Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

The Greens will also be supporting the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, on the basis that we need to do everything that we reasonably can to ensure that we protect children in our community, who are obviously one of the most at-risk sections of our society. It's very important that, as we do everything we can to reasonably protect children, we ensure to the greatest degree possible that we maintain the independence of the judiciary. That's why the Greens are very pleased that the government, despite initially flagging that mandatory sentencing would be a part of the government's response, have decided not to include mandatory sentencing in this legislation.

The Greens do not support mandatory sentencing, in principle, because we believe that our judiciary is best placed to determine adequate sentences based on the merits of each individual case. So it's important that we do maintain the independence of the judiciary, and, on that basis, we are very pleased that the government is not proceeding with mandatory sentencing in this context.

Of course sexual offences committed against anyone—but particularly children—are extremely serious matters. We certainly believe that sex offenders should receive appropriate sentences but, as I said, along with the Law Council of Australia and most legal experts and legal associations we support the Sentencing Advisory Council's position that the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences would create unjustified unfairness without achieving the stated aims of deterring offenders and increasing transparency.

I place on the record that we'll be watching government closely in this context. It appears that mandatory minimum sentences are still a part of the government's agenda; they are contained within another bill currently under inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019. So I ask the government to reconsider and to remove mandatory minimum sentencing from its agenda and, for that matter, from statutes that have passed through the parliament. Instead of politicking around this issue, the government should simply seek to maintain the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in this country and allow courts to apply sentences as they see fit, based on the merits of each individual case.

I want to make the point that this is the second time in as many weeks that we've debated a bill in this place where the government is reversing the evidential burden of proof. We have concerns around this element of the legislation. I can indicate to the Senate that, although we have circulated amendments, I will not be moving those amendments in the context of this debate, but we'll be watching very closely how these matters roll out in real life once this legislation is passed. We will be, as I said, supporting this bill as a legislative response to some of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, because that royal commission and this legislation do seek to protect some of the most vulnerable members in our community.