HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

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

Second Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Criminal Law Consolidation (Child-Like Sex Dolls Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2019. The bill was received in this place from the Legislative Council and was introduced there by the Hon. Ms Bonaros. I gladly move this bill as a government bill in the House of Assembly, as it seeks to deal with the troubling part of the child exploitation material industry and, more broadly, child sexual abuse.

The bill seeks to ban the production, dissemination and possession of childlike sex dolls. Childlike dolls are three dimensional, resemble children and have imitation orifices that are intended to be used for simulating sexual intercourse. There is an increasing need here in Australia and overseas in protecting the importation, possession and production of childlike sex dolls.

A recent article by the Australian Institute of Criminology suggests that, while there is a lack of robust evidence relating to child sex dolls, there is reason to suggest that the use of the dolls may lead to societal harms by desensitising the doll user to the harm caused by child sexual abuse. Currently, in Australia childlike dolls can be seized as objectionable goods under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901. However, where a doll is not seized by the commonwealth authorities at the time of importation, there is a gap in the current legislative scheme, which this bill would remedy, if passed.

The South Australian bill is similar to relevant provisions in the commonwealth Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which was introduced on 24 July 2019 and has passed the House of Representatives. The South Australian bill seeks to amend division 11A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which creates offences relating to child exploitation material. The bill would put it beyond doubt that the childlike sex dolls fall within the definition of child exploitation material.

The bill creates offences of producing, disseminating or possessing a child sex doll with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The bill contains amendments that are consequential upon the passage of the Statutes Amendment (Child Exploitation and Encrypted Material) Act 2019 and ensures that viewing an image of a childlike sex doll online will not amount to dealing with child exploitation material unless the image is of a pornographic nature. The bill also clarifies the distinction between the offences that involve pornographic images or representations of the dolls and the offences involving possessing, producing or disseminating actual dolls.

The bill also ensures that the new powers included in the Summary Offences Act 1953 by the Statutes Amendment (Child Exploitation and Encrypted Material) Act can be used in relation to all the child exploitation offences in division 11A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, not just the offences that involve actual children. The bill will not commence operation until the Statutes Amendment (Child Exploitation and Encrypted Material) Act commences operation.

In relation to the publication of an image of a childlike sex doll, members might have noticed, for example, when Mr Daniel Wills published an article in relation to this matter being in the parliament. A photographic image of a sex doll portraying a young girl with a teddy bear might have otherwise been caught by this legislation if we had ensured that this provision was in the legislation. In my office, I colloquially called it the 'Daniel Wills amendment'.

I think it is important to recognise that there are legitimate purposes by which images would be displayed or published and we need to make sure that child exploitation offences do not follow for innocent publication. The qualifying feature here must be, of course, that it cannot be of a pornographic nature. Quite obviously, in those circumstances, that would not be allowed and would fall foul of the proposed legislation.

The bill creates offences of producing, disseminating or possessing a child sex doll, with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The bill contains amendments that are consequential upon the passage of the Statutes Amendment (Child Exploitation and Encrypted Material) Act 2019. The bill ensures that viewing an image of a child sex doll online will not amount to dealing with child exploitation material unless the image is of a pornographic nature. I make the point that that is going to be the qualifying aspect.

The protection of women and children is at the core of this government's law and order priority for protecting South Australians. To this end, we have passed a comprehensive suite of policies specifically aimed at protecting victims of domestic and sexual abuse—these have included the introduction of Carly's Law—which specifically target adult sexual predators who try to take advantage of children online. We have also introduced the domestic violence disclosure scheme, providing crucial information to those who may be at risk of domestic violence.

We have also passed stronger domestic violence laws, creating the new standalone offence of strangulation and tougher penalties for repeated breaches of intervention orders. The bill before the chamber is another example of how our laws must constantly evolve to stamp out any method of promoting the exploitation of children. The Marshall Liberal government agrees that these types of abhorrent products should not be on the market in South Australia.

I have just had brought to my attention a notice forwarded from Jeremy Malcolm, the Executive Director of Prostasia Foundation. He has urged the government, and maybe other members, to consider the adjournment or postponement of the introduction of this legislation in our house on the basis that there needs to be research done to identify whether or not this is meritorious. I do not agree with that—the government does not agree with that—but I think it is reasonable that I explain why this submission has been put.

Members can read a press release that Prostasia Foundation have issued in relation to special education children and the benefits in relation to these dolls, and I think it is important that we understand what it is. He writes to tell me this:

I am the Executive Director of Prostasia Foundation, a child protection organisation that works with the world's leading scientific experts on the prevention of sexual offending against children.

