Page 3786 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have, therefore, introduced the concept of making the maintaining of a sexual relationship with a child sufficient to complete the offence. This overcomes the problem of framing the indictment when the child cannot remember the date that he or she was abused, and, as members know, that is a common occurrence.
I ask members to give careful attention to this Bill, and not to allow the retrospectivity issue to delay the passage of this legislation. In other words, if the house does not support the clause as drawn, because it wishes to see either longer retrospectivity or none whatsoever, then I ask that that debate be deferred to another time and we agree to simply delete the retrospectivity clause for the time being. We say this because the premeditated, self-indulgent sexual abuse of children is a gross violation of values. It is an exploitation which exists at all levels of our culture, and the real magnitude is yet to be determined.
As informed commentators state, many children feel guilty about the abuse and do not report it. The most important aspect of this abuse is that, in the great majority of cases - estimated at over 80 per cent - abuse occurs from family members or acquaintances; that is, people who have a caring role in relation to an abused child. In other words, lurking around our suburbs, and in certain caring situations - and I stress "certain" - are those who will exploit young children.
The breakdown of the extended family and different family patterning provide deviants, in some instances, with a further scope to interfere with children and, in so doing, they breach a position of trust. Where the law wishes to punish this behaviour, it should not be impeded by any further delay by the legislature in rectifying the problems identified by the High Court.
Proposed section 92EA paragraph 5(b) is suggested as an additional ground of defence. It takes account of the possibility that the adult and the young person might be married or have entered into a union in the nature of a marriage under a law of a foreign country. Although such a marriage would not be recognised as valid in accordance with section 88D subsection (1) of the Marriage Act 1961 of the Commonwealth - at least, apparently, until the young person attained 16 years of age - section 88E subsection (1) of that Act appears to leave intact the rules of private international law.
Members may note that the age set for a child in this amendment is 12 years. There has been some debate as to whether the age should be 14 years. That is the reason, in fact, why proposed section 92EA subparagraph 5(b) is there. However, in view of the increasing evidence of consensual conduct above the age of 12 years, it is not our wish to criminalise that conduct prior to any informed community consultation on that subject. In other words, we are sure
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .