HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-06-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill

Second Reading

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) (16:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am very pleased to introduce to this house the Statutes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill 2023 and to take carriage of it in this place. This bill represents crucial work that we are utterly determined to progress because doing what we can to prevent child sex abuse, and to appropriately and firmly deal with perpetrators, is of utmost importance to our government, and I am sure to all members of this place and indeed to our community and particularly to those brave survivors who have suffered the horror of being sexually abused as a child, and their families.

Every one of us I am sure wholeheartedly agrees that the safety and protection of children and the enabling of them to live their lives free of abuse and violence, having the best opportunity to be empowered to physically, mentally and emotionally thrive is everybody's business, and it is absolutely ours in this place. This bill sits alongside a range of steps we are taking and will also sit alongside impending important changes to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act later this year.

This is a bill that rightly progresses an election commitment that the now government made to firmly close loopholes that make it easier for people who shamefully possess child pornography or childlike sex dolls to access greater sentence discounts or bail. The bill continues the government's steadfast commitment to ensuring that our laws dealing with child sex offenders and the horrific crimes they perpetrate are fit for purpose and appropriately account for the awful harm that this kind of horrendous offending inflicts upon children, offending which sadly impacts often the entire trajectory of a person's life.

Possessing this kind of horrific, abhorrent exploitative material is never a victimless crime simply because the offender does not have direct contact with the child who is abused. This is so because, shamefully, every single time exploitative images of a child are downloaded or viewed, that child is revictimised and retraumatised. The downloading or viewing of the abusive material fuels demand which then incentivises others to continue to abuse children to generate more material and meet that sick demand.

The bill amends the Sentencing Act 2017 so that possession of child exploitation material and offences involving childlike sex dolls are deemed 'serious indictable offences' for the purposes of the sentence discount provisions. Currently they are both considered as 'indictable offences' rather than 'serious indictable offences'.

Under the Sentencing Act, the maximum sentencing discount that can be awarded for a guilty plea is based on when the plea is entered and the seriousness of the offence. Some serious indictable offences attract less of a sentencing discount than the normal discount in recognition of the particular harm that these offences cause to the victims and to the community. Our government believes that possession of child exploitation material and childlike sex dolls should absolutely be considered part of this serious category.

This amendment will help to ensure that the sentences given to child exploitation material and childlike sex doll offenders who plead guilty are in line with community expectation and properly reflect the gravity of the offending. The bill also amends the Bail Act 1985 to legislate a new bail principle that authorities must take into account when considering whether to grant bail to a person charged with child exploitation material or childlike sex doll offences.

Under the current law, bail authorities consider the gravity of the charged offence when determining whether somebody should be given bail. The bill rightly provides that, when determining the gravity of an alleged offence involving child exploitation material or childlike sex dolls, bail authorities must take into account the terrible harm that these offenders cause to children by contributing to that sick demand for child abuse material. This principle will ensure that bail authorities unanimously consider the particular impact of such possession offences on the victimisation, the traumatisation of children, and create a legislative statement about the gravity with which this parliament views this type of offending.

Finally, the bill amends the language used in the sexual exploitation offences in part 3, division 12, of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 so that they better reflect the exploitative nature of such conduct. Currently, the division centres around commercial sexual services offences, being the forcing of a person to provide such services or using a child in such so-called services. The bill rightly changes this language to 'commercial sexual acts'. The use of the word 'services' is considered utterly inappropriate in the context of these offences.

A child or adult who is being sexually exploited for profit is not—indeed, never—providing anybody with a so-called service. The language is changed to reflect the exploitative nature of the offending and to be more sensitive to the experiences of victim survivors. Importantly, this amendment will not change the substance of the offence, as the definition of a commercial sexual act is equivalent to the current definition of a commercial sexual service. The bill also amends the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 to update references to the commercial sexual services offences to reflect these changes that I have just spoken of.

First and foremost, in introducing this bill to this house I acknowledge the survivors of child sexual abuse—those courageous people who have traversed such a difficult path who often bravely go on to advocate for change that can strengthen the support available on that difficult journey that others may traverse. I also acknowledge the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC, who raised this language issue of the current offence during debate on the Statutes Amendment (Child Sex Offences) Bill 2022, which raised penalties for some of these offences. In saying that, I also thank Ms Bonaros for her longstanding advocacy in this space.