I write with reference to the SA-Best private member's bill to ban childlike sex dolls, which I understand is to be introduced into the lower house imminently. Of course, such dolls are creepy and disgusting to contemplate, and it is no wonder that there is a bipartisan desire to see them eliminated from society.

However, as a child protection organisation that works with special educators, our first priority is to stop sexual abuse. The special educators we work with insist that access to these dolls is essential as a tool to stop young adolescents with special needs from abusing their peers.

He encloses the press release. He goes on to say:

Of course, the ban is not intended to target adolescents with special needs, it is intended to target paedophiles. However, banning such dolls will not stop paedophiles from existing and having exactly the same thoughts that they do now. By taking away these dolls as a sexual outlet, experts speculate that paedophiles may be more likely to act out their wrongful desires against real children. That is why, despite our disgust at the existence of these dolls, they are a much lesser evil than the sexual abuse that they might prevent.

It is true that more research is needed into whether these dolls are helpful or harmful: whether they will reduce or increase offending against actual children. All that we ask is that you postpone the introduction of the legislation into the lower house until the research can be done. We will be presenting with sex researcher Craig Harper on this topic at the 2019 conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Additionally, we have written to the United States Congress about similar bans that have been proposed by Republican lawmakers in the United States. (Although Prostasia Foundation is incorporated in the United States, I am Australian, we have members from South Australia and we do operate in both countries.) I am attaching a copy of that letter also.

He then goes on to state:

Please take the views of child protection experts seriously: sex dolls that appear underage may be disgusting to contemplate, but they could be an important tool in the fight against sexual abuse of real children. On behalf of myself and the prevention experts that I work with, I urgently ask you to postpone introduction of this bill until more is known about the effects of these dolls.

Obviously, there is an invitation to contact and discuss it further. The government's position is that there is a case to prohibit these dolls, which really attaches the extension of the commonwealth laws to deal with the importation that may not be caught. There may not be an opening of the container that has these in it at Port Melbourne's port; therefore, we need to cover this.

We agree with the Hon. Connie Bonaros from another place that there is merit in progressing this now. Some evidence may come forward in due course to suggest that there may be some therapeutic advantage for the use of these dolls, but let me say that we have a very different situation in relation to these dolls compared with ordinary dolls. I want to make this point because the issue in relation to these dolls is that they do have quite explicit genitalia and they do have orifices. These are not ordinary dolls.

When we use dolls, for example, to help children in a case of alleged child sexual abuse against them, where they might be asked to indicate where they might have been touched, these are not sex dolls. We are talking about an entirely different product. For the purpose of either being useful in some diagnostic or therapeutic sense or down the track if there is some evidence for their use in relation to special needs young people to try to help them manage their behaviour and not offend against other young people, then let's look at it if it comes, but at present we agree this matter needs to be dealt with.

From our point of view, we confirm that this is an example of how our parliament can work together on an important child protection issue such as this. I commend the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing this issue to light. I commend the bill.

Ms STINSON: Mr Speaker, I might just raise a point of order initially. I did not want to interrupt the Attorney, but I wonder if she is able to table the document she was reading from, which is the letter from Jeremy Malcolm. I am unsure if our side of the house has access to it.

The SPEAKER: Is the Attorney happy to table that document?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think it is appropriate that I table it. What I read from was an email. I am happy to provide a copy of that to the member and the press release if she does not have it. I will hand it over to her now and she can have a good read of it.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (11:17): I rise to speak to the Criminal Law Consolidation (Child-Like Sex Dolls Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2019. I indicate that I am the lead speaker for this bill and I am pleased to indicate that Labor will support this legislation. It is indeed very sad that such a law as this is required; however, it is a necessary law and, if passed, South Australia will join several jurisdictions across the world that are now moving to specifically outlaw childlike sex dolls.

In my time as a reporter, I would scan the court lists when they were released each evening, and throughout my career it remained a daily shock and sadness to see the huge volume of sexual offences, particularly child sexual offences, over pages and pages of court lists every day in every suburban court, every regional court and almost every level of the court hierarchy.

That time as a reporter, mainly focusing on crime and justice, unfortunately showed me on a daily basis the extent of depravity against children and the need to do what we can to stop it. It is so extensive in our community that most citizens are shocked when I talk to them about the large volume of cases before our courts each day for sex offences, particularly child sex offences.

Now, of course, as the shadow minister for child protection, I continue to hear the very real stories of children, teenagers and adults who have fallen victim to sexual abuse and the impact that it has had on them and their future prospects. Of course, all that experience means that I am committed to doing what we can to protect children from abuse. Those on this side of the house certainly are and I am very confident that everyone in this house is committed to doing so.

