Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

(1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber;

(2) the bill be called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and

(3) proceedings on the bill have priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following:

(1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referred to the Federation Chamber;

(2) the bill being called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and

(3) proceedings on the bill having priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately.

I rise today to speak on a matter of the utmost seriousness and urgency. This parliament must act now to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: our children. This is not an issue that can wait for another sitting week or another round of debates. The safety of our children demands immediate action, which is why I moved that the standing orders be suspended so that this bill can be brought on and dealt with immediately. This bill is about the protection of Australian children. It is about sending an unmistakable message to those who exploit, abuse or prey upon children that they will face justice and that they will face serious prison time. Child sexual offences are among the most serious offences in the Commonwealth statute book. Any person who commits one of these crimes should expect to spend a long time in prison. I do not believe there is a single right-minded decent parent in this country who would disagree.

This bill is also about restoring public confidence in the justice system. Families across Australia have been clear: they want their children to be safe. They are horrified by what they see in the media. They are deeply concerned about the proliferation of child abuse, child sexual abuse, particularly online, and they are dismayed when they see offenders walking free after only a few months behind bars. Four Corners showed what parents already fear: gaps in staffing, ratios and checks are letting offenders near our kids. Parents deserve more than promises. After last night's revelations, we need stronger sentencing for Commonwealth offences and a national lift in safeguards, information sharing, and enforcement to make clear that if you exploit a child online or through a carriage service you will face real prison time, not a slap on the wrist.

The statistics are devastating. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation recorded 82,764 reports of online child exploitation in 2024-25. That is more than 226 reports every single day. Over the last year alone, reports of online child sexual abuse increased by 41 per cent. This is not an isolated problem. This is a national epidemic. Given those numbers, there is no justification for delay. We cannot allow a system that hands down sentences measured in months for crimes of extraordinary depravity.

The case that has shocked the Australian community in recent times is the case of the DPP v Maloney in Victoria. It involved a father who sexually abused his five-year-old daughter on 19 separate occasions, and who produced and transmitted 77 separate files of child sexual abuse material. Those files included 13 videos and 64 images. The judgement makes for unbearable reading. The little girl knew what was happening to her was wrong. On at least two occasions, she told her father she didn't like it. She was just five years old. Yet, despite this, the offender will be eligible for release after just 2½ years.

For the Commonwealth offences of producing and transmitting child abuse material, he received a sentence of only six months imprisonment before release on a recognisance order. Six months for producing and sharing videos of a child—his own daughter no less—being sexually assaulted. That is not justice; that is an abject failure, and that failure demands immediate action by this government.

The Commonwealth does not have a general power to make criminal laws—that is a matter for the states—however the Commonwealth does have jurisdiction when a carriage service, such as the internet or the postal service, is used to commit these crimes. This bill deals with those specific offences. It does not create new offences. It strengthens sentences for existing ones. Specifically, the bill amends the Crimes Act to establish mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for five existing offences relating to child abuse material transmitted or possessed through a carriage or postal service. For second or subsequent offences, the mandatory minimum will increase to six years. Importantly, this bill closes the loophole that allows the court in Maloney case to release the offender after just six months in prison. Under this bill, a recognisance release order cannot be granted for these crimes unless exceptional circumstances exist. This reform is not radical. It is necessary, it is reasonable and it reflects the expectations of the Australian community.

When the coalition introduced mandatory minimum sentences in 2019, it was because 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders were not serving a single day in prison. That was unacceptable then and it remains unacceptable now. Since the introduction of those reforms we've seen real improvements: more offenders are pleading guilty, sentences are longer, rehabilitation rates have improved, the community is safer. But cases like Maloney show that more must be done. That is why we must act now.

The coalition seeks bipartisanship on this bill. The attorney has said publicly that she's open to considering this proposal. I welcome that but, words are not enough. The time for consideration is over. It is time to act. This bill should not be delayed by procedural obstacles. Standing orders should be suspended so it can be debated and passed without delay. The community expects no less.

The impacts of child sexual abuse are lifelong: 95 per cent of survivors experience long-term mental health consequences, 67 per cent struggle in their relationships, and 56 per cent suffer setbacks in their education and finances. The trauma endures for decades. It destroys lives; it breaks families. Too often, victims of abuse become offenders themselves. That is the devastating cycle that we are duty-bound to break.

