HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-05-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Child Sex Offences) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 May 2022.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:49): I will speak briefly to this bill, which naturally the Liberal Party will be supporting as in large part it replicates a bill that was introduced by the former Liberal government. I indicate I will be the lead speaker on this legislation.

This particular bill amends the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 and the Sentencing Act 2017. The bill will substantially increase the maximum penalties for child exploitation material offences and child grooming offences. The penalties for this type of offending under the Commonwealth Criminal Code are currently higher than the South Australian equivalents in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. In the interests of consistency and to reflect the seriousness of the conduct these penalties will be raised to match those of the commonwealth.

The bill also removes the separation of these offences into basic and aggravated classes in respect of the child exploitation material offences. Whilst many factors can make an offence aggravated the most common aggravating feature of a child exploitation offence is the age of the victim. The opposition notes that the government, in reintroducing this bill, would retain the distinction in respect of grooming offences.

Under the reintroduced bill in its present form, therefore, aggravated forms of child exploitation material offences are removed. In their place these offences will have one significant maximum penalty that applies regardless of the age of the child. This will not soften sanctions for people viewing exploitation material depicting very young children. The new general maximum penalties are higher than the existing aggravated penalties.

The bill makes it clear that exploitation of a child of any age is totally unacceptable. Removing aggravated status for offences against very young victims also assists the mental health of law enforcement personnel, who would not need to spend as long looking at this heinous material in order to classify the charges. It also simplifies the charging process when the exact age of the child depicted in the material is not readily apparent or cannot be proved. The age or apparent age of the child will, of course, still be relevant and courts will be able to take it into account when selecting an appropriate penalty.

The bill also ensures that child groomers are not given leniency because they were not actually communicating with a child. In many instances, undercover police officers pose online as children and predators attempt to inappropriately and criminally communicate with these fictitious children. Automatic chatbots are used in the same way.

This bill enacts a strict policy that offenders should not be given leniency simply because their belief that they were speaking to a real child turned out to be incorrect. Their intention and belief at the time of the offending still makes them a danger to real children in our community. In particular, the bill will provide clarity in relation to the offences of dishonest communication with children, which is known as Carly's Law, and a registrable sex offender failing to inform police of reportable contact with a child.

A child, for the purposes of these offences, will include a person the offender believed was a child or a fictitious person represented to the offender as a child. Whilst the offences are currently open to interpretation, this will put the matter beyond doubt. The bill will also amend various sentencing provisions that reference the age of the victim to make clear that if the victim was fictitious their age for the purposes of sentencing can be the age that offenders believe them to be at the time of the offence.

The amendments that were filed this morning bring the bill now into line with the bill that passed the Legislative Council during the previous government. The reintroduction of these provisions latterly, I understand, is the result of briefings and communications by the shadow attorney-general in the other place. I thank him and his staff, in particular, for their assistance in my speaking to this bill in this place.

Members who followed the debate in the last parliament would be familiar with these provisions. It is a satisfactory outcome that the bill now includes that important component from the original bill passed last year. The amendments to schedule 1 dealing with class 1 and class 2 offences are the subject of several discrete changes to the provisions in the 2021 bill. I would just like to let the Attorney know that particular changes that differ that we would be interested in having a further explanation on include clause 5A(1)(eea), (6)(fa), (9)(ka) and (15)(wd). With those comments, I indicate support for the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:54): I rise very briefly to indicate that the Greens will also be supporting the bill. I will have a few questions for the Attorney at the third reading stage, but we are supportive of the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:54): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Child Sex Offences) Bill. As we know, the bill seeks to substantially increase penalties for child grooming and child exploitation offences and other child sex offences, which is something we and the entire community support wholeheartedly.

It picks up many of the initiatives contained in the previous government's bill, which did not progress before parliament was prorogued, and in many instances imposes heavier penalties. I acknowledge the work of the former Attorney-General in this regard as well. It also goes further than the previous bill by increasing penalties for other child sex offences, including unlawful sexual intercourse, indecent assault and the use of children in commercial sexual services.