I also acknowledge the fine work of the Attorney-General toward this bill and his steadfast commitment to ensuring our government continues to listen to survivors of child sex abuse and their families and that South Australia has laws that are steeped in compassion, that acknowledge the experience of survivors, that appropriately protect children and that, rightly, fulsomely punish predators. I commend the bill to members and seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Bail Act 1985

3—Insertion of section 10AA

This clause inserts a new provision in the Act requiring a bail authority considering a bail application by a person who has been charged with a child sexual material offence to take into account the harm that people who deal with child sexual material cause to children by contributing to demand for the abuse of children in considering the gravity of the offence.

4—Transitional provision

The new provision will apply in relation to a person who applies for bail on or after the commencement of this Part.

Part 3—Amendment of Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006

5—Amendment of Schedule 1—Class 1 and 2 offences

These are consequential to Part 4.

Part 4—Amendment of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

6—Amendment of heading to Part 3 Division 12

7—Amendment of section 65A—Definitions relating to commercial sexual services

8—Amendment of section 66—Sexual servitude and related offences

9—Amendment of section 67—Deceptive recruiting for commercial sexual services

10—Amendment of section 68—Use of children in commercial sexual services

These clauses make various amendments to remove references to 'commercial sexual services' and to instead use the new terminology of 'commercial sexual acts'.

Part 5—Amendment of Sentencing Act 2017

11—Amendment of section 40—Reduction of sentences for guilty pleas in other cases

This clause makes offences against sections 63AA, 63A and 63AAB of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 'serious sexual offences' for the purposes of section 40.

12—Transitional provision

The amended definition will apply in relation to the sentencing of a person for an offence to which the person pleads guilty on or after the commencement of this Part.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services) (16:34): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill 2023. Labor went to the 2022 election with a comprehensive set of policies to invest in the future of South Australia, address cost-of-living pressures and improve community safety. While the former government did not make many commitments in this particular area to help South Australians, we laid out a plan for the future.

A huge part of that plan was making our community safer for families and for children and providing opportunities to help them to live their best lives. This included the first proper increase in public housing in a generation that gives some of our most vulnerable community members a safe and affordable home. As I have said in this place before, the last time public housing went up under a Liberal government was 1982, when David Tonkin was the Premier. Depending on how South Australians vote in coming elections, it may be half a century or more before it goes up again or even has the chance of going up if an alternative government is elected.

We have committed to a royal commission into early childhood education and care, along with focusing on the first 1,000 days of a child's life. Through our first two budgets, plus the Mid-Year Budget Review, we have invested in both formal child protection and early intervention services. In my department alone, early intervention services now receive around $70 million per annum. This is critical in building safer homes and safer families where children can grow and thrive.

We promised to double the Cost of Living Concession in 2022-23, which provided $78 million in support to more than 211,000 households. This was the biggest concession payment in the state's history, but it will be dwarfed by more than a quarter of a billion dollars in the coming year. This will help more than 400,000 households with energy relief of $500 and tens of thousands of small businesses with $650.

In early June, we announced help for parents and caregivers with schoolchildren. For some of the most marginalised, we have promised to boost inclusion. This includes a range of measures: developing our state's first-ever autism strategy and autism charter; $28.8 million for autism lead teachers in public schools; establishing a ministerial advisory committees for youth, disability and LGBTIQA+; as well as investing $50 million for 100 wellbeing workers in schools.

We also committed to change laws to reflect the importance of children and young people. Some of this work involves fixing oversights that happened under the previous government, and that is what this bill is doing. The bill's main purpose is to enact election commitments made in the government's 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 discounting or bail. When the former government moved legislation in this area, they left these offences out of the list. This is a slight improvement, though, on failing to pass the legislation, which also occurred with some other child sex offence bills.

The first loophole makes it easier for people who possess child porn or childlike sex dolls to get bigger sentence discounts. This loophole exists because certain child sex offences are indictable offences, but they are not currently considered serious indictable offences. As such, they 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. Passing this bill will meet our election commitment in this area 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.

These offences would then attract lower sentence discounts for guilty pleas, capped at 25 per cent rather than 35 per cent, 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. I know how serious this offending is. It has terrible generational consequences.

