Bills

Statutes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 June 2023.)

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (12:42): I think it is quite fitting on the back of the motion that we have just had that this parliament now moves straight on to considering this particular bill and what more can be done in relation to preventing, deterring and punishing sexual crimes that are committed, particularly against children.

Yesterday, I was at the point of talking about the particular element of this bill that deals with bail. To refresh memories, I was talking about the fact that, while at the moment there is nothing in the law that means the gravity of the offence of production of illicit child material should not be treated as a serious offence, what this particular amendment does is make that quite explicit.

This limb of the election commitment that was made by the then Labor opposition is fulfilled by legislating a special principle that bail authorities must take into account when considering bail for persons charged with child exploitation material or childlike sex doll offences and the seriousness of those offences. The principle states that, when considering the gravity of the alleged offence, the bail authority must take into account the harm that people who deal with child sex abuse material cause to children by contributing to the demand for the abuse of children.

It is quite plain, and I think most people in this house would recognise, that there is really no difference between the direct physical intervention with a child, the sexual abuse of a child directly, and essentially utilising (for want of a much better word) the product of that abuse—that is, the photographic or video material that comes from someone else abusing a child. At the end of the day, it has the same impact on the child: the child is being abused. In fact, in some ways they are re-abused every time the material is viewed, shared, downloaded, distributed or traded.

While authorities are currently already free to take this into account, and often they do—and I want to acknowledge that police, court authorities and magistrates do often take that gravity into account—this will be a legislated principle. It will enshrine it in law and make it quite explicit to those who are making the very difficult task of deciding on bail; it will make it very explicit for them.

It will specifically draw their mind to the harms of child exploitation material in each case and ensure a uniform approach between bail authorities, which is really important. It will also create a legislative statement about the gravity with which the parliament views this type of offending—and we have just heard from members in the last motion debate just how seriously we take that.

I also want to acknowledge that deciding on whether bail is or is not granted is quite a difficult decision. My experience as a reporter is that bail is often an area of media and public interest, of great criticism. Certainly, when the public or media commentators think that the judiciary or the police have got it wrong they are pretty quick to point that out and seek and reflect the views of the public about those particular bail decisions.

It is important that we make this as clear as possible to give some comfort to those who are making those decisions so that the public at large can have faith in the integrity of those decisions. That is where the enshrining of a uniform approach really comes into play, as well, because the public wants to have confidence that where bail is granted—or indeed is not—it is applied on a fair basis. This amendment really helps that, and it will assist police, in particular, who often have to make decisions about bail. It better equips them for that really tough decision-making process.

I want to turn to another element of this bill, and that is the language around commercial sexual services. This bill alters the language used in part 3, division 12, of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which contains offences in relation to commercial sexual services. These include forcing a person to provide commercial sexual services or knowingly using a child in those services. The phrasing of 'provide commercial sexual services' will be amended and changed to 'perform commercial sexual acts'.

I am sure members can see the difference there in terms of describing this activity as a service as opposed to being forced into an act. Victims of such crimes would certainly not see themselves as providing any sort of service. It is quite uncomfortable and inaccurate language, and although this is a tiny change I think it will make a difference. For victims, often sitting in court and hearing read out the descriptions of crimes, the technical names of crimes, can have an incredibly jarring and upsetting impact.

Last sitting week, I had the privilege of spending some time with the amazing Grace Tame, and last sitting week this parliament gave effect to changes to language in our laws that she was campaigning for. Very importantly, she has been working hard to remove the term 'relationship' from our laws. Many decades ago, we would have thought that was fairly straightforward language, to describe a connection of one thing or person to another as a relationship, but of course she has pointed out—as many victims have pointed out—that language is not only quite triggering but also incredibly offensive to suggest that a child could even consent to or engage in a relationship.

Of course, these are not relationships; these are crimes. They are cold hard crimes committed against children, and language matters when we are describing that. It matters to us in this place when we are describing offending but it also, most importantly, matters to victims who have to sit through days, weeks and sometimes months of court hearings. I am sure everyone can understand how difficult and retraumatising it would be to hear again and again phrases like 'relationship' or 'services' attributed to them or the acts committed against them. This language better reflects the exploitative nature of that offending and I absolutely commend that.

I would also like to recognise that several elements of these amendments come from the work of the Hon. Connie Bonaros in the other place. She has done some remarkable work not only around childlike sex dolls but also, much more broadly, on the issue of offending against children and sexual offending against children. I want to recognise that she has had a very direct influence on these amendments we are talking about today. Indeed, she queried whether the word 'services' was appropriate, and of course we are seeking to change that today. The language is not intended to alter the scope of the offence, and I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions has been consulted about that and raised no objections, which should come as a great comfort to the house.