As in the previous bill, the bill sensibly removes the distinction between basic and aggravated child exploitation material offences, most commonly dependent on the age of the victim. Currently, an offence is aggravated if the person knew the child was under the age of 14. Removing the need for this classification will not only save time and resources but, really importantly, it will stop the further mental trauma of investigators who have to sift through and view this child abuse material to determine if a child was indeed 13 or 14, for example. Approximate age will continue to be taken into account in sentencing.

The bill also seeks to strengthen our laws in relation to fictitious children in response to the prevalence of child sex predators infiltrating online platforms and social media. Faced with increasingly exorbitant numbers, law enforcement agencies are being forced to engage in new methods in their ongoing battle to catch these individuals. Undercover police officers often pose as children in online conversations with predators. The bill pre-empts any future difficulties in convicting these monsters who engage with fictitious victims.

It also provides certainty in the use of artificial intelligence, often referred to as 'chatbots', as referred to by the Hon. Ms Lensink. It is not enough that the offender believed that the virtual victim was real and of a certain age. The bill makes sensible amendments to keep up with the changing landscape to ensure convictions going forward.

We have seen there have been some amendments filed by the government, which include the addition of producing or disseminating childlike sex dolls and possessing childlike sex dolls as class 2 registrable offences under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act. Members will no doubt remember that we introduced this bill into this place in 2019 after it became apparent that disturbing childlike sex dolls were being discovered by South Australian police and our laws were not adequately equipped to respond. Since then, there have been a string of cases before the courts to prove that legislation is working in stamping out child sex offenders.

The last amendment further adds dishonest communication with children, better known as Carly's Law, to the class 2 scheduling cases where a convicted person was sentenced on the basis the communication was made with the intention of committing a sexual offence of a child. SA-Best is very supportive of any measures aimed at stamping out child sex offending and will continue to advocate as strongly as we can for sensible legislation with that goal, and supporting the same proposed by other honourable members.

Our team was successful in getting Carly's Law passed, not only at the state level but at a federal level, with the unanimous support of parliaments. That is something I am exceptionally grateful for and happy with. We were also successful in criminalising childlike sex dolls with the unanimous support of this parliament, and that is something I think we are all exceptionally happy with, particularly given there already have been a number of successful prosecutions in this area.

None of this happens unless we all work together on these issues. I am equally pleased that when we identify a problem or a loophole, as has been identified now with a piece of legislation as important as Carly's Law, we can work together in a multipartisan way to address it. I cannot emphasise enough the critical work that Carly's mum, Sonya Ryan, has done and continues to do to raise awareness and educate our kids about the risks of online grooming and the predatory behaviour that tens of thousands of paedophiles and sexual deviants are bringing into our lounge rooms each and every day—into our kids' bedrooms each and every day.

There are an estimated 500,000 sexual predators online each and every day. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation received 33,114 reports of online exploitation in 2021 alone, up from 17,400 in 2018. In the past 12 months they have reviewed over 217,000 media files relating to the reports they have received, and I acknowledge how difficult a job this is for those dedicated individuals who are equally as dedicated, and doing their level best to protect our kids.

There is one particular offence I might just say something further on, an issue that was raised in the Criminal Justice Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and more recently by the courageous Grace Tame. The 2021 Australian of the Year spoke to the meeting of Attorneys-General on 12 November last year calling for a change in legal definitions. That call inspired the ACT Attorney-General to introduce a bill to change the name of 'sexual relationship with a child' to 'persistent sexual abuse of a child'.

Any time I have the opportunity to glance at a higher court list I am shocked and appalled, as I am sure many of my colleagues are, at the number of child sex offences being prosecuted. Maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship appears again and again in those lists, and I think, as has quite rightly been pointed out to us now, it is a term that many of us have real concerns about. The use of the word 'relationship' conveys a message of consent, and it certainly does not reflect the seriousness of offending. There is a lot of concern around the casualisation of the language, and that somehow this is something that the victim and the perpetrator are consenting to.

We have initially flagged with the Attorney-General that we would be filing an amendment. Following conversations however with the Attorney, and correspondence with his office and discussions with his office, we appreciate it is a very complex area of law as it turns out, which has been the subject of much debate including legal challenges to the High Court. The Attorney has provided us with written correspondence in relation to this issue, but the last thing that we want, particularly given that we are dealing with this bill now, is to make it easier for a child sex offender to avoid conviction on a legal argument.

I might just point out, based on the correspondence that has been provided to me by the Attorney, for the benefit of members, in 2017 the High Court delivered a significant judgement in two appeals—Hamra v The Queen and Chiro v The Queen—dealing with the existing South Australian offence of persistent sexual exploitation of a child prescribed by section 50 of our criminal law code. The decision clearly created a number of significant difficulties including that the accused may be held accountable for less serious acts. And then in order to overcome those issues the advice that I have is that we pass legislation in this place.

Section 50 was replaced in 2017 by the current offence, which is based on the model provisions recommended by the Criminal Justice report of the royal commission. Subsequently, in 2021, the heading to that offence was changed from 'persistent sexual abuse of a child' to the current heading of 'unlawful sexual relationship with a child' in order to properly reflect the elements of the offence and avoid argument as to the interpretation.

So when I say that the last thing we want to do is to make it easier for a child sex offender to avoid a conviction on a legal argument that is precisely what the government was seeking to do through this place. It was changed, as I said, to properly reflect the elements of the offence and avoid arguments as to the interpretation of the provision as a result of other changes that were made in our legislation. But I am glad to hear that the Attorney still shares the concerns that have been raised. I am very pleased that this matter is being looked at by the meeting of Attorneys-General.

I note also that the royal commission itself has grappled with the use of the term 'unlawful sexual relationship', but they, too, despite their discomfort with that language, acknowledge that they were content to adopt it in the interests of achieving the most effective form of the offence. In doing so, they said that it does not sit easily with the exploitation involved in child sex abuse offending. However, it is acknowledged that it may help emphasise that the actus reus of the offence and what the jury needs to be satisfied of is the existence of the relationship and not the particular underlying acts.

Despite their level of unease or being uncomfortable with that language, they were content that if they adopted that it would be the most effective form of offence and likely outcome of successful prosecutions. I acknowledge also that the Attorney has conveyed to me that any amendments we move to this section have to be carefully considered to ensure that we do not undermine the intent of those provisions, but also place on the record his willingness to work with us to address Ms Game's aims and the issues addressed by the royal commission. They certainly cannot be undertaken in the time frame available to us now, but again I acknowledge that he has indicated his willingness to do so following this bill. There is another bill that I understand that we are looking at considering into the future, which will also deal with some other issues that have not been dealt with in this bill.

I will hold the Attorney to his word on that issue. Regardless of what the meeting of Attorneys-General does federally, I think it is worth us pursuing that here. With those words, I am happy to indicate SA-Best's support for this bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:06): I commend the government and my colleagues in this chamber for supporting this important piece of legislation that increases penalties for child sex offences. This is 2022, and it is gratifying to know how attitudes from government agencies, including police, have changed significantly to these crimes in recent years. This must be attributed to those in our community who fought long and hard to make governments and authorities sit up and take notice and do something to stop these heinous and predatory acts that were allowed to happen, in so many cases, through wilful blindness of the very agencies set up to protect children, like the former disgraced families and community services, later rebadged as Families SA.

I would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to John Ternezis, a man who for two decades has continually battled a corrupt system while seeking the justice which consistently failed him and his daughter Katrina so badly. I first came across the terrible abuse of Katrina in 1998, when she was only 14. Katrina was a troubled juvenile runaway who was preyed upon for two and half years by a man, Andrew Smith, who was twice her age and plied her with drugs and sexually abused her. She fell pregnant at 14—14, Mr Acting President. She was still a child herself.

It was persistent sexual exploitation of a vulnerable child. It was unlawful, but the laws in place failed to protect Katrina. Mr Ternezis went everywhere to get help, to get some justice. The authorities did nothing. They turned a blind eye to what was happening. Katrina's disturbing case was also raised in parliament, in this very chamber. Nobody cared.

As a last resort, Mr Ternezis came to me when I was at Today Tonight. We exposed the sickening abuse that was happening and we sincerely believed it would have led to action being taken, that a shocking wrong would surely be addressed. How mistaken I was. Mr Ternezis was left angry and frustrated. Again, the authorities shamefully failed to lift a finger. Youth Court orders were ignored, even when Katrina sought their help. Each time Mr Ternezis complained and begged for assistance, he says he was met with lies and cover up. He accused Family and Youth Services of deliberately misleading the courts, yet Mr Smith was still free and able to abuse Katrina.

The state government absolved itself of any responsibility of putting this child and her baby under state care, so Mr Ternezis, who already had his own family to care for, had to take custody of the infant. He went to integrity agencies asking for an investigation into those government departments. They, too, turned him away. John said it left him with the impression that, as far as those agencies were concerned, an adult who had sex with a minor, supplied her with drugs and got her pregnant had broken no laws.

John told me today, and I will quote him, 'It is a crime to try and protect your family in this state.' After years of hitting deathly silence and bureaucratic brick walls, John Ternezis's last hope was the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse. He travelled to Brisbane in 2016 and told his alarming story of abject neglect of a child to a stunned royal commissioner who immediately referred the matter to South Australia Police. That is what it had to take for something to be finally done.

Mr Smith was arrested and charged with, would you believe, just one count of sexual exploitation of a child. In 2017, Smith pleaded guilty. The sentence, a paltry one year. This bill, should it pass, has a maximum penalty from 10 to 15 years for unlawful sexual intercourse. Even though Katrina was the victim of a shocking crime, John Ternezis has been told that Katrina is not entitled to compensation from the state, a lawyer telling him they did not want to embarrass the government. Mr Ternezis vows to continue his quest to get justice and compensation for Katrina, who is now 37. I trust that this legislation will ensure that there will be no repeat of what happened to Katrina or her father.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:12): I thank all members for their contributions today and indications of support. These are, indeed, exceptionally important matters. Last time a substantially similar bill was presented to the parliament it met with equal levels of support, and I think that shows how seriously everyone in this chamber and in this parliament takes issues of committing these sorts of offences against children.

I want to note some of the comments, particularly those made by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and want to join her in thanking Sonya Ryan for the work that she does. I have been fortunate to talk to Sonya Ryan a number of times, and at one forum in particular at Mount Barker with the federal member Mayo, I recall. It was an interesting forum about the dangers of various internet sites. I can say that after Sonya took the crowd at the Mount Barker movie theatre, which was hosting, through that, I went straight home and had a good look at the kids' phones and went through with them what they do. It is actually scary how much is out there that can be harmful to children.

I also reflect on the issue the Hon. Connie Bonaros raised in relation to the use of the word 'relationship' in these offences. I agree and I thank her for bringing it to my attention. It is a problematic way to describe these offences. However, I am keen, if there is a way that we can legally have the same impact on the statute books and in headings that now get interpreted as part of statutes, to see if it can be changed.

The strong advice I have received, as I have passed on to the Hon. Ms Bonaros, is if we went to what it said before or removed it, we risk having people only convicted on, as the High Court said, the lesser two offences, which is completely against the intention of what we do. I am keen, if there is a way, to reflect what the offences are without having any possibility that someone who commits these vile acts against children has any way of serving less time in jail—I am keen to do that.

