Franks Stephen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20057] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am looking at this part of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) with very jaundiced eyes because I believe that most of what the Government is doing in this area is cynical vote-catching. I do not believe that this bill was driven by a very significant concern for the well-being of young people. I have already said the Government should be known by its actions by what it actually does not by the slogans it sticks into the law. 
In this case I want to focus on a relatively small section of this part—clause 6 which inserts new section 98AA. I think it says an awful lot about what is really being done. New section 98AA is headed “Dealing in people under 18 for sexual exploitation removal of body parts or engagement in forced labour”. I do not think that the people listening to this debate will believe what I am about to tell them about this provision which states: “Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—(b) engages a person under the age of 18 years in forced labour;”. So forced labour is fine over the age of 18 years. Is that not slavery? What else is it? I quote further: “(d) detains confines imprisons or carries away a person under the age of 18 years for the purpose of—(ii) the removal of body parts from the person;”. Each one of those actions as far as I know is an offence. Detaining someone against his or her will presumably confining them imprisoning them or carrying them away— 
Ron Mark 
: Kidnapping. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Kidnapping exactly! In fact this bill has a new definition of kidnapping further on. But Mr Goff for the sake of singing slogans to his masters in New York is setting out another set of provisions to cover stuff ostensibly only for people under 18 years that our law already says is illegal for anyone. How can the Law and Order Committee have gone along with this nonsense? How can anyone justify a law that says specifically that we can detain confine imprison or carry away a person if that person can prove he or she is over 18 years? I ask members to read new subsection (1A) inserted by clause 6 that was put in by the select committee which states: “It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proves that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person under the age of 18 years concerned was of or over the age of 18 years.” In other words if we think a person is over 18 years he or she can be detained confined imprisoned or carried away for the purpose of removing body parts. 
It is hard to believe but that is what it comes to when we are so politically correct that we just take United Nations agreements which are intended effectively for Third World countries where the rule of law has meant next to nothing and stick them into our law. That is what this part is doing. 
Section 98AA(1)(c) inserted by clause 6 goes on to state that it is an offence to permit a person under the age of 18 years to be engaged in forced labour. If the select committee was really doing its job it would have asked what it should do about chores. Is it not normal for parents to require their kids to do chores? The Government is busy putting in a defence that if it can be shown that the person is over the age of 18 years he or she can be put into forced labour. That is wrong. No adult should be obliged to undertake forced labour. But here it is; the Government has just ruled out chores. It has simply stuffed into our law some covenant from a bunch of people on some United Nations committee who have absolutely no respect for the freedom of the individual or the rule of law. I say to Mr Goff: “Have no fear; kids will learn about this.” Their teachers will tell them that they cannot be made to shine the family’s shoes or cannot be made to help dad at the garage—as I was. I spent many many miserable hours selling petrol.