I might also briefly touch on the sentencing discounts, which make up the third part of this bill. At the moment, essentially there is a loophole that makes it easier for people who possess child pornography or child exploitative material and childlike sex dolls to get bigger sentencing discounts. That loophole exists where, although these child sex offences are indictable offences, they are not considered serious indictable offences and so they do not attract lower sentencing discounts for guilty pleas in the same way that most other child sex offences do, such as producing child exploitation material and grooming children online, which are classified as serious indictable offences.

The election commitment in relation to sentencing discounts is fulfilled by amending the Sentencing Act to class possession of child exploitation material or dealing with childlike sex dolls as a serious indictable offence for the purpose of the discounts. You may say, 'Well, why would we even want to be offering discounts to people?' but of course it is a longstanding principle in our sentencing system. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the provision of discounts has quite an impact, accordingly, on encouraging people who are guilty to plead much earlier.

That is incredibly important when it comes to victims of crime. It is immeasurably different from pressing charges and having an offender admit their guilt, even if they are only doing it for a sentencing discount, rather than victims being hauled through that process I discussed earlier—that retraumatisation, hearing all the offences, having to take the stand themselves, hearing things sometimes from decades earlier dredged up again and often in a fairly public environment. If that can be minimised by offering sentencing discounts to those who admit their crimes and plead early, then that is a good thing.

These child sex offences would therefore attract a lower sentence discount for guilty pleas compared with other indictable offences. Discounts would be capped at 25 per cent, rather than at 35 per cent for the earliest pleas and so on. This change will emphasise that possession of child exploitation material and childlike sex dolls is considered equally as serious as other child sex offences and treated the same. I commend this bill, I commend those in the other place, particularly the Attorney-General, who has been working on this, and I hope that it has swift and unaltered passage through this place.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (12:54): I rise to indicate my support for this important bill that enacts another Malinauskas Labor government election commitment as part of our Justice for Victims policy. This policy promised to close loopholes that make it easier for people who possess child porn or childlike sex dolls to get bigger sentence discounts or bail.

The possession of child porn and childlike sex dolls is alarming, and it should concern all South Australians that offenders who possess this material are not considered at the same level as other child sex offenders. Therefore, these child sex offences are indictable offences, not currently considered serious indictable offences, and so do not attract lower sentence discounts for guilty pleas in the same way that most other child sex offences do, such as producing child exploitation material and grooming children online, which are serious indictable offences.

The commitment in relation to sentence discounts is fulfilled by amending the Sentencing Act to class possession of child exploitation material or dealing with childlike sex dolls as a serious indictable offence for the purposes of the discounts. These child sex offences would therefore attract lower sentence discounts for guilty pleas compared with other indictable offences. This change will emphasise that possession of child exploitation material and childlike sex dolls is considered equally as serious as other child sex offences. Exploitation of children, whether the offender is directly abusing the child or fantasising about it, is abhorrent.

A similar loophole in the legislation relates to the Bail Act, which this bill will amend to ensure that when considering the gravity of the alleged offence the bail authority must take into account the harm that people who deal with child sex material cause to children by contributing to demand for the abuse of children. Whilst authorities are already free to take this into account—and often do—a legislated principle will specifically draw their mind to the harms of child exploitation material in each case, ensuring a uniform approach between bail authorities, and create a legislative statement of the gravity with which the parliament views this type of offending.

The final aspect of this bill relates to altering the language in part 3, division 12, of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which contains offences in relation to commercial sexual services. These include forcing a person to provide commercial sexual services or knowingly using a child in commercial sexual services. The phrasing of 'provide commercial sexual services' will be amended to 'perform commercial sexual acts'. This language much better reflects the exploitative nature of the offending.

These are more important reforms being made by our government to protect children from harm and will be followed by changes to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which are currently before the other place. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:57): Can I please thank everybody who has contributed to this debate in this house and also the Attorney-General, the Hon. Kyam Maher, who led debate in the upper house. Can I also please thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros, as I did in my earlier remarks, for her steadfast contribution to advancing change in this space, including through this legislation and the progressing of this legislation.

It is absolutely incumbent on all of us in this house—and, indeed, on members of our community, leaders across sectors beyond—to do all that we possibly can to help prevent and end the horrific scourge of abuse against children. As I said in my earlier remarks, our government took to the election a steadfast policy to advance the changes that we need to. I am very pleased that as we progress this legislation we are taking an important step in advancing that suite of policies, suggested legislative change and set of programs. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.