The second aspect of the election commitment was to close a loophole regarding bail. Currently, defendants charged with possession of child exploitation material or a childlike sex doll offence must be given bail unless it is inappropriate, taking into account factors such as the gravity of the alleged offence and the likelihood of the defendant absconding or reoffending whilst on bail. The gravity of the offence the bail authority already considers is assessed by not just the charge itself but the particulars of the alleged offending. This should hopefully include the indirect impact that accessing child exploitation material has on child victims by fuelling demand for its production.

However, we are delivering on this election commitment 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. 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 material cause to children by contributing to the demand for the abuse of children.

Whilst authorities are already free to take this into account, a legislated principle will specifically draw their mind to the harms of child exploitation material and in each case ensure a uniform approach between bail authorities and create a legislative statement of the gravity with which the parliament views this type of offending.

Finally, the bill alters the language used in part 3, division 12, of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. This contains offences in relation to commercial sexual services, including 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 better reflects the exploitative nature of the offending.

This change is in response to comments made by the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC in the other place during debate on the Statutes Amendment (Child Sex Offences) Bill 2022, which raises penalties for some of these offences. Ms Bonaros queried whether the word 'services' was appropriate in the context of forced sexual activity or the exploitation of children. Language is important.

This approach to reforming the language of our laws mirrors recent changes related to maintaining an 'unlawful sexual relationship' with a child. Whilst I am sure it was never intended, the language raised the prospect of a lawful sexual relationship with a child and indicated a form of relationship, as distinct from outright abuse. As many of you would be aware, Grace Tame visited South Australia twice in recent weeks to bring additional focus to this change. We are really fortunate to have vocal, brave and eloquent survivors who remind us about the human impact of these matters.

As a community, we have had to face up to many changes in recent decades as our views of and our responses to sexual or violent offending have, thankfully, changed. This has happened in relation to rape in marriage, crimes motivated by a person's sexuality, domestic and family violence, and child sex offences. In opposition, Labor moved a number of bills to crack down on child sex offenders, and this continues in government.

Our focus has also included other sexual offending. Last year, the Statutes Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Bill 2022 increased penalties for a range of child sex offences and strengthened Carly's Law. Maximum penalties were increased from 10 to 15 years for a range of offences, and we removed the age distinction for offences involving child exploitation material that previously drew a line between standard offences and aggravated offences.

The second of these changes was critical when it was difficult or impossible to know whether the victim portrayed in the exploitation material was under 14. The age, the apparent age or the defendant's belief about the age of a victim are still important when determining penalties, but the earlier bill removed an outdated part of our legislation that did not reflect the modern world, where offenders have used miraculous technologies for horrific purposes.

I also note the positive impact this change had on those who work to prevent, detect and prosecute child exploitation offences. We should never underestimate the potentially traumatic impact this work has on people. A change like the one I just described has two key benefits: it means investigators can spend less time focusing on a particular image or set of images and it means that time can be spent working to apprehend and convict the next offender.

Investigators were also given a major boost when we amended Carly's Law. Concerns had been raised that an alleged offender may seek to avoid conviction where their victim was a police officer posing as a child online. In particular, the earlier bill made it clear that the following offences can include communications with fictitious children, including:

grooming offences under section 63B(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 that are aggravated based on the knowledge that the victim was under 14 years old;

a registrable child sex offender failing to inform police of reportable contact with a child; and

dishonest communication with children, better known as Carly's Law, which is pursuant to this Labor government's election commitment to strengthen Carly's Law so that police can hunt online predators with confidence.

I take this opportunity to thank my friend Sonya Ryan for her incredible work in the name of her daughter, Carly.

The bill also amended various sentencing provisions that reference the age of the victim. This made it clear that if the victim was fictitious, their age, for the purposes of sentencing, can be considered as the age the defendant believed them to be at the time of the offence. The same bill added various offences to the child sex offender register.

I note that the former Liberal government moved legislation to increase penalties and strengthen Carly's Law, but I think the preference was to adjourn parliament ahead of the election rather than to pass critical legislation. This sadly demonstrated a lack of courage in this area. They failed to deliver on important work that began while they were in government.

