HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:01): 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. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to close some discrepancies that exist in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act in relation to child pornography, in particular, procuring a child to commit an indecent act. The bill seeks to redefine 'child' from 'under or apparently under the age of 18 years' to under or apparently under the age of 18 in certain circumstances, and I will explain.

Section 62 in the existing act which relates to child pornography describes child pornography as material:

(a) that—

(i) describes or depicts a child engaging in sexual activity; or

(ii) consists of, or contains, the image of a child or bodily parts of a child (or what appears to be the image of a child or bodily parts of a child) or in the production of which a child has been or appears to have been involved; and

(b) that is intended or apparently intended—

(i) to excite or gratify sexual interest; or

(ii) to excite or gratify a sadistic or other perverted interest in violence or cruelty.

My amendments primarily deal with section 63B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which is to do with procuring a child to commit an indecent act. Currently, a child is defined as a person under 16 years.

Section 63B(1)(a) of the act refers to a person who incites or procures the commission by a child of an indecent act. My bill seeks to amend the definition of 'child' in this clause from under the age of 16 years old to 17 years, because 17 is the age of consent.

Section 63B(1)(b) refers to a person who causes a person to expose any part of his or her body, and my bill again seeks to amend the definition of 'child' in this clause from under the age of 16 to under the age of 17, being that 17 is the age of consent.

Section 63B(1)(b)(ii) refers to a person making photographic, electronic or other record from which the image of a child engaged in a private act may be reproduced. My bill seeks to amend the definition of 'child' in this clause from under the age of 16 to under the age of 18, because 18 is the age at which you can legally contract to sell or trade in commerce that particular type of material. Currently, you could, for instance, have a photograph of someone aged 16 and it can possibly be traded according to the current law. I wish to bring that up to 18.

Section 63B(3)(a) and (b) refers to a person who procures a child or makes a communication with a child with the intention of procuring a child to engage in, or submit to, sexual activity. In the current act the child is defined as being of 16 years, so you could be on the internet seeking a 16 year old for sexual purposes and the age of consent, of course, is 17 years.

So my bill seeks to amend the definition of 'child' in this clause up to the age of 17 to bring some consistency. It seems a nonsense that the age of consent is 17 but you can be on the internet trying to attract someone of a lesser age, that is, between 16 and 17, and not commit an offence. So I wish to close that loophole. Naturally, the defence that exists currently in the law, which is the teenager defence where there are two 17 year olds, is maintained as a defence.

These loopholes were brought to my attention by a member of the police Paedophile Task Force at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting when we were talking about a whole range of issues and this particular issue came up. I have had a look at the law and it seems logical to me that these loopholes be changed and we lift the barrier by a year or two. The principle I am engaging in the act is that if the age of consent is 17 then obviously anyone younger than that should not be able to be procured on the internet or by any other means for sexual activity, so therefore we should lift the age.

In relation to photographs, etc., currently the act says if you are 16 you can take photos of people in certain activity and possibly distribute them. What I am saying is that normally the age of 18 is the age at which you can contract, and therefore we should not allow people under the age of 18 who may be convinced to be involved in photos or productions if they are over 17—so they are legally consenting at 17, but I say they should not be able to contract to sell or trade in those sorts of products until they are 18. It is no different to any other product.

This bill seeks to close those loopholes, and I look forward to the debate and, hopefully, the support of the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT