House in Committee — Part 1 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961

Members, the House is in committee on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. We come first to the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 5, “Amendments to Crimes Act 1961”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an omnibus bill, so we’ve got a few things that are all trying to focus on making life better for victims of sexual violence—which is always a good thing. This is a piece of work that was started by the Hon Ginny Andersen. She did it as part of the national strategy and action plan to reduce the amount of sexual violence in our country.

We are at Part 1, as I understand it, so we are talking about the first clauses in Part 1, about the issue of the difference in treatment between those under 12 years of age and those above 12. We had a real issue with regard to the difference in treatment under different laws that meant that people were not prepared to charge under a particular, more serious action because they were worried that there would be an issue for children under that section. I’d ask the Minister of Justice if he can explain what the purpose of this part is in his view, and whether he considers that the bill has closed that gap and made it less of an incentive to charge with a lesser offence—how has it protected our children?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two brief questions for the Minister of Justice, regarding Part 1. The first one is regarding clause 5, looking at section 132 amended. I just want to check with the Minister, if I read the regulatory impact statement as well, because what we are seeing is increasing the maximum penalty for section 132(1) from 14 years, to 20 years—but can I just check that this is to do with bringing it up to consistency with what we are seeing in section 128B of the Crimes Act, which has a maximum penalty of 20 years, as well. So, I guess, my first question for the Minister is just for a clarification on that point, and, of course, clarity on section 128B of the Crimes Act on sexual violation.

The second question I have is—I’m just also noting the Minister’s Amendment Paper 289, whereby there are additional clauses that have been added, particularly in terms of clause 4 and clause 5. I think, in this case, while, yes, when we’re looking at that it doesn’t apply to persons under the age of 12, I just wanted to check with the Minister, because I wasn’t part of the Justice Committee: what was the rationale behind including “it cannot be established whether person B was under or over the age of 12 years.”? So, in those situations, under what context would that be? My assumption would be that if something happens, yes, immediately on the surface, you won’t be able to establish if the person is aged 12 or not, but surely that if there is any sort of work has been done, or if police are involved, and etc., that there is going to be some form of investigation and they’ll be able to pick up on the person’s birth report. So I just wanted to check the intention behind new clause 4(b) and also the new clause 5, replacing section 132(6)(a), and particularly new subclause (2)(a)(ii).

Those are my two questions. The first one is whether clause 5 of the bill, increasing the penalty from 14 to 20 years, is to be consistent with the Crimes Act 128B. The second question is: what was the rationale behind adding the Amendment Paper on “it cannot be established whether person B was under or over the age of 12 years.”? Thank you.

Yeah, just in response to that question from the member, the Amendment Paper 289 is clarifying that where it cannot be established whether the child was under or over the age of 12, then, under replacement section 132(6)(a)(ii), the sexual conduct with a child under 12 is treated as if they are under 12. The member asked, “Well, how would you not know?” Well, there will be some circumstances where the court, for whatever reason, doesn’t know, and so that’s the point of that.

In terms of aligning the penalties: sexual violation has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, whereas sexual connection with a child has a maximum penalty of 14 years. We didn’t think that that distinction was appropriate, so one of the things that the bill does is increase the maximum penalty to 20 years of imprisonment to align with sexual violation. So just in terms of this bill, it’s about ensuring that we’re preventing children from being questioned about consent, which has sometimes been the case. So that’s the purpose of the overall part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While I was also not on the Justice Committee when this bill was considered, it is one of the few bills that was introduced to the House in the 53rd Parliament—in a much narrower form—so I am familiar with the issue in regard to children under 12. My question for the Minister of Justice is in regard to whether there was consideration of section 134(1) of the Crimes Act. This was an issue that was raised by some of the submitters at the select committee—it is in the Community Law submission—and it’s in regard to young people who are between the ages 12 and 15—an issue that came up in the case of Christian v R, which involved a teenage girl and a significantly older man, where the similar issue played out in that the higher charge was used, and it had to be demonstrated that, again, the young person didn’t consent. So my question to the Minister is whether there is a policy reason for excluding consideration of that group of young people?

Thank you. I’d also ask the Minister of Justice just to give a plain-English explanation with regard to the “Automatic suppression of the identity of [the] complainant”, referred to in this legislation. That’s because we’re going to be talking about—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just interrupt the member and check which part you’re referring to?

HELEN WHITE: I think I’m talking about Part 1. Apologies. Maybe I’m not. Maybe I’ve got the wrong part. We can leave it till the next part. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Sorry, actually, I’m not on Part 2. I withdraw.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 289 be agreed to.