While we understandably have a focus on protecting children, we also know that adults suffer terrible consequences as a result of sexual offences. In recent months, we passed legislation to outlaw stealthing, where an offender removes or deliberately damages a condom without the consent of their partner. The stress this can cause a victim is huge, whether it relates to pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases or simply other matters that they feel violated by. Fundamentally, this is about respect.

Relationships and sex must be based on respect by all parties. Removing or deliberately damaging a condom where one party has requested its use is a low act and one that this parliament has moved to make illegal. That legislation was first moved in the other place by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and was supported by the Malinauskas Labor government. I will take this opportunity to also commend the Hon. Connie Bonaros for her progressive, innovative and determined legislating.

My colleague the Minister for Child Protection spoke on this bill. She has noted that it proposed various legislative reforms to improve the operation of laws around sexual offences and consent to sexual activity, including amendments to:

section 46 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to put beyond doubt that stealthing, whereby a person deliberately and without consent does not use, damages or removes a condom before or during sexual activity, is unlawful conduct;

section 124(8) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 to require the disclosure of experts' reports to the prosecution where the expert evidence relates to topics that are dealt with in section 34N of the Evidence Act 1929; and

section 34N(1) of the Evidence Act to broaden the jury directions that must be given in cases involving a sexual offence where consent is an issue and to allow for the admission of expert evidence to address certain misconceptions about non-consensual sexual activity.

The prior legislation regarding consent was particularly close to my heart, given my responsibility around disability policy and legislation. People with disability, like others in the community, deserve to have an enjoyable, safe and consensual sex life. While understanding and implementing good consent practices can be a challenge, this can be magnified when people have different ways of communicating. As such, I was very pleased that this government expanded the direction to be given to juries when consent is an issue and allowed expert evidence about misconceptions around consent.

While the previous legislation is outside the scope of the current bill, it is important to highlight the work that is happening across portfolios and over time to improve a suite of laws. These are complex arrangements across many pieces of legislation that deal with every step of the process. They include the work of police to detect and apprehend offenders. It moves onto bail arrangements to keep the community safe and give confidence to victims following an arrest.

It covers the language we use to describe the offences so that it reflects community values and calls out vile behaviour exactly for what it is. It touches on the evidence that can be presented at trial and the advice given to juries when deciding whether to convict, and it ultimately ends with the factors that judges must take into account at sentencing and the types of penalties available to them.

I am proud this government is addressing all of these areas, but I want to end this contribution with a reflection on what comes before police, courts and prison, even before the offending itself—in fact, especially before the offending. People often talk about restorative justice. I think there is a huge role for this to play in both our adult and youth justice systems, but the experts on restorative justice will be the first to acknowledge that it can be difficult, sometimes even impossible, to restore things to how they were before a person was harmed.

This is why we must all work—government, community, families and individuals—to build a more respectful and inclusive society. People need a clear understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. Adults and young people alike need to know where the line is and, if they have doubts or uncertainty, need to be confident about asking the question and getting help. Where those efforts fail, and where people cause or contribute to harm, especially when harming children in the course of sexual offending, government needs to take strong action. This bill does exactly that, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:51): In rising to support the bill, I hear and note the contribution of the Minister for Child Protection on introducing it to this house, coming as it does from the other place, the minister's remarks echoing those of the Attorney in the other place on 9 March 2023. This is a short bill, and it makes—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Sorry to interrupt, member for Heysen. Are you the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and I will not be terribly lengthy in my remarks. I simply highlight that this work to make what are a number of discrete amendments to the Bail Act, to the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act, to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and to the Sentencing Act in turn indeed reflects the serious nature of the sexual offending to which they relate and, as we have seen in recent days also, exhibits an ambition to adopt words in legislation that describe offences in terms that reflect their abhorrent nature. As I did in a previous contribution, I draw attention to the need to ensure that, when we do that, we move to amend both the style and the substance in the way that we define and spell out the nature of offences, and this is one example.

In terms of the change that this will make to the reduction of sentence that is available for a guilty plea—and of course this is a categorisation of these offences as serious sexual offences and, in so doing, makes them caught by the regime for a lesser range of discounts that are otherwise available for pleas of guilty—I just make the observation that sentence reductions generally I think are matters that ought rightly be under a spotlight.

