Andrew Wallace
Fisher · Liberal National Party · Australia
“Based on that meeting, I worked pretty closely with the former shadow minister for communications David Coleman, and I was the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee when, with the member for Newcastle, we held an inquiry into protecting the age of innocence.”
“On 3 January 2018, Dolly Everett passed away at the age of 14. She was a young woman, a young lady, who had been bullied mercilessly. Sadly, she took her own life as a result of the bullying she encountered on social media. That happened not long into my parliamentary term in this place.”
“Later, in June 2024, the then opposition leader Peter Dutton pledged that a coalition government would implement a ban on social media for under-16s within 100 days of taking office. The Labor government did not introduce a bill to protect under-16s from social media until 12 months after we introduced our private member's bill.”
“It was the coalition that consistently led the charge on the protection of children. We actually set up the eSafety Commissioner—and what we now know, from the eSafety Commissioner herself, is that 70 per cent of children are still on social media as a result of this government's flawed legislation.”
“The continuity, the trust and the prevention that a good family GP, like my doctor in Maroochydore, provides cannot be replicated by a clipboard and a six-minute timer. That is where the human cost begins to accumulate. Bulk-billing has collapsed under this government, no matter what those opposite say or how they try and spin it.”
“For decades, Commonwealth governments, including coalition governments, have used health incentive payments to support quality care, to encourage digital health adoption, to sustain general practice in aged-care settings and to keep doctors working in rural and remote communities, where the economics of medicine are hard and the distances…”
The complete record
Every one of 667 lines we hold for Andrew Wallace, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referring to the Federation Chamber; (2) the bill being called on for debate upon resumption of the meeting of the Federation Chamber today at 4 pm with the time for each second—”
“I seek leave to move the following motion: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referred to the Federation Chamber; (2) the bill being called on for debate upon resumption of the meeting of the Federation Chamber today at 4 pm, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and (3) proceedings on the bill having priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today, and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately. Leave not granted.”
“I call on every member of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, to support this motion. Let's act together, let's act decisively, and let's act now. Every child deserves protection, and every offender deserves real punishment. This parliament has the power to make that happen. Let us not waste another day. I commend the motion to the House.”
“Some will argue that longer sentences don't reduce reoffending, but while an offender is behind bars they cannot harm another child. Longer sentences incapacitate offenders, protect communities and send a clear and powerful message that this nation will not tolerate sexual abuse of children. Longer sentences also deter potential offenders who know the consequences are real and severe. Most importantly, they restore faith that our justice system stands with victims, not with perpetrators. Every day that we delay, another 226 reports of online child exploitation are received. Every day that we delay, more children are abused. Every day that we delay, we fail those who depend upon us for protection. That is why this bill must be passed urgently, and that is why the standing orders must be suspended today.”
“The attorney has said publicly that she's open to considering this proposal. I welcome that but, words are not enough. The time for consideration is over. It is time to act. This bill should not be delayed by procedural obstacles. Standing orders should be suspended so it can be debated and passed without delay. The community expects no less. The impacts of child sexual abuse are lifelong: 95 per cent of survivors experience long-term mental health consequences, 67 per cent struggle in their relationships, and 56 per cent suffer setbacks in their education and finances. The trauma endures for decades. It destroys lives; it breaks families. Too often, victims of abuse become offenders themselves. That is the devastating cycle that we are duty-bound to break.”
“Under this bill, a recognisance release order cannot be granted for these crimes unless exceptional circumstances exist. This reform is not radical. It is necessary, it is reasonable and it reflects the expectations of the Australian community. When the coalition introduced mandatory minimum sentences in 2019, it was because 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders were not serving a single day in prison. That was unacceptable then and it remains unacceptable now. Since the introduction of those reforms we've seen real improvements: more offenders are pleading guilty, sentences are longer, rehabilitation rates have improved, the community is safer. But cases like Maloney show that more must be done. That is why we must act now. The coalition seeks bipartisanship on this bill.”
“The Commonwealth does not have a general power to make criminal laws—that is a matter for the states—however the Commonwealth does have jurisdiction when a carriage service, such as the internet or the postal service, is used to commit these crimes. This bill deals with those specific offences. It does not create new offences. It strengthens sentences for existing ones. Specifically, the bill amends the Crimes Act to establish mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for five existing offences relating to child abuse material transmitted or possessed through a carriage or postal service. For second or subsequent offences, the mandatory minimum will increase to six years. Importantly, this bill closes the loophole that allows the court in Maloney case to release the offender after just six months in prison.”
