Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney update the House on how the Morrison government is working to ensure children are protected from the abhorrent crimes of child sexual abuse, and is the Attorney aware of any alternative policies?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question and for his great commitment to this area. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 will shortly be put to a final vote in the Senate. In fact, in its original form, it was introduced on 13 September 2017. Absolutely central to that bill, as the Minister for Home Affairs elegantly explained, is minimum mandatory penalties. It is the absolutely central part of that bill. Why has the government never given up on minimum mandatory penalties for child sex offences? It is because the type of offending they sentence are the worst of the worst, because the instances of this type of offending are increasing, because the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation tells us there has been a 123 per cent increase in the average number of reports of child exploitation it receives each month, and because there's clearly undeniable evidence that sentencing does not align with community expectations and therefore doesn't provide sufficient or general specific deterrence.

Last year, in 39 per cent of Commonwealth offences in this area, the offenders did not receive a single day in jail. There have been sentences where the maximum penalty is 15 years, such as that of a 22-year-old who committed sexual activities online with someone whom they thought was a 12-year-old child and the offender received nine months—15 years; nine months.

Members opposite have been opposed to minimum mandatory sentencing as a matter of principle. But, in assessing that, let me read statements of Senator Penny Wong on the introduction of mandatory minimums in the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. She said:

The measures in the bill will address the often serious consequences of people-smuggling … The bill will act as a greater deterrent for people smugglers …

…   …   …

The bill is a measured response to a growing problem and demonstrates the government’s commitment to addressing the serious nature of people-smuggling

To assess whether or not that was a matter of principle or hypocrisy, listen to those sentences again with a slight change to the words and answer whether it now makes more or less sense: 'The measures in the bill will address the often serious consequences of child sex offending. The bill will act as a greater deterrent for child sex offenders. The bill is a measured response to a growing problem and demonstrates the government's commitment to addressing the serious nature of child sex offences.' There is one principle here, and that is that these people must spend longer inside prison.