It has been the case for 40 and more years that South Australia has been somewhat of an outlier in wholeheartedly embracing broad-based sentencing reductions, and we are here talking about reducing those discounts that are available in relation to these offences, but we are doing that in the context of section 40 of the Sentencing Act, that contemplates discounts at different stages, including in relation to these offences.

I just highlight that there is I think an ongoing debate about the efficacy and the utility and the justice of having such sentencing discount regimes in place. There has been a lot written about that, and there might be more to say about that as we continue to consider the administration of justice. Suffice to say that this bill will provide for these offences relevantly to be caught and defined as serious sexual offences and thereby render them subject to the reduced maximum sentencing discounts, and that is a welcome change.

The amendment to the Bail Act has been addressed in others' contributions. It requires a specific consideration of the relevant tribunal to the harm that people who deal with child sexual material cause to children by contributing to the demand for the abuse of children, so in doing that, and in inserting that special consideration when considering bail in these circumstances, it again highlights the seriousness of these offences and this kind of offending.

I just foreshadow that there are one or two technical matters in relation to the way in which the definition as it is expressed for the purposes of what will be section 10AA of the Bail Act are described that I might take up in committee briefly, but otherwise I indicate the opposition's support for the bill.

As other speakers have done in the course of this debate, I recognise the work of the Hon. Connie Bonaros in the other place in this regard and draw the connection between this bill and the bill in the previous session that was focused on similar subject matter and, in particular, the definition of childlike sex dolls. The Hon. Connie Bonaros has indeed been focused on development in this particular area for some time, and I recognise her work and that of the Attorney in bringing it to the other place. With those words and foreshadowing a brief moment in committee, I indicate the opposition's support for the bill.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:59): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill, which will provide better protection for our kids, strengthen our commitment to fighting this scourge within our state and improve language within our legislation to better reflect the gravity of the offence. The passing of this bill will further our commitments to ensure justice for survivors and victims and that the laws we have in place are up to the standards expected by the community and that they correspond to the gravity and harm this kind of offending has on the lives of victims and modifies language to properly reflect the crime.

We are acting to ensure that any loopholes, where they might exist, are closed, to ensure that people who possess child exploitation material or childlike sex dolls do not get bigger sentencing discounts. Although these offences currently on the books are indictable offences, they are not currently considered serious indictable offences and therefore do not carry with them lower sentencing discounts, which most other child offences do, such as producing child exploitation material and grooming children online, which are classed as serious indictable offences.

To close this loophole and ensure that people who commit these offences do not benefit by receiving a higher sentencing discount, we are amending the Sentencing Act to class the possession of child exploitation material or dealing with a childlike sex doll as a serious indictable offence. This charge will better reflect community expectations when it comes to this level of offending, as well as properly acknowledge the impacts that this type of offending has on the lives of children and victim survivors because it will cut the discount for an early guilty plea at 25 per cent compared with 35 per cent for other offences.

Further to that, this statutes amendment also delivers the commitment we have made to close loopholes with regard to bail. At present, where individuals are charged with possession of child exploitation material or childlike sex dolls, they are to be given bail unless it is inappropriate, taking into account factors such as the severity of the offending, gravity of the alleged offence and the likelihood of the defendant fleeing or reoffending while on bail.

This bill will ensure that, where the particulars of the alleged offending are considered, the bail authority must take into account the harm that people who deal with child sex material cause children by contributing to the demand for the abuse of children. By making sure that this legislated principle is a requirement of the bail authority, we will ensure that their minds are drawn to the harm of child exploitation material in each case and that there will be a uniform approach taken between bail authorities.

Importantly, it will also make clear this parliament's position when it comes to this type of offending and ensure that there is no place for such an act in our community, even when it indirectly contributes to further pain among child victims and fuels a further demand for the production of child exploitation material.

The bill will also amend the language in part 3, division 12, of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which contains offences relating to commercial sexual services, including forcing a person to provide commercial sexual services or knowingly using a child in commercial sexual services. Amendments to the act will also apply to section 65A, definitions relating to commercial sexual services; section 66, sexual servitude and related offences; section 67, deceptive recruiting for commercial sexual services; and section 68, use of children in commercial sexual services. In these sections, 'provide' will be changed to 'perform' and 'services' substituted for 'acts'.

I would like to thank members in the other place, namely, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, for pointing out the use of the word 'services' and questioning its appropriateness in the context of forced sexual activity or the exploitation of children. Given recent statements by the likes of Grace Tame and also debates in this place regarding matters such as this, I also believe that the words we use in our legislation must reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Our changes will not change or alter the scope of the offence, but they will better reflect the offence, with phrasing changed from 'to provide commercial sexual services' to 'to perform commercial sexual acts', better reflecting the exploitative nature of the offending. I understand that language changes will also apply to the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act.

I have spoken in support of many such bills in this place, whether they be strengthening penalties for child sex offenders, ensuring laws like Carly's Law are as good as they can be, or backing in victim survivors. For as long as there are changes to be made, such as through the statutes bill we debate before us, know that we will help to improve the likelihood of victims being able to seek justice. I am more than happy to continue coming back to the floor of this house and lending my support to the bills to come.

We made a commitment to the people of South Australia that we would take this type of offending seriously and that we would do everything we could to protect the safety of our children, and we are set on delivering that. Today, we deliver on that with another commitment by closing loopholes that should not be afforded people who commit such heinous acts against the most vulnerable population in our state, which impacts them for the rest of their lives, and we will update our laws to better reflect the nature of the crime.

We are set on ensuring that our laws reflect the community's expectations when it comes to such heinous crimes, providing our authorities with all the tools they need to deal with such disgusting acts whilst signalling that this parliament is behind them 100 per cent in doing so. With that, I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (17:06): The member for Heysen has spoken about the bill and the opposition support for the bill, and I think it is fair to say that the bill is long overdue. Many of us who still sit in this place have been touched by a very close event that affected many of us, with the child pornography charges laid against Labor Party stalwart Bernard Vincent Finnigan—30 various charges on 21 April 2011. He sat in this place for four years, stalling the court process and taking a parliamentary salary that entire time, with very little demand from the Labor Party for him to leave this place at that time.

There was no move by the Labor government at that time to bring this legislation in then, when we were all exposed to it. We all saw how, when he was arrested, those 30 various charges led to just one conviction four years later. It is one thing to have higher penalties, and we support that, and turning these offences into much more serious offences by making them serious indictable offences is a very good start, but, of course, we must look at how it is that 30 charges ended up in just a single conviction after four years.

The police were obviously confident enough to lay those charges in the first instance but, chip by chip by chip, with lawyers—and one of the most expensive lawyers you could buy in Adelaide—Mr Finnigan was able to reduce those charges and have them slowly eroded from the charge sheet and then only be convicted on a single charge, which led to just a 15-month suspended sentence. No jail term for that. I think all of us in this place were surprised.

I know that when I raised the Bernie Finnigan matter as an opposition frontbencher in media and in press conferences I was criticised by the Labor Party for even raising it—because there was a law at that time where you could not raise a situation where somebody had been charged with a sex offence. That has now changed, of course. I was criticised for breaching the law, but there was no criticism from the Labor Party of what Bernie Finnigan was doing. I did not hear any of that.

This is obviously the beginning. More needs to be done, we know, as technology grows and more things develop from the use of technology. I was very pleased to hear about the formation of a select committee on AI. AI is very exciting for the world, but it also has challenges. I have no doubt that there will be challenges in dealing with child exploitation as the use of AI is expanded and exploited by people for the wrong reasons. We will be back here again, I know, amending laws like this to ensure that we continue to keep our children safe.

Some of the messages in this bill are very important, including the fact that payment, not just to somebody who might be delivering the service but to anybody else involved in that service, will be covered by these changes. Clause 3 of the bill inserts a requirement for the bail authority to take into account the harm that people who deal with child sexual material cause to children by continuing the demand for the abuse of children. That certainly was obviously not the case in the conditions that were placed on Bernie Finnigan when he was arrested. How can a crime as serious as that linger in the court system for four years?

The only planning to deal with such a matter that I could see from the Labor Party was who was going to replace Bernie Finnigan when he was finally convicted. Of course, he was replaced in 2015, and that is when we saw the now Premier Peter Malinauskas replace Mr Finnigan in a casual vacancy in the upper house, where he very quickly went on to become a minister and move into the health ministerial portfolio not long after that.