The reasons for sexual attraction to children are not very well understood. While there is quite a lot of research, there are not really any great conclusions that have been made about what motivates this and how to stop it. It is, of course, disgusting. There is no other way to put the abuse of children than as a gross breach of trust and a despicable and disgusting act, so much so that, in my time in court, I even heard from child-sex offenders themselves about how disgusted they were at their own actions and their inability to control them to the point where, in fact, several had even volunteered to the court for chemical castration. Such is the level of disgust that even the person committing these offences sometimes has for the offences being committed.

The mere creation of childlike sex dolls for sexual gratification is of course unfathomable for most of us, but clearly it is happening. I was very interested to hear the Hon. Connie Bonaros talk in the other place about the extent of this, which I think most people would probably be unaware of. There are three clear reasons why we need to act as the bill seeks: to discourage deviancy—and I will go into that in some detail in a moment—to send a message to the broader community about how this parliament and indeed our state feels about child exploitation and, importantly, to send a message to children, particularly children coming into their teenage years, that they are valued and are not to be exploited sexually at all.

Talking on that first point about the need for the bill in relation to deterring sexual deviancy against children, the reflections of the Carly Ryan Foundation are particularly relevant but also particularly disturbing. Sonya Ryan, who heads the Carly Ryan Foundation, which does some excellent work around child safety, has reflected that there are companies in Japan and China, in particular, making these realistic child sex dolls and exporting them to clients around the globe and that of course includes Australia.

Particularly disturbing is the fact that buyers can order child sex dolls predesigned with facial features and expressions. I found it particularly disturbing to know that people can even send images of real children to these manufacturers to create dolls that look like the children they provide in photographs. That is just a level of obscenity that I think most people would find truly shocking and certainly I did when I read about that. Equally alarming is that these dolls can be requested to be manufactured with certain expressions: happy, sad, even scared or afraid. That is truly horrifying as well. The realism of the dolls, and I have seen one or two of them, is quite petrifying and clearly they are designed to replicate as closely as possible a real-life child.

The Attorney raised some interesting ideas from Jeremy Malcolm, which I might come to in a minute. Despite how disgusted we might be by this, I think it is beneficial for us to think about whether there is a therapeutic benefit from such dolls. It is not a view I hold; however, I think it is worth turning our minds to whether there is a therapeutic benefit because, when we think about the use of these dolls, one may well say that there is some benefit in a person exercising their depravity on an inanimate object rather than seeking out a real child.

I can see that members of the public may hold that view and think that is a reasonable view; however, it is also worth looking for any research that actually supports that point of view. I think that many of the organisations, including the Carly Ryan Foundation and others who have contributed to this topic and this bill, would say that there is no research—certainly no sufficient or compelling research—that says that there is any therapeutic or preventative benefit to people who have these proclivities having access to childlike sex dolls.

The Attorney made a good point when she spoke about the desensitisation of people to offences against children, or potential offences against children, by using such products as childlike sex dolls. There is really not a lot of evidence either way as to whether childlike sex dolls are a gateway to offences against children. However, I think that there is sufficient research around the therapeutic benefit of them and sufficient reason for us to believe that the legality of such sex dolls would not curb a person's criminal intentions and would not provide any greater safety to children who may otherwise become victims of a sexual perpetrator.

The bill amends the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, making it an offence to produce or disseminate a childlike sex doll and introducing a maximum penalty of 10 years. The current maximum penalty for production or dissemination of child exploitation material is 10 years for a basic offence and 12 years for an aggravated offence. The bill also makes it an offence to possess a childlike sex doll and introduces a maximum 10 years for that.

The current maximum penalty for possession of child exploitation material is five years for a first and basic offence, for an aggravated offence it is seven years, for a subsequent basic offence it is seven years and for a subsequent aggravated offence it is 10 years. I think the penalty of 10 years for the production and dissemination of a childlike sex doll is consistent with the penalties that currently exist for other child exploitation material.

I want to speak briefly to the matters that the Attorney raised in reference to the communication from Jeremy Malcolm. Certainly, on this side, we do not want to see this bill in any way delayed. As I clearly stated, we will be supporting the bill. I would say to those concerns that Jeremy Malcolm raises, which I think are worth considering, that if there were further research done or some sort of benefit that could be laid out for utilising or exempting the use of dolls in the circumstances that he has pointed out, I am sure that the parliament would return to this issue and have a look at whether there is benefit to that.

However, I do take on the Attorney's comments that the dolls, or the products that Mr Malcolm is advocating for, are quite different in both intent and design from what the parliament is seeking to outlaw with this bill, so I would hope that Mr Malcolm's concerns are already satisfied and catered for in the current legislation. I thank him for raising those issues, and I look forward to reading through his concerns in a little more detail.

I once again indicate Labor's strong support for this bill, and I look forward to it progressing through the parliament. I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros of the other place for bringing this to our attention and for introducing the bill to the parliament. I also thank SAPOL, the Carly Ryan Foundation and the Law Society for their contribution, as well as the Attorney herself for taking the bill through the lower house.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:29): I rise as a member of the government to support the Hon. Connie Bonaros's bill and also the amendments that the Attorney-General has put forward. Put simply, the bill seeks to ban the production, dissemination and possession of childlike sex dolls. I never imagined nine years ago when I was elected that I would ever be talking about sex dolls in this place, but I do accept that the matter that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has raised is actually a very important one.

I do not speak as an expert. I have never seen one of these dolls and I have actually never been in the proximity of one, but I do think it is worth sharing a few points on behalf of the people of Stuart. Broadly speaking, sexual activity between consenting adults in private should really be entirely up to them, but I do think that this topic is slightly different. I do not think it is too conservative, I do not think it is unreasonable and I do not think it is old-fashioned to believe from the bottom of my heart that people who are sexually attracted to children have a problem—a very serious problem—and so any activity linked to sexual attraction to children needs to be dealt with differently from the way we would deal with other types of sexual activity.

Assault is a dreadful thing. Sexual assault is a dreadful thing. I am sure many of us have been involved in discussions where we have tried to weigh up in our minds whether a murder, where a person's life is taken, is more or less terrible than a sexual assault on a child, where a life is not taken. I do not know that we will ever figure that out, and I do not know that we ever really need to, to be honest. Let them just both be dreadful crimes, neither of which should be accepted.

The concept that somebody could, in the privacy of their own home, find pleasure in a child sex doll I think is something that we do have an obligation to deal with. My reason for thinking that is connected to something that the member for Badcoe mentioned about the ever-growing reality that manufacturing technology allows to happen in these things. I cannot accept that if a person chooses to engage with a sex doll of their choice, looking like they want it to be, potentially made to look identical to a real-life child—and we know that technology will allow these things to become more and more realistic over time—that would not be likely to encourage a person to want to do so with an actual child rather than a doll or a model of a child.

Assault and sexual assault are dreadful things. Assault on anybody, including assault on women, as is most often the case, is completely unacceptable, but sexual assault on children is an entirely different category. I fully support the Hon. Connie Bonaros, I fully support our Attorney-General and I am pleased to see the opposition is also supportive of this bill.

I cannot think of a reason why we would not ban the production, dissemination and possession of childlike sex dolls. The suggestion has been raised that, if a person who has these desires is able to engage with a sex doll, they may not then perpetrate a crime against an actual child. That does not do it for me, to be honest, because I think anybody who has these urges is likely to want their engagement to become more and more real over time, and I find it very hard to accept that a person who has this attraction would have the self-control to know the difference, to know when to stop.

I cannot see any reason why these dolls should not be banned, and I know that I would speak for the overwhelming majority of my electorate when I express this view. I certainly support the bill as, I understand, do all members in this place.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (11:35): I rise on behalf of government members to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Child-Like Sex Dolls Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2019, which has been moved by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I thank her for introducing this important bill.

The increasing importation of child sex dolls in Australia has created increasing concern. The sale of child sex dolls potentially results in the risk of children being objectified as sexual beings and of child sex becoming a commodity. Alarmingly, there is a risk that childlike dolls could be used to groom children for sex. Child sex dolls are anatomically correct, life-size dolls made to look like pubescent and prepubescent children.

I have read in an Australian Institute of Criminology report that, conceptually, child sex dolls could provide their users with both emotional and physical stimuli. This is borne out by testimonials from adult sex doll owners, who frequently report emotional attachment to their dolls, including romance, closeness and companionship. A recent study of sex doll owners indicated that companionship and alleviation of loneliness were important aspects of sex doll ownership, although over three-quarters still described sex as the core element of their relationship.

It is reported that users of these dolls may become desensitised, and in this context this refers to the distorted cognitions that may derive from child sex doll use, where sexual abuse of a proxy child becomes normalised, thereby providing justification for the initiation of contact child sexual offending. Howitt and Sheldon (2007) found that child exploitation material offenders were more likely than contact child sex offenders to view children as sexual beings. This was a function of child exploitation material offenders' views being fuelled by their fantasies, while contact offenders were aware of the realities of sexual contact with children.

