Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Child-Like Sex Dolls Prohibition) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

When I spoke on the Statutes Amendment (Child Exploitation and Encrypted Material) Bill some weeks ago, I foreshadowed that I would introduce this bill to deal with the shocking and unseemly issue of childlike sex dolls, a word I use loosely and which I, and I think other members would agree, find repulsive to use in this instance. At the time, I accepted the very sound advice of parliamentary counsel that moving amendments to the child exploitation and encrypted material bill to include these dolls and criminalise their behaviour fell outside the scope of that bill.

The child exploitation and encrypted material bill is still to be finalised in this chamber after it returned from the other place due to the absence of our colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell. On that point, I take this opportunity to wish him well in his continuing recovery and look forward to welcoming him back to the chamber soon. Depending how the child exploitation and encrypted material bill is ultimately resolved, it may mean that this bill will need to be further amended to ensure that childlike sex dolls are included in the definition of child exploitation offences within the framework of the proposed encryption powers.

Childlike sex dolls are an emerging and increasing form of child exploitation material that must clearly be criminalised to prevent children from being abused, as the dolls normalise abusive behaviour towards children, encourage the sexualisation of children and increase the likelihood that a paedophile will engage in sexual activity with or towards children. It is one of the main reasons the federal government introduced the commonwealth Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 on 14 February.

The commonwealth bill amended a number of acts and sought to prohibit the possession of child sex dolls, as well as criminalising the use of a carriage service to advertise or solicit childlike sex dolls and criminalising the use of a postal service to send such dolls. Unfortunately, as we know, the commonwealth bill lapsed on 11 April when the federal parliament was dissolved ahead of this weekend's election, and it is unknown when it will be dealt with, regardless of who forms government after this weekend. To that end, it is important that the South Australian parliament moves quickly to ban the use of these repulsive objects, which are three-dimensional, resemble children and have imitation orifices that are intended to be used for simulating sexual intercourse.

In March this year, the Australian Institute of Criminology prepared a report entitled 'Exploring the implications of child sex dolls', highlighting serious concerns with the issue of child sex dolls. We know that the so-called 'dolls' are currently manufactured in overseas markets, including China, Hong Kong and Japan, and are designed to be as lifelike as possible. Manufacturers go to significant lengths to offer an array of tailored options, from being able to choose skin, hair and eye colour, facial features and body shape.

Most disturbing of all is the trend towards robotic dolls. Robotic versions of adult sex dolls are already available, with child versions thought to be in production. The robotic versions of such dolls can have a heartbeat, use artificial intelligence and programming to give positive verbal cues, track eye movement and assume sexual positions.

The Australian Institute of Criminology report stated that in Australia in 2017 a significant increase was reported in the number of imported and seized childlike sex dolls classified as 'objectionable goods' under the commonwealth Customs Act. Figures provided by the Department of Home Affairs indicate that, between July 2013 and June 2018, 133 childlike sex dolls were detected at point of importation, although the largest portion of these detections occurred in the 2016-17 financial year.

In the US, in a bipartisan house bill, the Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots Act, known as the CREEPER Act, passed unanimously six months after its introduction in 2017. The CREEPER Act prohibits the importation or transportation of any child sex doll. Persons guilty under the CREEPER Act are fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years for the first offence and imprisoned for up to 10 years for subsequent offences. The US act defines a child sex doll as an anatomically correct doll, manikin or robot with the features of, or with features that resemble those of, a minor, intended for use in sexual acts.

The motivation behind the US legislation includes the assertion of a correlation between possession of child abuse materials and participation in the abuse of children. In 2016, a New South Wales man was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment for possession of a child sex doll after a District Court judge ruled that a child sex doll could be classed as child abuse material under 91FB of the Crimes Act 1900 (New South Wales).

The Australian Institute of Criminology's review of the literature on the issue of childlike sex dolls identified a number of potential harms. For example, it is possible that the use of childlike sex dolls may lead to an escalation of child sex offences, from viewing online child exploitation material to actual physical contact and sexual offending against children because it is suggested that childlike sex dolls bridge the gap between fantasy and reality. In addition, the sale of childlike sex dolls could potentially result in the risk of children being objectified as sexual beings and of child sex becoming a commodity. Finally, the review of the literature also found that there is a risk that childlike sex dolls could be used to groom children for sex.

We already know that adult sex dolls have been used as tools in the grooming process. In the case of R v Gommeson [2014] a child was encouraged to have sex with a blow-up adult sex doll as part of the grooming process. The perpetrator in that case was former police officer Robert Gommeson, who brutalised nine children, the youngest of them just five years old, between 1967 and 1983 in Victoria. In one incident, this heinous excuse of a human held his police issue revolver to the head of one of his victims as he raped her, according to the victim's testimony to the Victorian County Court in 2016.

A parent reported him to the police in 1979 but, shockingly, he was not charged. Instead, Gommeson resigned from the police force and moved to New South Wales, where he offended against a further seven children between 2005 and 2011. Gommeson, who was sentenced to gaol for the New South Wales offences in 2014, pleaded guilty to the Victorian crimes and was sentenced to at least 15 years in prison in 2016.

There is absolutely no evidence—none—that childlike sex dolls have any therapeutic benefit in preventing child abuse. As legislators, we need to stay ahead of changes in technology and we cannot sit idly by when this disturbing, sickening phenomenon continues to grow. We must protect children from all forms of child exploitation.

I cannot overstate the importance of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Child-like Sex Dolls Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2019, which proposes amendments to section 62 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to include childlike sex dolls within the definition of 'child exploitation material'. While it could be argued that childlike sex dolls could already fall within the existing definition, this remains untested in South Australia. The more prudent course is to finetune the definition to make it abundantly clear that there is absolutely no doubt that, in the minds of those even contemplating buying such a crude and crass object, childlike sex dolls fall within the meaning of 'child exploitation material'.

In addition, the bill makes it an offence to produce or disseminate childlike sex dolls, with a penalty of 10 years' imprisonment applying to the offence. The bill also makes it an offence to possess a childlike sex doll. A person guilty of such an offence will face 10 years' imprisonment. I should point out that these penalties are in line with similar penalties contained in division 11A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. They fall slightly less than what was proposed in the federal bill that was introduced into federal parliament earlier in the year, but I think it is important that we keep the balance with our legislation here. Ten years is certainly in line with the provisions that currently exist for similar offences in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

SA-Best stands resolute in its commitment to prevent the exploitation of children. This bill falls within that commitment. We are intent on seeing the bill progress quickly through the parliament. As such, I urge my honourable colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. To that end, I am keen to work with the government, the opposition and the crossbench in securing its passage in a timely manner. With those words, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.