Some will argue that longer sentences don't reduce reoffending, but while an offender is behind bars they cannot harm another child. Longer sentences incapacitate offenders, protect communities and send a clear and powerful message that this nation will not tolerate sexual abuse of children. Longer sentences also deter potential offenders who know the consequences are real and severe. Most importantly, they restore faith that our justice system stands with victims, not with perpetrators.

Every day that we delay, another 226 reports of online child exploitation are received. Every day that we delay, more children are abused. Every day that we delay, we fail those who depend upon us for protection. That is why this bill must be passed urgently, and that is why the standing orders must be suspended today. I call on every member of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, to support this motion. Let's act together, let's act decisively, and let's act now. Every child deserves protection, and every offender deserves real punishment. This parliament has the power to make that happen. Let us not waste another day. I commend the motion to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. In rising to support the shadow Attorney-General, I reflect on the No. 1 priority of any government: to keep Australians safe. Protecting children is an imperative of that special compact. This proposal has been put together in a considered, thorough and careful way because we have a problem here. And we, as a collective of this federal parliament, need to fix it. This is above politics, this is beyond partisanship, and this is solely and entirely centred on wanting to protect children, to deter predators and to keep Australians safe.

I am deeply disturbed by the horrific allegations of abuse occurring in child care around Australia. We cannot look the other way. We cannot hope that it will go away. The ABC's Four Corners program last night identified almost 150 childcare workers convicted, charged or accused of sexual abuse and inappropriate conduct against children. I saw some of journalist Adele Ferguson's story. It was shocking, and what she uncovered chilled me to the bone. I'm familiar with Adele Ferguson's work across several topics. She is forensic and has a strong sense of justice.

As a proud Victorian who currently watches in despair at the lawlessness running rampant across my state, let me remind the House about why we are here on this issue. We are here because of the Maloney case. Let's remind ourselves of the main points of this case. I'm not going to go into the details of offending, but this is about a parent who abused their child—their daughter, who was five. The offender abused their child on no less than 19 occasions. They then produced and communicated child abuse material from those occasions. There could not be a more profound breach of trust.

I think of that little girl, that five-year-old, and I think about how she is doing now, a few years on. And I think about the rest of her life and what that holds because of that abuse. That child, who hopefully will become an adult one day, has a life sentence. Her abuser does not. He doesn't have a fraction of the life sentence that he imposed on that child. Maloney was given an effective non-parole period of six months for the Commonwealth offences of producing and distributing child abuse material. That followed a two-year non-parole period for the other offences. That is manifestly inadequate; that is wrong.

We are offering the government an opportunity to show the Australian people that their parliament can come together and work in the common good, beyond the political fray, when there are circumstances such as this. The sentence was in part due to mitigating circumstances. In instances of child abuse, there should be none, because there is never any reason—any excuse—for abusing a child. There should be no mitigating circumstances, and today we seek to fix that.

This bill ensures that those who abuse, exploit or prey upon children face real consequences. This bill, which is the subject of the motion which I am proud to second, introduces mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for serious Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences. This increases to six years for second or subsequent offences, as it should. The bill also closes a loophole that has allowed some offenders to walk free on recognisance release orders after serving only a fraction of their sentence. This is not good enough. Australians deserve better. We have to do better on this. Our children deserve to grow up safely. I implore my colleagues on the other side of this chamber to support this motion, and I strongly commend it to the House.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone in this chamber has contempt for those who harm or seek to harm children. There should be no suggestion or intimation to the contrary. I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I can't proceed on that. I just want to check something with the Clerk, because I believe I've got to proceed straight to what the minister has moved, which is that the debate be adjourned.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to page 530 of the Practice. Whilst I appreciate the minister's commentary before he moved the motion, the reality is that, under standing order 79(a) and as detailed on page 530 of the Practice, a member who speaks to a motion—he made brief remarks and then moved the motion. That can't happen. Both can't happen under the rules. Under standing order 79(a) and as detailed on page 530 of the Practice, a person who speaks to a motion can't move an adjournment of the motion.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ):  Just so I can clarify, Member for Fisher, you're suggesting that because the assistant minister said a short phrase before moving the motion—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that's a speech and a contribution?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the Practice supports me on that point of order. I'll await your ruling on that.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, okay. We take it as a speech.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time has expired. The question now is that the motion be agreed to.