Child sex dolls could continue to fuel the fantasy perception of children as sexual beings, further supported by the lack of negative feedback received from a doll. Indeed, Maras and Shapiro (2017) noted that such dolls fail to provide paedophiles with accurate emotional feedback from aggressive actions, particularly ones that would result in emotional and physical damage if performed on a real child. This results from the fact that such dolls will typically be silent and offer no emotional feedback or, in the case of robotic models, only provide positive responses.

Purchasers of these dolls make a choice to buy these dolls. The act of seeking out, selecting, purchasing and receiving a child sex doll is the result of a planned consumer choice that signals a demand to the market, which in turn further promotes the sexualisation and commodification of children. It is reasonable to assume that interaction with child sex dolls could increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse by desensitising the doll user to the physical, emotional and psychological harm caused by child sexual abuse, and by normalising this behaviour in the mind of the abuser.

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.

The bill seeks to ban the production, dissemination and possession of childlike sex dolls. There is an increasing interest here in Australia and overseas in prohibiting the importation, possession and production of these dolls. In the absence of conclusive research, it is possible that there may be some criticism of the bill as impacting on the civil liberties of individuals. Despite this, it is crucial that the legislation is supported and moved swiftly.

I acknowledge the request by some groups to suggest that these dolls could be useful for education of children. However, if they provide evidence, this can be looked at in the future for consideration. Today, we are focused on prohibiting childlike sex dolls. When discussing this last night with a constituent, they told me they bought a sex doll for an adult party, and they told me how difficult it was to find a doll that was not childlike. That makes me very sad and concerned.

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 these 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, such as 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 there was a significant increase 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 the point of importation, although the largest portion of these detections occurred in the 2016-17 financial year.

People living in King and across the state have told me they care about child protection. They have told me they want tougher penalties. Wherever we can, we must invest in primary prevention to stop children being hurt and objectified and stop the cycles of abuse that we have in our community.

It has been well documented that the sexual abuse of children has a range of very serious consequences for victims, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, antisocial behaviours, suicide, eating disorders, alcohol and drug misuse, postpartum depression, parenting difficulties, sexual revictimisation and sexual dysfunction, as some of the manifestations of child sexual abuse among victims. We know that most of these symptoms are very prevalent in our community today. We only have to wonder what they stem from.

The misperceptions about those who sexually abuse children abound. The Australian Institute of Criminology published an analysis of 65 research studies across 22 countries, which yielded a high prevalence of child sexual abuse in Australia and only 10 per cent perpetrated by strangers. I have said many times before that I will take every opportunity in this place to talk about child sexual abuse because it is so prevalent and so that it becomes a topic we talk about openly, just like we talk about DV today.

We must talk about how to prevent and stop child sexual abuse because these children are being silenced. We are their voice. I agree with the member for Badcoe: we must send a message to every child that we value them. It is estimated that one in five children in Australia will be sexually abused, and these are the children who have had abuse substantiated. Given the harm caused by child sexual abuse, the parliament must take action where it can to prevent further abuse of children. Today, we send a strong message: sexual abuse of children is not acceptable.

In closing, I wish to make reference to safeguarding children who go online. With the increased prominence of the internet in our everyday lives, and particularly the ease with which it can be accessed, pornography has become a greater risk to our children. The two biggest trends on the demand side of pornography industry today are for younger victims and more violent sexual behaviour. Put this together with pornography being addictive and progressive in nature, and what you have is an increasing demand for child victims.

Child pornography in particular is documented child sexual abuse. Children are being sexually abused in order to make that material. Seventy-five per cent of child pornography victims are living at home when they are photographed and recorded. Parents are often responsible. Child-on-child abuse is increasing. We must act urgently to give children the knowledge and language to speak up.

Today, it is so heartening to hear a consensus in this chamber that we must ban these childlike sex dolls. We are brave leaders who will not be silent about hard topics. Thank you to every member who cares enough to speak up and support this bill today. We have just held National Child Protection Week, which was all about everyone getting involved in building better communities for children and young people. I urge my honourable colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. To the people in King, thank you for giving me a voice in this place. I intend to use it on your behalf and on behalf of children. With those words, I commend this bill to the chamber.

Mrs POWER (Elder) (11:46): I rise today to speak on and support the Criminal Law Consolidation (Child-Like Sex Dolls Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2019. As a government, the safety of all South Australians is our priory. This was clearly demonstrated by our Premier when he created the appointment of the state's very first Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention.