“The judgement makes for unbearable reading. The little girl knew what was happening to her was wrong. On at least two occasions, she told her father she didn't like it. She was just five years old. Yet, despite this, the offender will be eligible for release after just 2½ years. For the Commonwealth offences of producing and transmitting child abuse material, he received a sentence of only six months imprisonment before release on a recognisance order. Six months for producing and sharing videos of a child—his own daughter no less—being sexually assaulted. That is not justice; that is an abject failure, and that failure demands immediate action by this government.”
“The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation recorded 82,764 reports of online child exploitation in 2024-25. That is more than 226 reports every single day. Over the last year alone, reports of online child sexual abuse increased by 41 per cent. This is not an isolated problem. This is a national epidemic. Given those numbers, there is no justification for delay. We cannot allow a system that hands down sentences measured in months for crimes of extraordinary depravity. The case that has shocked the Australian community in recent times is the case of the DPP v Maloney in Victoria. It involved a father who sexually abused his five-year-old daughter on 19 separate occasions, and who produced and transmitted 77 separate files of child sexual abuse material. Those files included 13 videos and 64 images.”
“Families across Australia have been clear: they want their children to be safe. They are horrified by what they see in the media. They are deeply concerned about the proliferation of child abuse, child sexual abuse, particularly online, and they are dismayed when they see offenders walking free after only a few months behind bars. Four Corners showed what parents already fear: gaps in staffing, ratios and checks are letting offenders near our kids. Parents deserve more than promises. After last night's revelations, we need stronger sentencing for Commonwealth offences and a national lift in safeguards, information sharing, and enforcement to make clear that if you exploit a child online or through a carriage service you will face real prison time, not a slap on the wrist. The statistics are devastating.”
“This is not an issue that can wait for another sitting week or another round of debates. The safety of our children demands immediate action, which is why I moved that the standing orders be suspended so that this bill can be brought on and dealt with immediately. This bill is about the protection of Australian children. It is about sending an unmistakable message to those who exploit, abuse or prey upon children that they will face justice and that they will face serious prison time. Child sexual offences are among the most serious offences in the Commonwealth statute book. Any person who commits one of these crimes should expect to spend a long time in prison. I do not believe there is a single right-minded decent parent in this country who would disagree. This bill is also about restoring public confidence in the justice system.”
“I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referred to the Federation Chamber; (2) the bill being called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and (3) proceedings on the bill having priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately. I rise today to speak on a matter of the utmost seriousness and urgency. This parliament must act now to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: our children.”
“I seek leave to move the following motion: (1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber; (2) the bill be called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and (3) proceedings on the bill have priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately. Leave not granted.”
“It is long overdue. The federal government's primary responsibility is to keep Australians safe. This bill will assist in that aim. No foreign state entity should think that it can get away with perpetrating acts of terrorism on Australian soil or against Australians—not now; not ever. I commend the bill to the House.”
“In its public hearing examining the bill on 16 October 2025 submissions were received by the PJCIS which identified an omission in paragraphs 29(1)(baa) and 29(1)(bab) of the Intelligence Services Act, as drafted, which would mean the PJCIS would not have the ability to monitor and review AFP counterterrorism functions in relation to the new part 5.3A to the same extent it currently monitors and reviews such functions in relation to part 5.3. This is an important omission in terms of both keeping the legislative schemes in part 5.3 and part 5.3A parallel and keeping them consistent with PJCIS oversight. I'll flag that I intend to move an amendment in consideration in detail, when this matter comes before the Federation Chamber later this afternoon. In summary, the coalition supports this very important national security bill.”
“Pursuant to section 110.3(5) of the bill, in order for a foreign state actor to be listed by the AFP minister as a state sponsor of terrorism, the foreign affairs minister must agree. It is argued by the government that this two-step process establishes a check and balance on the scheme so that adverse decisions are not made contrary to the national interest. The coalition agrees with that. Unfortunately, however, the bill does not provide any legislative guidance to the foreign affairs minister about what factors the minister should take into consideration in deciding to agree to the listing. The coalition thinks that this is a misstep on the part of the government, but it will not prevent the coalition from supporting this important piece of legislation.”
