Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. His visit on Wednesday evening was most helpful, as was his explanation earlier of the thinking behind the Bill and his reservations about it. I share his sigh of relief at the judgment of the Supreme Court today. It may have been in the last minute of injury time, but it makes the discussion easier.

I know the Minister had to introduce legislation and it is a pity if we pre-empt and put off further discussion on these issues.

I wish to refer to the contributions of Senators Minihan, Norris and Tuffy and my argument would be informed by what they have said. It would be a pity if we were to think that this is a done deal now. We will pass this legislation but there could well be unexpected consequences that will need to be examined. In particular, the question of the age of consent. I hope we never get to a position where we have to put that to a referendum. A referendum is a blunt instrument for dealing with such complex issues.

One of my concerns regarding the Bill is the appearance of a tendency to criminalise young people under 17 for having sexual encounters. We may not like the fact they are doing so and think they should be doing other things but countless surveys and one's own participant observations would suggest that this is the reality. Admittedly, there is a provision, under section 3(9), whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions can decide not to proceed with certain cases. However, that can only be tolerated for a certain length of time. Laws which move far away from reality, and one only has to think of prohibition in the United States, invite a degree of disrespect for the law generally. We should try to avoid that, particularly at a time when the media is jumping up and down about such issues. All of the advertising and commercial interests that are commodifying sex are driving young children towards precocity. It cannot then surprise us that they react accordingly.

The Minister expressed a concern, which I would share, regarding the effect of hostile cross-examination on young children. Perhaps that problem could be overcome through the rules of the court. Most serious abuse takes place within families. In most of the cases that have been cited regarding those who could potentially be released from prison, the perpetrators were related to the victims. They were known to the children. I do not think that Mr. A, for instance, could reasonably claim that he did not know the age of the child concerned because that child was playing with his own child every day on the street where he lived.

That is one element. Another is investment in video systems and taking evidence at a distance. The most radical approach would be to examine whether the adversarial system is the ideal way of dealing with children. Is the Minister of State all right?