Anyone can be affected by family, domestic and sexual violence, and children are especially vulnerable. In recent years, both in Australia and overseas offenders have been prosecuted for possessing or importing child sex dolls. In New South Wales, for example, the ownership of these dolls is prohibited; in 2016, a man was sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment for possession of a child sex doll. A District Court judge ruled that a child sex doll could be classed as 'child abuse material'.

This bill seeks to put beyond doubt in South Australia's jurisdiction that childlike sex dolls fall within the definition of 'child exploitation material' by creating an offence. Like other such materials, these dolls actively create a market that validates the sexualisation of children. We cannot allow any material to normalise sex between adults and children. As members of parliament, that is our expectation and also that of our community.

In 2016, a petition to ban child sex dolls in Australia was reported to have received more than 18,000 signatures. There are online petitions in other countries around the world also calling for the ban of such items, because the sale of child sex dolls potentially results in the risk of children being objectified as sexual beings and of child sex becoming a commodity.

I know, through my work as Assistant Minister for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention, that research has shown that a demonstrated lack of respect towards women, and attitudes that a man is entitled to a woman or should be able to control her, has been associated with violence against women in all its forms. This includes sexual violence resulting from expectations that women should accord with men's sexual fantasies.

It is not okay to treat women or any person in this way. As a society, we simply cannot allow dolls that encourage or validate this behaviour towards children, as these dolls have the potential to do. The use of child sex dolls could serve to reinforce negative societal stereotypes of children being perceived as sexual objects. This bill clearly reflects community attitudes on how unacceptable these dolls are and, as a government, we are taking a strict approach in relation to prohibiting these dolls, given the absolute harm caused by child sexual abuse.

It is reasonable to assume that interaction with child sex dolls may increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse by desensitising the doll user to the physical, emotional and psychological harm caused by child sexual abuse, and by normalising the behaviour in the mind of the abuser. If it is within our power to create intervention on a path to child sexual abuse, it is one we must take, and so I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (11:50): I do not plan on detaining the house very long on this important bill, but I do wish to take the opportunity to lend my vocal and enthusiastic support to its speedy passage. I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for the work that she has done in bringing this bill to the parliament, and I thank the Attorney-General for taking the unusual step of taking a private member's bill from another house and giving it precedence in government time.

The government has been very eager to see this bill passed as quickly as possible. I recognise the support from the Labor opposition and thank them for that support in us doing so, and thank members who made a contribution. In addition to the Attorney-General, of course, who will sum up in a moment, I particularly acknowledge the members for King and Elder for their very passionate speeches. Anybody I have spoken to who has had their attention drawn to this issue has been passionate in their support for this legislation.

I think it is terrific that the federal parliament has been doing some work in this area. The state parliament has now followed suit in terms of creating this offence, ensuring that we do what we can and that these actions can never be normalised; it is worthy. With those brief words, I lend my very strong support to the bill and encourage all members to support it through its second and third reading in a very speedy fashion this morning.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:51): I just wish, firstly, to acknowledge and thank contributors to this debate. In some ways, the identification and public education of child exploitation is a 21stcentury exposé; it is not a new crime. There are new ways of exploiting children, with the internet and other advances in technology, but as a mature community we do need to reflect laws that are there to protect children in these circumstances. We have had no less than two royal commissions in the last 20 years, both here in South Australia and at the national level, to tell us about institutional child sexual abuse. We need to heed the fact that we have a very clear responsibility to act and to be responsive to it.

I felt that there was one aspect of the Prostasia presentation which I had not alluded to but which has been identified in their press release. For the sake of completeness, I will put that on the record in response. It really is to highlight—and I think the other members have commented on this—that if there is a therapeutic advantage, if there is a benefit to deal with a 14-year-old special needs child who has the mental age, say, of a six year old who is then developing sexuality and interest in sexual matters as they mature through teenage-hood, but has a restricted mental age by virtue of some disability, and they are a useful therapeutic tool for that purpose, then if research supports that we will obviously have a look at it.

However, at present, there is nothing before us other than some projects or programs or a push for reform in this area that are happening in the United States, which suggests they are not. I will quickly read the public position that Prostasia have published in their press release, entitled 'Special ed kids need sexual outlets to keep others safe: expert', as follows:

Sex dolls can curb the impulses of adolescents with special needs

Republican lawmakers are planning to ban such dolls

San Francisco—September 16, 2019—Sex dolls could be used by young adolescents with special needs, who are otherwise liable to act out sexually in harmful ways, according to special educator and researcher Melissa DeLapp.

'I worked with adolescents who may have the sex drive of a teenager, but the mental age of a younger child. Providing them with outlets for their sexual feelings are essential tools to curb inappropriate behaviours, which could harm other children around them,' DeLapp said.