I stand here supporting the bill and know that we will be back with similar bills as we continue to combat the exploitation of children in South Australia and around the world. There is no doubt that technology has made the world such a smaller place. For many years now, for decades now, we have had laws in Australia where you can be convicted of paedophilia as an Australian citizen if you have moved to or if you are on holiday in a country that is known to have a child sex industry.

If it can be proven that you have been involved in that industry, you can face charges and sentencing here in Australia. It was a very big move, I think in the seventies, before possessing child pornography material was even illegal. I am working from memory there, as I was only a child myself at that time, but I do recall it being a very big topic of debate when those changes came through.

It has been an evolving process. We must continue to evolve and, if we can, continue to be one step ahead of the child pornography industry and any sex exploitation industry that involves unwilling participants and exploitation in order for that industry to continue. It does take all of us to be the watchdogs, all of us to raise their concerns. It does not matter if somebody is your friend or if somebody has been associated with your success. We must come forward when we suspect, hear or even witness that type of behaviour so that person can be stopped, those children can be protected, and justice can be delivered.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (17:14): I also rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill that will close loopholes that give sentencing and bail leniency to those who possess child pornography or childlike sex dolls. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that the abhorrent perpetrators of these vile crimes feel the full force of the law. Appallingly, child sex offences are perpetrated so frequently that cases are tried in our state's court system daily. It is heartbreaking, and it is hard to comprehend just how prevalent child sex offending is across our state and right across our globe.

Every year, authorities receive thousands of reports of images and videos of innocent children being sexually abused for the gratification of child sex offenders. Sadly, behind every image or video is a real child—a child who has been subjected to despicable acts of sexual abuse, a child who will forever feel the effects of that abuse.

This bill continues the government's commitment to ensuring our laws dealing with child sex offenders properly account for the harm that this kind of offending causes our children. Currently, when someone is charged with the possession of child pornography or childlike sex dolls, it is considered an indictable offence but not considered a serious indictable offence. That means these offences do not attract lower sentencing discounts for guilty pleas in the same way that most other child sex offences do.

For the purposes of sentencing discounts, this bill amends the Sentencing Act to class possession of child exploitation material or dealing with childlike sex dolls as a serious indictable offence, emphasising that these offences are equally as serious as other child sex offences such as production of child exploitation material and grooming children online. This means that these offences will rightly attract lower sentencing discounts for guilty pleas compared with other indictable offences.

This bill also removes a loophole with respect to bail. We are legislating a special principle that bail authorities must take into account when considering whether to grant bail to a person charged with child exploitation material or childlike sex doll offences. Under the current law, bail authorities consider the gravity of the charged offence when determining whether someone should be given bail.

The bill provides that, when determining the gravity of an alleged offence involving child pornography or childlike sex dolls, bail authorities must take into account the harm that these offences cause to children by continuing to contribute to the demand of the abuse of children. Possessing this kind of exploitative material is not a victimless crime simply because the offender does not have direct contact with the child.

Every single time an image is downloaded or viewed that child is revictimised. The downloading or viewing of this sort of material then fuels demand for more to be created, incentivising others to continue to abuse children. This new principle will ensure that bail authorities consider the particular impact of such possession offences on the indirect victimisation of the child.

Lastly, the 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 commercial sexual services. The phrasing of 'provide commercial sexual services' will be amended, rightly, to 'perform commercial sexual acts'. This language better reflects the exploitative nature of the offending.

I would like to acknowledge the Hon. Connie Bonaros from the other place, who has raised issues of language in current statutes that deal with sexual offences, including the highly inappropriate use of the word 'services' in the context of these offences. A child or adult who is being sexually exploited for profit is not providing anyone with a service. This bill changes the language to reflect the exploitative nature of the offending and to be more sensitive to the experience of victims.