Having said that, I look forward to the committee stage. Particularly, I know the Hon. Michelle Lensink has questions that we will traverse when we get to those clauses and those amendments in the very near future.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I state from the outset that, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, the Greens are supportive of this bill. One of the issues that has been raised with us in the past, though, and that we have been concerned about is around potentially unintended consequences; if there were a situation where two minors, as in people under the age of 18, were exchanging images between themselves—I am thinking of a romantic relationship between two children, high-schoolers, for instance—not wanting them to be potentially prosecuted or to find themselves on a sex register or anything like that.

I raised this issue with the previous government when a similar bill was before this place and was advised that the chances of prosecution in those circumstances were considered pretty slim. I want to confirm with the government that there are no changes to existing provisions in the new legislation and that indeed the chances of prosecution in those circumstances are pretty slim.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that nothing in the changes that are presented in this bill compared with the last one would see the chance—even though it is very slim—of a young person being prosecuted increase. I think that is the question that was asked.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To provide some context, it has not been so much of an issue here in South Australia but in some other jurisdictions. I am looking at New South Wales. I know there have been issues regarding young people being criminalised, so I did want to raise it in this context. Thank you to the Attorney for his response.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps by way of further clarification, would the Attorney like to confirm that we have what we have also dubbed the 'Romeo and Juliet provisions' in South Australia, which are aimed at dealing with those, and we are not touching those for the purposes of what the honourable member has just said?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am advised that recognition of the very young offenders, even though one might be a couple of weeks older than the other, does tick over a certain threshold. We are not in any way aiming to change any of those with this bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The amendment of section 63B, which is at clause 14: the keen-eyed shadow attorney-general has raised that the basic and aggravated offences in that particular clause appear to be still basic and aggravated, and I am wondering whether that is consistent with the rest of the legislation and, if not, is there an explanation for that, please?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. The bill removes those aged-based differentiations for essentially image-based offences, so those where proving the age of someone in an image can be in question, where it makes prosecution difficult, so for those image-based offences it is removed but retained elsewhere.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps if we can confirm for the record, the advice provided at the briefing was that that also extends to the hentai, the manga, in terms of the depiction of children under a certain age as well. So child exploitation material covers all of that, including the hentai material?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can confirm that the advice I am getting is the same, that it applies the same penalty whether or not it is a fictitious child as well.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 to 5 passed.

New clauses 5A and 5B.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–2]—

Page 4, after line 3—Insert:

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

(1) Schedule 1, clause 2(e)—delete paragraph (e) and substitute:

(e) an offence against section 49(1), (3) or (5) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (offences relating to unlawful sexual intercourse) other than an offence that occurred in prescribed circumstances;

(eaa) an offence against section 49(6) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (unlawful sexual intercourse with a person with an intellectual disability) if the victim was a child other than an offence that occurred in prescribed circumstances;

(2) Schedule 1, clause 2(k)—after 'Sentencing Act 2017' insert:

as in force before the commencement of the Sentencing (Serious Repeat Offenders) Amendment Act 2020

(3) Schedule 1, clause 2—after paragraph (k) insert:

(ka) an offence resulting in the person being sentenced as a serious repeat offender under section 53(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2017 if, in at least 2 of the relevant serious sexual offences, the victim was a child;

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

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

(5) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) an offence against section 23 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (causing serious harm) if—

(i) the victim was a child; and

(ii) the offence arises from the same incident as a sexual offence;

(6) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (f) insert:

(fa) an offence against section 63AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (production or dissemination of child-like sex dolls);

(7) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (g) insert:

(gaa) an offence against section 63AAB of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (possession of child-like sex dolls);

(8) Schedule 1, clause 3(ja)—delete paragraph (ja)

(9) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (k) insert:

(ka) an offence against section 139A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (dishonest communication with children) if the person was sentenced on the basis that the communication was made with the intention of committing a sexual offence against a child;