Sex dolls with the physical appearance of adolescents are available for sale, but Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill that would see these dolls banned. Similar bans have already been passed in Florida and Tennessee, and another is pending in Kentucky.

'We can't blame these children for responding to their sexual impulses,' said DeLapp, who is collecting data for a doctorate in special education. 'But if we don't help channel those impulses towards harmless outlets, other students and staff are put at risk.'

Jeremy Malcolm, Executive Director of child protection organization Prostasia Foundation, said, 'these objects are confronting, but if they could be used in the management of harmful sexual impulses and save real victims from harm, then banning them is the wrong approach.'

Earlier this month the Foundation announced a new, self-regulation scheme for sellers of sex dolls, to address legitimate concerns around the availability of these dolls, but without the need for a ban which would interfere with the use of the dolls for clinical and research purposes.

The organization is also raising money for research to further investigate and document anecdotal reports about the therapeutic properties of the dolls in special education and in child sexual abuse prevention.

It is a press release which is undated but was attached to an email dated 15 September 2019. I just place that on the record for completeness, but can I say this, and I reiterate this: we understand the need to extend the commonwealth law which already deals with this product as being unacceptable. If, in due course, there is some identified benefit for certain members of the community in a therapeutic circumstance, obviously we will have a look at it.

I can remember a time when photographs of children—before we were even on the internet—were identified as not necessarily being dangerous to children. In fact, in some ways the same argument was used: let them have a photograph that is sexually satisfying enough to somebody who has an interest in children and then they will not predate on children. Well, that is just not acceptable.

Children are photographed and their privacy is exploited and worse in relation to the obtaining of information, photographic usually, and then transferred for the world to see in the technology that is available today. That is just not acceptable, and that argument fails on all conscionable standards. So this is going to have to be a very high threshold, let me tell you, for me and I am sure for other members of this parliament. At the moment, this bill will ban it.

I thank members, and I again conclude by thanking the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing it to our attention. I do not place her necessarily in the same group as the Republicans in the United States—I think she would probably be horrified to think so—but the important thing is that it has been an initiative there which needs to be closed in Australia, and this bill will do it. I thank members for their indication of support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms STINSON: Attorney, I understand that this bill did not originate with you and that you might need to seek advice and come back to the house. However, I wonder if you could inform the house how this bill interacts with federal laws. In particular, I understand that there are currently confiscation powers, in that objectionable material can be seized, and I wonder how that interacts with this. I note also that a bill lapsed at the federal level. I wonder if you can enlighten us on that general issue of the interaction between this bill and the federal climate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is fair to say that this legislation, if passed, will be complementary to commonwealth law. In short, the act I referred to (I do not have it in front of me now), which was passed at the commonwealth level, allows for the confiscation of these objects when they are coming into the country. As the member would well appreciate, there are certain laws in relation to customs and so on which, in 1901, we transferred to the establishment of a federal parliament, and of course the Australian Constitution, to have responsibility for that.

But not all these products can be interrupted at the port. I used as an example Port Melbourne and a container full of sex dolls that might get through. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, a lot of material comes into the country not in a container but now via post. People can order these things, so it is very important that we have a state law that says that if they are going to be for the purposes of production, dissemination and I think the other word was 'possession', then we need to catch them if they have not already been stopped at the border. That is really what I am suggesting.

I see this as complementary law for the passage of dolls here in South Australia that have got through the commonwealth rules and/or been directly sent to South Australians via the post. Some of them will bring them in across the border in a truck. There are a lot of different ways in which, if they get into the country, they could then get to South Australia and South Australians, and we want to stop that.

Ms STINSON: Just to expand on that, I understood that there was a bill around the importation of childlike sex dolls in the commonwealth parliament but that bill lapsed in April, and then it was reintroduced in July and is currently with the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I wonder if the Attorney thinks that there will be any conflict between what is being proposed here and what may possibly get through at a federal level, and whether we might have to revisit this in future based on whatever might transpire at the federal level.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that in relation to that legislation that, as you rightly point out, lapsed but was reintroduced in July, it is going through its normal process. The member would also be aware that obviously we cannot produce law that is inconsistent with commonwealth law and, if we do, then generally the commonwealth law prevails. That is a very big generalisation but, in any event, at the moment there is no law at the federal level that would challenge the validity of this law.