The amendments in this bill address the gravity of any offence directed at exploiting or harming children. The impact of these heinous offences can be catastrophic for the child, and the impacts can last a lifetime. I have never been so sure about the position of my community as I am on this matter. I know that I am speaking on behalf of every single person that I represent when I say that child sex offenders do not deserve any amount of leniency. I commend this bill and I look forward to seeing it enacted as soon as possible to keep our kids safe.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (17:20): I rise to speak to this bill. It is a topic of great interest for me, both professional interest and also in my past life as a reporter, and a court reporter in particular, when on many occasions I sat down with victims of child sex offences. Those occasions weigh heavily on me. I remember each of those conversations and I remember the pain inflicted on those victims. I remember how terrifying it was for them to have to recount their stories in court. I remember how terrifying it was for those who were brave enough to talk to a reporter and to talk to the public, really, about what had happened to them and just what a difficult task that was that the courts and the wider public asked of them, to recount those harrowing experiences.

Some of the things that appear before our courts, some of the things that happen to young people, are just unspeakable. I do not think that there is a level of appreciation in the wider community of just how prevalent this kind of offending is. Most people, of course, who are not court reporters or lawyers or courts administration staff who are looking at and checking the court list each day, would not be aware of how many hundreds of cases of sexual abuse of children are before our courts each and every day and, of course, how many hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of instances of abuse have happened in South Australia in the past but also, unfortunately, continue to happen to our most vulnerable citizens, our little children.

This bill is an incredibly important one. I think there is quite a deal of work to be done, although there has been much done by governments of all persuasions to work on and improve the law in relation to this kind of heinous offending. There is still much work to be done. I think the people we should be listening to are victims. Those in this house would know that I was previously also a board member of the Victim Support Service prior to coming into parliament and also served on the board of JusticeNet SA. I have a longstanding passion for the justice system and in particular for the experiences of victims of crime and making sure not only that those victims are treated well through our court system but also that those victims, where they choose to, can find voice through other systems such as our parliamentary system and our governmental system.

I would encourage governments of all persuasions, now and well into the future, to turn their minds acutely to the voices of victims: very, very brave people who go through shocking offences against them, survive that offending and then make the choice to speak out in whatever forum suits them.

I think that is an incredibly inspiring thing for people to do, and certainly it has inspired me over the years, both in my work as a journalist and in my work in this house. In fact, it is those voices that motivated me to put up my hand to run for parliament in the first place to be able to ensure that they are heard, that our laws are improved and that we do all we can to ensure that their experiences are not repeated.

This act has a number of different functions. I might just turn to the one that I am most passionate about first, and that is the issue of bail. Closing the loophole in relation to bail certainly was an aspect of Labor's election commitment. There are no features in the Bail Act that make it easier for people charged with possession of child exploitation material or childlike sex doll offences to be granted bail, as compared with other nonprescribed applicants. One may say, 'Well, why would you be amending this then, if there is nothing that specifically is prohibiting police or other charging authorities from taking a hard line in relation to granting bail for these sorts of offences?'

That would be a perfectly respectable position to hold, looking at how the laws are crafted right now. In theory, the laws are perfectly constructed right now in relation to bail and there is nothing that should, for example, give someone an easier time or a greater opportunity to be released on bail for serious offending. However, the practical experience, particularly of those victims I spoke about only a moment ago, is that on occasion there is a lighter response, there is a different view taken of offending to do with child sexual exploitation material, than there might be for what we might call direct physical abuse of children.

That should not be the case, and I know that there is a great deal of education that goes on, both with our judicial officers and with our police, to make it clear to them that the expectation of our parliament and our public more generally is that those crimes that are to do with child exploitation material are just as heinous as direct physical abuse of a child. Put simply, there is still a victim. There is still a victim even when it is a case of child exploitation material.

In fact, as one of my colleagues—I think it was the member for Davenport—just a moment ago pointed out, a child is revictimised every single time that that child exploitation material is accessed or shared or downloaded or distributed. Every single time, that child is re-abused. And so it is critically important that when our charging authorities—often police, but sometimes the courts—are considering the aspect of bail they are on no uncertain ground about how the public views this, and that is that child exploitation material offences are just as serious as direct physical abuse of children.

At the moment, two factors are taken into account when bail is granted: one is the gravity of the offence and the other is the propensity for an alleged offender, an accused person, to abscond or reoffend while on bail. That is what a charging police officer has to take into account when granting police bail, but it is also what the court looks at if bail is deferred for a Magistrates Court decision. I might just pause at this point to seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 17:30 the house adjourned until Wednesday 14 June 2023 at 10:30.

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