CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 March 2009. Page 2107.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:09): What is proposed here by the member for Davenport relates primarily to the question of age. I want to take the debate a little further, without getting away from the concept of child pornography. I was reading a statement by a senior police officer the other day in which the definition of 'child pornography' and its criminal consequences concerned me somewhat. I know that we debated this issue some years ago in this place, and I will follow this up by doing some additional research.

I have no time for people who prey on young children. That is not something that I accept or tolerate in any form whatsoever. I cannot understand how people can find children sexually interesting or attractive or get involved. So, I have no time whatsoever for people who prey on children and take advantage of the most vulnerable in our society.

Reading the statement of this police officer, it suggested that basically any photograph of a naked child, or even a child in underwear, would constitute an offence and be subject to criminal proceedings. I know that when we debated this at the time there was some assurance that we would not be seeking to apprehend parents or grandparents who might have a photo of their child or grandchild, for example, in the bath or at the beach, those people having no sinister motive whatsoever in taking a photograph.

I am sure that all of us would have in our family collection some photograph of a baby or a child wearing little or nothing. So, I do have a concern with that, and I am going to revisit this to double check to make sure that we have not set a trap for people who have no evil intent. We need to deal with those who exploit children. The argument given by some in their defence is that they did not do anything. Well, that is a nonsense because, if there is some sexual activity involving a child and their photograph is taken, then they are a party to that exploitation and should not be exempt from prosecution.

This matter, as I indicated at the start, relates to age. I want to make sure that we do not unwittingly, unfairly or inappropriately trap people who have no sinister intention or motive. Certainly, I am in favour of dealing severely with people who exploit children. As I said at the start, I cannot understand how people could find a baby or a child of any age sexually attractive or get involved with it.

I notice that there was a recent prosecution reported in The Advertiser where someone said that they had looked these things up on the net out of curiosity. I think that is an issue, and I notice that one of the motions coming up shortly relates to internet filtering, but it would not necessarily stop that sort of curiosity.

Where people have, or know that they have, some unhealthy perverted view of children, they should be encouraged—and there should be quite an explicit campaign to encourage them—to get help and treatment before they inflict damage on children. That is one thing we should be doing. I do not think that we do enough in respect of those people who know that they have a problem.

In my limited knowledge of this area, I think some of it stems from a repressed childhood, so that, in relation to people who have grown up in a very restricted environment where the human body is seen as something naughty or dirty, you create an artificial and unhealthy obsession, and then later in life some of these people, in my view, focus on children because they are reliving something that should have been an open, healthy and natural thing when they were growing up.

If you accept creation, you would have to say that God would not make a body that is offensive: it is a contradiction in terms. If you accept evolution, then we have a body that has evolved over a million of years and is a wonderful thing as well. Whichever strategy, argument or philosophy you adopt, whether it be creation, evolution or a bit of both, there should be none of this silly excessive Victorian attitude towards the human body, and that is why I come back to the point I made earlier. In relation to innocent photographs of children which are not designed for perverts and which do not have any perversion associated with them, we must make sure that we do not trap innocent parents or grandparents in the net when we seek to get the evil people who prey on children.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:15): Again, I rise briefly to support the bill and commend the member for Davenport for bringing forward an issue which is relevant today and which can be quite emotive, particularly in an electorate like mine, which is strongly Lutheran and very family oriented.

I understand that the member for Davenport has brought this bill before the house to amend the discrepancies that exist in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act in respect of the definition of a child by age. The bill seeks to redefine 'child' from under or apparently under the age of 16 to under or apparently under the age of 18. This feeds into section 62A(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which describes what constitutes child pornographic material. I understand that the bill seeks to make further amendments in relation to section 63B of the act, procuring a child to commit an indecent act.

I fully support the member for Davenport in wanting to change the definition of 'child' to under the age of 18, as a 17 year old is still considered a minor. As the member for Schubert, I represent a great region, a region with a very strong family and Lutheran ethic. This sort of activity is abhorrent to my constituents and to me. We have sexual deviants in our society and our communities, and we need to protect the innocent and the unwary, especially our young people.

This activity can leave its scar on people for life, and we need to protect whenever we can, particularly as legislators in this place. I again commend the member for Davenport for a very caring and thought out bill, and I certainly support it and him.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty