexting’. There are already Commonwealth offences which criminalise the transmission of child pornography material over the internet or by mobile phone. The bill will increase the maximum penalties for the transmission of child pornography material from 10 to 15 years imprisonment. The changes to the maximum penalties are not targeted at sexting but are intended to ensure laws address the contemporary nature of online adult offending. Excluding the sending of child pornography or child abuse material by young people from the proposed offences would be inappropriate, as it might reduce protections for young people. For example, instances of young people sending sexually explicit images of themselves or other young people may in some cases be malicious or exploitative. Although the child pornography offences could potentially apply to young people, there is scope for law enforcement and prosecution agencies to take the circumstances of a particular case into account before proceeding to investigate or proceeding to prosecute.

Child sexual exploitation is a devastating and widespread form of criminal activity. Australia has always played a strong role in addressing the sexual exploitation of children, both domestically and through supporting international efforts to promote the rights of children. Australia already has in place an extensive framework to prevent, investigate and prosecute all forms of child sexual exploitation, including offences which occur within Australia and those committed by Australians overseas. However, it is important to ensure that Australia’s child sex related offence framework remains comprehensive and able to address new patterns of offending. This bill will build upon and improve the existing framework in a number of ways. It will strengthen existing child sex tourism laws and introduce new offences for dealing in child pornography and child abuse material overseas. This will ensure that the full range of behaviour that is criminalised domestically by state and territory laws is also criminalised when committed by Australians overseas.

The bill will also strengthen carriage service offences by increasing maximum penalties for existing online child pornography offences and introducing new offences for indecent communications or sexual activity with a child online. These measures will ensure that the carriage service regime responds effectively to contemporary offending. The bill will also introduce a number of new measures. These include a new suite of postal offences directed at the use of the post for child sex related activity such as the distribution of child pornography. These offences will mirror online offences and ensure that offenders are subject to consistent penalties notwithstanding the medium they use to engage in the offending.

The bill will provide a comprehensive scheme for the forfeiture of child pornography or child abuse material, or articles containing such material, derived from or used in the commission of a Commonwealth child sex offence.

Finally, the bill will introduce aggravated offences designed to target offenders who engage in particularly serious offending, including overseas child sex offences, where the offender is in a position of trust or the child victim has a mental impairment; and carriage service offences involving participation in online child pornography networks. These offences will carry high maximum penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment, sending a strong message to potential offenders that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

The government is committed to taking all necessary action to protect children from sexual exploitation. The measures in this bill complement other government initiatives in this area, including the government’s cybersafety plan, which I referred to earlier. This bill represents another significant step as part of the effort to prevent, investigate and prosecute child sex related offences. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.