“This government has never taken national security seriously while I have served as deputy chair of the PJCIS. I turn now to the issue of what foreign entities could be listed under this bill. As drafted, the bill may enable the Australian government to list a foreign entity, such as the Israeli Defence Force or even the Israeli government, if an Australian citizen or permanent resident was killed or seriously injured in Gaza or the West Bank as a result of military actions the IDF, for example, may take. Whilst there would be competing diplomatic considerations in so doing and whilst the Foreign minister would have to consent to the listing, the theoretical possibility remains that the government or other entity of one or more democratically elected allies of Australia could be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.”
“The government sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing about progressing a bill which would enable the listing of the IRGC until the Director-General of Security announced publicly that the IRGC had been directing terrorist acts on the Australian mainland. That is despite the opposition calling for such a bill for more than two years. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the good work of the former shadow Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, in calling this out. The member for Berowra, Senator Chandler and Senator Paterson have consistently called on this government to do whatever it can to list the IRGC. And then all of a sudden, the government, having been totally and utterly embarrassed by its inaction, wants to put the pedal to the metal.”
“Members of the PJCIS rely heavily on the expertise of these stakeholders when considering the implications of national security legislation that comes before it. It is disrespectful of the committee's incredibly hardworking secretariat and puts them under totally unacceptable pressures and strains. So much for this government's often trumpeted principles of respect at work and the right to disconnect. It is a simple case of do as I say, not as I do. If every other employer in this country has to abide by these laws, it's about time this government started acting in the same manner. Enough is enough. The government must allow the PJCIS the appropriate opportunity to do its work.”
“Some submitters have indicated to me that they simply will not and physically cannot provide submissions in the times often set by the government. Why does this matter? Because national security matters. Our laws that govern national security and security agencies matter. The lives, rights and liberties of Australians matter. But if this government continues to trash these conventions, we will have ill-considered laws that will have unintended consequences that cost the lives of Australians and/or trash the very principles of our Western liberal democracy. The government's approach to rushing the PJCIS through its work is disrespectful of stakeholders, who are often experts in this complicated maze of national security laws and architecture. Those stakeholders want to be heard, but often can't.”
“It has largely acted in a bipartisan manner since its inception with its members, coming from the parties of government, willing to leave their political guns at the door to ensure that the protection of the Australian public is its paramount consideration—as it should be. But the government continues to trash this legacy by virtue of its intent to nobble the ability of the PJCIS to appropriately and fulsomely conduct its vital work. In the previous parliament, the PJCIS had such an incredibly heavy workload. At one point, it was conducting somewhere in the order of 14 inquiries at one time. That is not sustainable, and it is made worse by this government's insistence on setting totally unrealistic deadlines for reports to be tabled in the parliament.”
“Submissions had to be made; a public hearing needed to be conducted; a report needed to be drafted, considered by the chair, then by the committee and then vetted by security agencies; and then the report had to be tabled. All of this was supposed to have been done within 16 days. The net effect of this ridiculously truncated period was that submitters had only seven days to prepare their submission before the public hearing was set down on 16 October. The PJCIS was once considered the most important committee in this parliament. Its members receive briefings on matters of national security by agencies within our national intelligence community.”
“My criticism of the government is not directly aimed at government members of the committee, although, regrettably, in my view, government members are not doing enough, at least publicly, to resist the government's utterly unrealistic expectations of workloads and the timeframes that it sets the committee. Take, for example, the referral of the current bill to the PJCIS. I spoke earlier about the process—the Attorney-General wrote to the chair of the committee asking for an inquiry into the bill. That letter was dated 8 October. She asked for the committee to report back by 24 October, just 16 days later. In that time, the committee had to meet to accept the referral and set relevant timeframes for the conduct of the inquiry.”
“The committee received submissions from the Australian Federal Police, AusIran, Australian Red Cross Society, Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and a third individual. This government's approach to this bill is emblematic of how it conducts national security policy: do nothing, delay and obfuscate for as long as possible, and only do the right thing once all other alternatives have been exhausted. The bill has not been, in my view, appropriately scrutinised by the PJCIS and was akin to a box-ticking exercise by the government. This is a concerning trend of this government. I've watched this government seek to ram important national security legislation through the PJCIS, and it must stop.”
“The Attorney-General, when referring the bill to the PJCIS, requested that the PJCIS report back by 24 October 2025. The net effect of this request is that, in order to complete its report within this extremely truncated period, stakeholders were afforded just seven clear days in which to consider the bill and provide submissions before the public hearing. As a result, the PJCIS only received submissions from the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Save the Children, the Australian Council for International Development and two individuals. These were received prior to the public hearing, and then, just in the last few days, the committee received an additional submission from Chris Taylor, Dr John Coyne and Justin Bassi, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.”
“The bill also includes a safeguard that the Attorney-General must consent to commit a person to trial for all new offences and the existing violent extremist material offences. This provides an opportunity for the Attorney-General to consider the appropriateness of the proposed prosecution in all the circumstances of the case. At the outset, it should be said that the coalition supports this bill. It has been a long time coming—too long. Whilst the coalition supports the bill, the process that this government has undertaken to get to this point is as regrettable as it is noteworthy. The bill has been referred to the PJCIS, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which held a two-hour public hearing on 16 October 2025.”
“Importantly, the defence of mistake of fact remains available for an accused person for many of the offence provisions under section 9.2 of the Criminal Code. A requirement to obtain consent from the foreign affairs minister and to brief the Leader of the Opposition prior to listing under clause 110.3(5) would require that, before the Governor-General makes regulations listing a foreign state entity as a state sponsor of terrorism, the AFP minister must: Obtain the Foreign Affairs Minister's agreement in writing to the entity being specified— as a state sponsor of terrorism, and— arrange for the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives to be briefed in relation to the proposed regulation. The Attorney-General must also consent to the prosecution.”
“The association offence in section 112.7 would include defences where the association was with a close family member and was related to a matter of family or domestic concern or takes place in the course of practising a religion in a place used for public religious worship or where the association is only for the purpose of providing humanitarian or legal advice or legal representation in connection with specified matters. These offence-specific defences align with those currently available for the comparable membership and association offences for terrorist organisations. Additionally, new general defences in division 112 would be available, including where there is engagement with a state sponsor of terrorism which is not connected with terrorism and is otherwise legitimate or unavoidable.”
“The new offences and the extended application of existing offences would not apply retrospectively, as they would not capture conduct that an individual engaged in before amendments commenced or before a state entity is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, in listing a state entity such as the IRGC, the AFP minister is able to consider, and be satisfied of, acts that occurred prior to the commencement of the legislation. That is, it is not only prospective acts that can lead to a listing. The membership offence in section 112.2 would include a defence where a person proves they took all reasonable steps to cease to be a member of the entity as soon as practicable after they knew the entity was a state sponsor of terrorism.”
“Schedule 3 of the bill would make consequential amendments to a series of Commonwealth legislation to ensure consistency in the treatment of terrorist organisations and terrorist acts under part 5.3 and state sponsors of terrorism and state terrorist acts in part 5.3A. Schedule 3 would also make consequential amendments to the Crimes Act, the Criminal Code, the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. Schedule 4 of the bill would make further amendments to division 80 of the Criminal Code to ensure consistency in the way in which the prohibited terrorist organisation symbols offences operate. Additionally, schedule 4 would make technical amendments to the operation of sentencing provisions in the Crimes Act.”
“Schedule 2 of the bill would amend part 5.3 of the Criminal Code to provide that part 5.3 orders available under divisions 104, control orders; division 105, preventative detention orders; and division 105A, post-sentence orders of the Criminal Code, which are used to respond to terrorism threats, are available in respect of state sponsors of terrorism and state terrorist acts in part 5.3A. Schedule 2 of the bill would also make amendments to the Crimes Act 1914, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to give effect to the extended application of part 5.3 orders to part 5.3A.”
“New division 112 would provide for offences in relation to dealings with a state sponsor of terrorism, including directing the activities of a state sponsor of terrorism, the provision of support and funding, membership, association and recruitment. New division 113 would provide for offences connected with the financing of a state terrorist act targeted at Australia, including the financing of a person involved in such an act. New division 114 would provide general provisions relating to the offences, including the application of extended geographical jurisdiction, availability of alternative verdicts and the requirement for the Attorney-General's consent to be obtained for prosecution.”
“Specifically, schedule 1 would insert new division 110, which would provide relevant definitions for part 5.3A and its offences and provide a framework through which a state entity could be prescribed by regulation as a state sponsor of terrorism. New division 111 would provide for offences connected with state terrorist acts, covering the doing of such an act as well as steps in support or preparation of such an act. Division 111 would also capture instances where state entities are supporting non-state entities in the commission of terrorist acts, including steps in preparation of these acts.”
“There may be further announcements that additional attacks on Australian soil will be attributed to the IRGC. In response, the Australian government expelled the Iranian ambassador along with three Iranian diplomats, and the Australian embassy in Tehran was closed. It is noteworthy that this is the first time since the Second World War that an Australian government has expelled an ambassador. This bill does not seek to list the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism, but it will provide the legislative machinery for the government to do so. Schedule 1 of the bill would create a new part 5.3A of the Criminal Code to deal with state sponsors of terrorism and state-sponsored terrorist acts.”
“The coalition has consistently offered to support measures to amend the Criminal Code to enable the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. On 26 August 2025 the Director-General of Security announced that the IRGC had been directly linked to terrorist activity on Australian soil in two confirmed incidents in 2024: the firebombing of a kosher restaurant in Sydney—Lewis' Continental Kitchen—on 20 October 2024 and the arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne on 6 December 2024, causing an estimated $45 million in damage and putting at risk the lives of people who were in the building at the time. The director-general, Mr Burgess, advised that the attacks were directed by the IRGC using a covert network of facilitators.”
“From individual lone actors to now state sponsored terrorism, the threat of terrorism in Australia and to Australians abroad is dynamic, real and significant. The current national terrorism threat level is set at 'probable', meaning there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of a terrorist attack, or attack planning, occurring onshore within the next 12 months. This threat level was raised from 'possible' to 'probable' on 5 August 2024. The coalition has called for the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation for more than two years. The Labor government has resisted these calls at every turn, arguing that the current provisions enabling terrorist-organisation listing, in division 102 of the Criminal Code, do not permit the listing of foreign state entities.”
“It would also provide for appropriate defences—for example, for persons who are required by law to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose. The bill would also make amendments to various other Commonwealth acts to apply the law enforcement powers and other policy tools that are available in response to, or targeted at the prevention of, terrorist acts to the new provisions concerning state sponsored terrorism. The threat of terrorism to Australians, both at home and abroad, is constantly evolving. No longer only the purview of religiously motivated extremist groups, terrorism today takes on many forms: from differing ideologies, political views and faith groups; from those on the political far left to those on the far right; and from fundamentalist Islamists to fundamentalist Christians.”
“The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 would amend the Criminal Code to allow the Commonwealth to list foreign state entities that have engaged in a state terrorist act or otherwise supported or advocated terrorist acts targeted at Australia. The bill would create a new parallel legislative framework that in many respects mirrors the existing framework for the listing of terrorist organisations. The bill would enable the Governor-General to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism on the advice of the Australian Federal Police minister with agreement from the foreign affairs minister. The bill would also create new offences which would criminalise conduct engaged in by these entities, as well as conduct engaged in by persons who would seek to assist or support these activities.”
“The ability to list certain organisations as terrorist organisations, as provided for by division 102 of the Criminal Code, provides the Australian government with a valuable tool for publicly condemning those organisations as well as putting the public on notice that certain dealings with those organisations are criminal offences. However, the application of this framework does not currently extend to foreign state entities who engage in terrorist acts targeting Australia. A new framework designed to list state sponsors of terrorism would enable the government to inform the public of the risks posed by foreign state entities that seek to harm Australians or Australian interests and harden the domestic operating environment.”
“The transmission of these images is not a victimless crime; it creates a market for child sexual abuse, and anyone involved in this heinous crime should do that serious time, not just get a slap over the wrist. This is an opportunity for every member in this parliament to stand together, to rise above partisanship and to affirm a basic truth: that the protection of our children is not a political issue; it is our moral duty. Our message today is simple and clear: Australia will not tolerate child sexual abuse, whether that is online or offline. Those who commit these crimes should face the full force of the law, and this parliament, united, will protect the most vulnerable among us. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“Too often the scales of justice have been tipped towards the rights of offenders instead of compassion for the victims, who will live with this trauma forever, and of course the protection of the community. That imbalance must end. The recent case of a childcare worker charged with more than 70 offences after working in 20 different centres shows how urgently reform in this space is needed. This bill is not complicated. It does not create new offences; it simply ensures that when a person commits one of the most heinous crimes imaginable the sentence they receive reflects the gravity of their crime. No-one who produces or transmits child abuse material should be able to walk free after six months—not one, not ever. This bill sends an unmistakable message: if you exploit a child you will do serious jail time.”
“It is just as much about protection, because, while sentencing matters, prevention matters just as much—if not more. This bill will serve as a strong deterrent from this appalling conduct. The coalition has long called for stronger child safety frameworks across the nation, including reforms to the Working with Children Check, mandatory prevention training, and national standards informed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation is another vital part of this national effort. It was established and funded under a coalition government, reflecting our longstanding and unwavering commitment to protecting innocent lives and safeguarding Australian children, and that must always be our focus.”
“The member for Berowra and the Leader of the Opposition acted with conviction, compassion and urgency, driven by a simple belief that every child deserves to grow up safe, loved and free from fear. I thank them for their leadership and their commitment to the protection of children in this country. I also want to acknowledge Bruce and Denise Morcombe and the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, whose decades of advocacy have made child safety a national cause. Bruce and Denise have turned their family's unimaginable loss into a movement for change. They've given a voice to victims, survivors and families across Australia. The Daniel Morcombe Foundation has publicly supported this bill, recognising that strong deterrents and clear sentences save lives and prevent abuse before it happens. The bill is not just about punishment.”
“This bill builds on the mandatory minimum sentencing regime first introduced by the coalition government in 2019, which saw longer sentences, more guilty pleas and more offenders entering rehabilitation. When we introduced that legislation, Labor initially sought to remove the mandatory sentencing provisions. But, faced with overwhelming public support, they eventually joined with the coalition in a bipartisan spirit to pass the law. I call on the government today to do the same, to put politics aside and to put the safety of our children first. I want to pay tribute to my colleague the member for Berowra, the former shadow Attorney-General and the Leader of the Opposition for their tireless work in bringing this bill forward.”
“Second, it establishes child sex offences that involve the use of a postal service, including using a postal or similar service for child abuse material, an offence under section 471.19 of the code, and possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through a postal or similar service, an offence under section 471.20 of the code. Importantly, this bill closes a loophole exposed by the Maloney case. It provides that a recognisance release order, which is effectively a release on good behaviour, cannot be made for Commonwealth child sex offences unless there are exceptional circumstances and ensures that offenders cannot walk free after serving only a fraction of their sentence for crimes that devastate young lives.”
“First, it establishes that child sex offences involving the use of a carriage service, including using a carriage service for child abuse material, is an offence under section 474.22 of the Criminal Code. This is the provision that, among other things, makes it an offence to transmit child abuse material. This is one of the offences at issue in the Maloney case. Another is possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using carriage services, which is an offence under section 474.22A of the Criminal Code and is more or less self-explanatory. Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through a carriage service, which is an offence under section 474.23 of the code, was the other offence at issue in the Maloney case.”
“A father who committed 19 separate acts of sexual abuse against his five-year-old daughter, producing and transmitting 77 files of child abuse material, was sentenced to just 2½ years in prison. For the Commonwealth offences of producing and transmitting child abuse material, the offender received only six months imprisonment before being released on a recognisance release order. Six months imprisonment for 77 separate pieces of child abuse material—that is not justice; that is a betrayal of the child, a betrayal of the community and a betrayal of every Australian who believes that the law should reflect our deepest values. The bill seeks to correct that.”
“That means that in the 18 days between when the former shadow attorney, the member for Berowra, first introduced this bill to today more than 4,000 instances of online child sexual exploitation have been reported to the ACCCE—4,000. Four thousand children, 4,000 families, in less than three weeks. Those figures seem unfathomable. When a child is sexually abused, the impact on the family is devastating and enduring. Families may struggle with disbelief, blame, conflict, while the child's sense of safety and security is deeply harmed. The trauma extends beyond the child, affecting parenting, sibling bonds and the family's overall stability. And yet too often those who commit these despicable crimes face sentences that are manifestly inadequate. The Maloney case in Victoria brought this into sharp relief.”
“I second the motion. The Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 is about one simple principle: that those who abuse, exploit or prey upon children must face justice—real justice. No Australian parent, family or community should ever have to wonder whether the law truly values the safety and dignity of a child, and yet recent events show our current sentencing framework does not meet that test always. In the 2024-25 financial year, the Australian Federal Police received more than 82,764 reports of online child sexual exploitation. That is a 41 per cent increase in just 12 months. It's an average of 226 reports every single day. Just let that sink in. Each one of those reports represents a child, a real child, and a family whose lives have been shattered by unspeakable harm.”
“To cap things off, we had Chris Cobb from The Voice as our entertainment—and I was really sorry to see that Chris didn't go all the way through. I think he was robbed! But there you go. Most of all I want to thank the people of Fisher who took the time to nominate their neighbours, teachers, coaches and local businesses. The Fisher awards remind us that our community is more than just a place to live; it is a place to belong. It's my privilege to be their federal member as I continue to fight for the people of Fisher. And, once again, I thank my staff for their outstanding work in putting it all together.”