However, I am advised that what is progressing through the commonwealth parliament in its current form—obviously we cannot make any comment if there is any amendment to it—is consistent with what we are doing here. If there was any other amendment, broadly consistent, I am advised to say, obviously if there is any effort, I suppose, translated to other jurisdictions of this initiative then, ultimately, they may cover the field at the commonwealth level. However, at the moment, this is an important issue, Ms Bonaros has identified it here as an important issue and we are getting on with it in South Australia.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Ms STINSON: I think my assumption on this is right, but for the sake of clarity I just wanted to ask about the creation of self-made or homemade sex dolls and whether they would be covered by this bill. I might just leave it at that for now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am assuming by what the member says that someone here in South Australia makes a doll at home.

Ms Stinson: For non-commercial purposes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I understand that. For the record, I think the member is saying for non-commercial purposes, that is, for their own personal use. I am advised that this would then apply. They have produced it. It does not have to be for commercial purposes. They have produced it; they would be in possession of it. They may not disseminate it, but they would have offended in two ways, at first blush.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Ms STINSON: I wondered what promotion and enforcement measures might be undertaken and what agency might be responsible for promoting this new law. I understand that, for example, perfectly legal importers of sex toys or those who sell adult products should probably be made aware of this law. I wondered if the Attorney or any of her agencies had any idea about how they might promote this change in the law to the limited number of parties who might need to be aware of it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is clear that we firstly need to appreciate that this law is complementary to a commonwealth law that already prohibits the importation of these dolls. That does not mean we are talking about a factory in South Australia that might make them. That is obviously one of the reasons why we are trying to fill the gap here. The notice of all laws under my responsibility is the subject of electronic notification; that is, the AGD spends considerable money each year, actually, advising of new legal and consumer law changes. I am not aware at this stage of any proposed promotion of that. The usual arrangement is that there is electronic notice, there is a summary prepared of the legislation and how it affects people and details of that go to any stakeholders that were involved in the consultation.

Ms STINSON: Is the Attorney satisfied that existing mechanisms for promoting this law will be sufficient, particularly to legal operators who may be retailing adult products?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not, as I have indicated, been privy to any proposed promotion of the new law. It sometimes follows with some media, and there has already been some media on this, but that is not enough. Although we have come a long way from expecting the public to just know when a law happens here and, as I said recently, it has been a long time since somebody used to stand at the front of Parliament House and say, 'Hear ye, hear ye! This new law has passed,' and the details of it I think as a government we do have a responsibility to advise. I am not privy to the details of the program proposed here, and it may not be finalised until such legislation passes.

But I can assure the member that this information does need to be out there. Either on the AGD and/or the CBS websites is where that information should go. It should also be there, not just for the people who might currently produce or disseminate such products but for South Australians to understand that there are legal consequences and that these are offences. It should also be there for people who might know of others who have products such as this in their possession and who might want to report the same.

So we have, obviously, those who might be guilty of an offence, if they are known as providers or producers of this product or disseminators—'distributors', to use a commercial term. But this also alerts the general public that the parliament has said no to sex dolls, and we mean it, and it is against the law. They have every opportunity to report that to the police if they feel that that is something being breached.

Ms STINSON: Finally, would CBS be the agency that is responsible for advising any relevant parties of this new law?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will have to check on that, but it is a product; there is no question about that. CBS, generally, is the agency that provides for advice and support and regulation where there is a registration or licensing procedure required by law. They are not usually the enforcement agencies for breaches of laws relating to, in this case, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. This is normally the police, and prosecution under it is the responsibility of either the police and/or the DPP's office.

I would expect that Consumer and Business Services may well get some inquiry about a matter; that does happen. Even though it does not have direct responsibility for criminal activity and breaches of our criminal law, there are certainly offences related to consumer law and, in particular, the registration and licensing regimes that exist for many different operations. To the best of my knowledge, there is no licensing scheme that I am aware of that could in any way relate to the manufacture of these dolls, but it may offend some toy industry regulation. I am not aware of any, but we can certainly make that inquiry.

My expectation here is that this law would be a matter for the police to investigate and enforce. If somebody is concerned about it in due course, that a neighbour or someone else might have access to such a product, it should be reported to the police. They would need to investigate that, obviously identify if that is the case and make the assessment as to whether any prosecution would follow. As a consumer matter, in relation to criminal law, that is what we have the police for.

Certainly, we have other inspectors and agencies such as the EPA that are responsible for protecting our environment and investigating matters and SafeWork SA in relation to workplace matters. We have inspectors in all sorts of legislation, but the police are the agency that we have and provide to the public for the investigation of these matters, and we would certainly urge no-one to try to take the law into their own hands in relation to these matters. But the investigation and successful prosecution rely on the police being advised so that they may, in a professional manner, undertake that responsibility.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (8), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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