Statutes Amendment (Child Sex Offences) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:39): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. This bill proposes three broad areas of change. First, it includes an update to the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act to ensure consistency with state and federal legislation that define relevant child sex offences; inserts a provision if an offender breaches the conditions of their registration, in the case that they believe they have had contact with a person under the age of 18; and removes from registration people who are or who have been convicted of other offences that were not originally included in the sex offenders registration area by reference to other parts of legislation.

With regard to breaching conditions of registration, the current provision only refers to having contact with a young person and we have been advised in our briefings that doubt has arisen as to whether this applies to contact with a police officer posing as a minor in online conversations. We agree that if there is any doubt here, for the avoidance of making sure that doubt is removed, this ought to be supported.

A second group of changes relate to penalties for child exploitation material and grooming offences. Specifically, they seek to increase maximum penalties to align with penalties for equivalent offences under the Criminal Code, that is the commonwealth code of 1995, and remove aggravating factors from these offences, noting that the basic and only offence will be greater than the aggravated offence in almost all counts with these offences.

The third area of change proposes amendments to both the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and the Sentencing Act, which we are informed seek to remove doubt that offenders may be charged, convicted and sentenced based on the age they believe the victim to be, which relates to the issue that I previously mentioned that has an effect on things such as a police officer posing as a minor in online conversations.

During the course of this parliamentary term, and for a long time before, the Labor Party has taken a tough stance on child sex offenders and I think that is in line with community expectations. We will be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:42): I rise on behalf of the Greens in support of this bill. We support the measures in the bill and, like the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, recognise that there will be significant public support for these changes. There is one element that did cause some concern for the Greens and that is the application of these provisions in terms of sexual communications or communications of a sexual nature between two underage persons. So that is the situation where you might have a teenager sending photos or exchanging messages with another teenager, both of whom are under age.

The concern there or the implications are obvious because that could potentially lead to situations where young people who are both minors are facing significant criminal consequences. In engaging with the government and getting their advice on this bill, we have been advised that the public interest test would be applied by prosecuting authorities and it would therefore be considered unlikely in terms of young people being prosecuted in these situations.

I note in particular the fact that a child engaging in this conduct, that is a teenager corresponding in a sexual way with another teenager, would not be considered to be committing a registrable offence—rather, while committing a registrable offence, would not be placed on the Sex Offenders Register and I think that is an important assurance to have. With that in mind, we will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:44): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best on this bill and to indicate our support for the bill, which we know seeks to align our maximum penalties for child grooming and exploitation offences with their commonwealth equivalents. That is something we support wholeheartedly.

Importantly, these new penalties exceed current aggravated penalties. It will mean that the maximum penalty, for instance, for possessing a childlike sex doll will increase from 10 to 15 years' imprisonment, and we look forward to higher sentences being imposed on child sex offenders, as they should be.

Just last week, South Australia's first person to be convicted of possessing a childlike sex doll was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for that and for other similarly despicable offences. He will serve just 18 months in prison, followed by a 12-month stint in the comfort of his own home under a supervision order, something I think many would regard as a very light sentence for a man who was found in possession of more than 9,000 images and 128 videos containing child abuse material. I think all of us acknowledge that that simply is not a tough enough sentence.

I will not repulse you with all the details other than to summarise by saying that some of the images depicted primarily prepubescent female children engaging in sexual activity with other children as well as being raped by adults. That is the sentence that this person was handed for that sort of offending. A large proportion of the material involved bondage, duct tape, chains, collars and blindfolds. I have no doubt that the community and members here would be as sickened as I was at this depraved subset of a human being. These are among the worst types of offences and, as such, the levels of penalty against such human beings should be consistent and high.

The bill sensibly removes the distinction between basic and aggravated offences, most commonly dependent on the age of the victim. Currently, as we know, an offence is aggravated if the defendant knew the child was under the age of 14. Removing the need for this classification will not only save time and resources but, most importantly, stop the further mental trauma of those whose job it is to view this child abuse material. It is necessary but cruel to subject them to additional unnecessary trauma to determine whether a child is 12 or 14, for example. Approximate age will continue to be taken into account in sentencing.

It is difficult to fathom just how prevalent online child sex abuse is. Globally, there are an estimated half a million child sex predators online each and every day. Last year, messaging platform WhatsApp made over 400,000 reports of child sex abuse material, a tenfold increase from the previous year. This number, although itself staggering, pales in comparison to the 20.3 million reports by Facebook over the same 12-month period.

Close to home, child abuse traffic also soared in 2020 as COVID lockdowns trapped victims in their homes. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation recorded more than 21,000 reports of online child sexual exploitation. In May 2020, Victorian police linked more than 7.4 million files containing images and videos of child abuse to Victorian-based users alone. The AFP charged 191 people over 1,847 offences, following the interception of 250,000-plus files, clearly a drop in the ocean.

It is apparent that child sex offenders are infiltrating online gambling platforms and social media in their masses in their hunt for young people. They use fake profiles as a cover and often self-disclose negative experiences as a grooming tactic. Once they gain trust, the conversation steers to sex and requests for images or videos and, in some cases, as the online relationship evolves, a face-to-face meeting. We had a recent example of just that involving our child protection system, as well.

Faced with increasingly exorbitant numbers, law enforcement agencies are being forced to engage in new methods in their ongoing battle to catch these individuals. Undercover police officers often pose as children in online conversations with predators, and so the bill pre-empts any future difficulties in convicting these predators who engage with virtual victims. No offender deserves leniency just because it is not a real child on the other end of the conversation. The intent is clear. This time it may not be a real child hunted down, but the next time it might very well be.

What we do know is that the offender will not stop in his or her pursuit until they find what they are looking for. It is bad enough that the offender believed that the person they were speaking to was a child. It is enough that the offender believed that the virtual victim was of a certain age. The real question for law enforcement agencies is just how to keep up with the number of predators who are actually hunting their victims online.

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence has stepped in to cast a bigger net. Chatbots such as Dutch-invented Sweetie are an AI tool being used by law enforcement agencies around the world, which are capable of engaging in multiple conversations all over the world. These virtual puppets mimic human behaviour based on extensive analysis of real online chats between sex offenders and young victims.

The bill makes further sensible amendments to various acts to keep up with the changing landscape and to ensure successful convictions going forward. That is a very positive step, especially in light of some of the figures that I have outlined. There are a number of other sensible amendments contained in this bill, which I will not go into detail about, but it is safe to say that SA-Best is very supportive of any measures aimed at stamping out child sex offending and we will continue to support all pieces of legislation with that goal.

The only other thing that I want to mention briefly is the changes insofar as they relate to Carly's Law. I just want for the record to highlight again that in that instance, and that is the first piece of legislation that we saw introduced in this place that deals with this issue, we did draw a distinction between what you could call a basic offence and an aggravated offence and the penalties that are applied to those.

It was five years maximum imprisonment if an offender met or arranged to meet with a child with no proven intent to commit an offence—so that was just arranging to meet a child—and 10 years if they had dishonestly communicated with the intent to commit an offence against the child. Of course, in that instance we know that that intent ultimately resulted in the murder of Carly Ryan. I raise that case because I know we had discussions about it in the context of what those maximum penalties should be, but also whether there should be this distinction between the basic offences and the aggravated offences, if you like.

Generally, I think it is fair to say that all the provisions in this bill bring us in line with federal legislation as well. I only note the Carly Ryan law as an example because in that case the federal offence that applies is actually one offence. They do not have the distinction that we have in SA, but the maximum penalties are still the same. With those words, I am happy to indicate once again our overwhelming support for this legislation, and indeed I commend the government for actually moving down this path.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:53): I thank honourable members for their support for the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 4, after line 26—Insert:

(3a) Schedule 1, clause 2(q)—after 'Commonwealth' insert:

as in force before the commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013 of the Commonwealth

The government has filed this amendment to fix a small drafting error in which change is made to the wrong clause of the schedule.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 5, lines 1 to 4 [clause 7(8)]—Delete subclause (8)

I am advised this is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (8 to 18) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (17:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.