CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 May 2010.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:10): I do not have any problem with the general intent of this bill. What does concern me, though, is the continual use of the term 'child pornography', because I do not think it adequately or appropriately reflects what happens to children who are featured in this so-called child pornography. To me, it is sexual assault. Without going into the graphic details, as one former member used to do, penetration of a baby and so on is not pornography: it is just an evil act of sexual assault.

By using the term pornography, or linking it in, I believe it lowers the seriousness of what we are talking about, because we use the term pornography generally to convey a sense of promoting sexual interest, arousal, awareness and so on, and I do not think that what falls into this category—not that I look at the stuff, but from my understanding—such as photographs of babies being raped, is what I would classify as pornography.

I would like to see, over time, that maybe the Attorney moves to change that description to something that more accurately reflects the evil nature of what happens, because when you say 'pornography' a lot of people are thinking of Playboy and Penthouse and, to some people, anything involving nudity is pornography. I certainly do not support that view.

Sadly, the original meaning of paedophile was someone who loved children. Once again, that is now a term that has been bastardised. People who do these things support an industry, because we know the courts take the view that, whether you were the person who was involved in sexual activity with a baby, an infant or a teenager, whether or not you were actually directly involved, by buying or supporting the images, you are supporting that industry. I think it is fair to say that is generally the position the courts take.

Years ago in my previous life, the term paedophile did not have the same connotation it has now. In fact, criminologists generally referred to paedophiles as insecure people who could not make social interaction at a normal adult level. Nowadays, of course, paedophiles have become hated, basically, and people want very serious penalties directed at them. As I say, it is a term that has now been turned right on its head and, instead of meaning 'a lover of a child', it really means 'an abuser of a child'. I just make that point.

I do not have an issue with the general intent of the bill. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can find sexual activity involving a child or children worthy of any consideration or support, or to view it and certainly to participate in it—it just fails me. I just do not understand it. I support this bill. However, as I say, I would be encouraged if the Attorney would, over time, have a look to see whether we can get a better terminology. I know this bill is from the member for Davenport. Rather than call it 'child pornography', let us call it what it really is, which is 'child sexual assault'.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.