(10) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (sa) insert:

(sab) an offence against section 272.15A of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth;

(11) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (sbc) insert:

(sbd) an offence against section 273A.1 of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth;

(12) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (si) insert:

(sia) an offence against section 471.25A of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth;

(13) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (v) insert:

(va) an offence against section 474.22A of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth;

(14) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (w) insert:

(waa) an offence against section 474.23A of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth;

(15) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (wc) insert:

(wd) an offence against section 474.25C of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth if the person was sentenced on the basis that the act was done with the intention of committing a sexual offence against a child;

(16) Schedule 1, clause 3—after paragraph (y) insert:

(ya) an offence against section 474.27AA of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth;

5B—Transitional provisions

(1) Despite section 6(1)(a) of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006, a person is not, and is taken never to have been, a registrable offender for the purposes of that Act if, before the commencement of section 5A(1) of this Act, the person was a registrable offender only because—

(a) the person was sentenced for an offence against section 49(6) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (unlawful sexual intercourse with a person with an intellectual disability); and

(b) the victim was, at the time of the relevant offence, of or above the age of 18 years.

(2) Despite section 6(1)(a) of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006, a person is not, and is taken never to have been, a registrable offender for the purposes of that Act if, before the commencement of section 5A(8) of this Act, the person was a registrable offender only because the person was sentenced for an offence against section 69 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (bestiality).

(3) Despite section 34(2) of the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006, a reference to an offence in section 34 of that Act does not extend to the following offences committed before the commencement of this subsection or for which a person was sentenced before the commencement of this subsection:

(a) an offence against section 49(6) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (unlawful sexual intercourse with a person with an intellectual disability) where the victim was, at the time of the relevant offence, of or above the age of 18 years;

(b) an offence against section 69 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (bestiality).

This is the insertion of the schedule list. The Hon. Michelle Lensink asked about clause 5A(1)(eaa), and I can advise, in relation to that, that this was very similar to what was in the last one, except it adds in 'other than an offence that occurred in prescribed circumstances'. That is in there, I am advised, deliberately for the prescribed circumstances the Hon. Connie Bonaros talked about, the Romeo and Juliet-type scenario.

The next one asked was in relation to subclause (6)(fa). In reviewing all of the provisions that were in there, it was discovered that inadvertently the new-ish offences of childlike sex dolls had not been included in there, so that brings those into there.

I think, if I am getting it right, the next one was subclause (9)(ka). I am advised that there are extra words added to this. Carly's Law of course incorporates communication that might not be of sexual nature. We are talking about a sex offender register, so it makes it clear that if it comes within the ambit of Carly's Law it is on the basis it was made in relation to sexual offending. The same explanation applies to subclause (15)(wd), adding those extra words onto the end.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps just for the benefit of the record, it would be worthwhile confirming also that nothing in this bill undermines the aggravated offence that continues to exist in Carly's Law when there is an intention meet with a child in order to commit a subsequent criminal offence.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised there are two different parts of Carly's Law, and the higher penalty will apply if you intend to do that.

New clauses inserted.

Clause 6.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 4, after line 10—Insert:

(ia) in the case of an offence against Part 3 Division 8A or section 63B(1)—knowing that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the offence, under the age of 14 years; or

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will just make one point, and I only raise this because of discussions we had around the terming of 'relationship'. I am just flagging with the Attorney that I have had some feedback to our office that has indicated some similar concerns around the words 'commercial sexual services'.

Again, we appreciate what we are trying to address, but I just flag with the Attorney, should it land on his desk, that the concerns that have been raised are that it is not possible to provide a service when you are exploiting a child and, therefore, given that I raised the other issue of relationship, the question that was raised with me is: why are we using the word 'services' when it comes to what is otherwise deemed, I suppose, acceptable as terminology but perhaps not so when it comes to child sex offending? I just place that on the record for your benefit.

Remaining clauses (7 to 19) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:29): 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