CHAIRMAN —We have received a short, written submission from ECPAT of 24 March. Are there any errors of fact, additions or editorial changes to that written submission?

Ms Beddoe —No.

CHAIRMAN —Would you like to make an opening statement?

Ms Beddoe —Yes, I would like to make a very brief opening statement to give some background to ECPAT Australia in relation to the context of the submissions. ECPAT Australia was launched in 1992 following a conference that looked at the involvement of Australians in child sexual abuse in Asia, particularly in relation to child sex tourism.

Following that conference, ECPAT, representing a number of various Australian aid and development organisations and other non-government bodies, developed a strategy in line with campaigning towards ending child sex tourism. The first and most significant of the initial actions was to lobby successfully for the child sex tourism legislation. Our mandate is based on articles 34 and 35 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We specifically work with those articles as the basis of our campaigning.

Mr TONY SMITH —I was interested in some of the points you make about this, particularly the child sex tourism legislation. You probably heard my questions about the process. It is all very well to have legislation, but, if the process is not right, then guilty people get away. That is not a comment on what happened in that case; it is just a general comment. What I am saying to you is that I have put a view forward and I think it is hardly incompatible with domestic law that we should have a similar process to what we have here, even more so if we are dealing with overseas children with cultural and language problems. Do you agree with that?

Ms Beddoe —Yes, I do, specifically with regard to the information you were presenting earlier on about giving evidence. One of the things we have found great difficulties with in Australia is when children being brought to Australia to give evidence are having extreme difficulty coping with not only the cultural and social differences but also a completely different judicial system. We need to re-visit the whole notion of children giving evidence, even though it was giving evidence on video link. Bringing children to Australia to do that for requirements of due process was an extremely difficult process for those children to undertake.

Mr TONY SMITH —One of the things that occurred to me that ought to be considered is half a step further than the domestic legislation. It could be argued that the evidence which would be the record of interview between an appropriate and experienced police officer and the complainant, which could be taken on video, should stand as evidence of the fact for the purposes of a magistrate determining whether there was a prima facie case. That way, you would not have two visits by the kids. In other words, they would not have to go through it once at committal and once on trial.

Once the amendment to section 93A of the Evidence Act was introduced in Queensland, without fail, I cannot remember one case, and I defended many, where a defendant was not committed for trial simply because the video evidence formed evidence of a prima facie nature. Unless it was particularly dubious video evidence, the magistrate inevitably and without exception, in my own experience, committed the person for trial. It gets to that higher court where the jury is to consider the case, which is always very important in the process of criminal law.

Should not a slight step forward be that evidence be taken for the purposes of committal in the forum country and then be admissible as evidence in going to the existence of a prima facie case? It is a bit of a legal question. Do you see what I am saying basically?

Ms Beddoe —I do. I agree in principle. However, I think where the fault with that lies is that quite often the Australian law enforcement agencies who are responsible for pursuing the evidence or investigation in the case—by that I am referring to, for the better part, the Australian Federal Police—often do not receive specific training on taking evidence from children. That is not their key duty.

I would have to say that, whilst in principle I agree, on the notion of having someone specific to take evidence within the country where the case is occurring or that is the home of that child, they would have to be fully trained personnel who are also trained in the cultural and social morays of that country, so as to know exactly from the child's perspective what is going on.

Mr TONY SMITH —That might be particularly hard to do, having regard to the number of countries. Appropriately trained people, such as field officers for World Vision, who are very sensitive to cultural issues, could be present. What you are saying is a very good point because the federal police, as far as I am aware, do not have a specific unit. The Queensland police have a specific unit where the officers are specifically trained for interviewing children. It is a very good point and I thank you for raising it.

Ms Beddoe —It has come to our very recent notice—meaning this week—that Operation Mandrake through the Australian Federal Police, which was specifically designed to investigate paedophile activities, has now been restructured out of existence. We currently do not have an Australian Federal Police unit specifically looking at

paedophile activity outside Australia.

Senator BOURNE —In your letter, you recommend that DFAT officers provide information on all current child sex cases happening overseas. Do you know if that happens very often?

Ms Beddoe —That is what we would like to know. I do have information that suggests it is happening. The current procedure is that consular services through DFAT are notified whenever an Australian is serving a sentence or has been arrested. The current process through DFAT, that I am aware of through consular services, is that they have no responsibility or protocol to pass that information on to law enforcement agencies. It remains within consular services.

I think we are all familiar with the fact that particularly paedophilia related child sex abuse has a high evidence of recidivism. If that information is not brought forward to local law enforcement agencies that that person can return to Australia, there is no ongoing record in Australia of the case against that person outside Australia. This is particularly the case in New Zealand where there are, I believe, a number of Australians in prisons on child sex abuse cases.

Senator BOURNE —I was totally unaware of this. Whenever an Australian has been convicted of a crime overseas, no matter what it is, the law enforcement agencies in Australia do not necessarily know that that is the case.

Ms Beddoe —It very much depends on the involvement of Australian law enforcement agencies in the investigation of that case. If there was no Interpol involvement in the case overseas or Australian agencies concerned, then that is so.

Senator BOURNE —That is really interesting. Thank you.

Mr TRUSS —I am sorry; I am late. You may have covered the issue of the commissioner for children.

CHAIRMAN —No.

Mr TRUSS —I note that it is your suggestion that there be a commissioner for children but that the post be within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Is it your view then that the commissioner would operate in a similar way to the commissioners in the human rights commission?

Ms Beddoe —Yes, that is the way we saw it occurring.

Mr TRUSS —And you would prefer that model to a stand-alone commissioner that looked at general issues affecting children rather than trying particular cases?

Ms Beddoe —It was the case of what we thought would have the most likely chance of occurring. Both models have very strong stand-alone benefits.

Mr TRUSS —If you follow the human rights commissioner model, you are going to be looking at individual cases, at children who, perhaps, get a spanking at home and rush off to the human rights commission for a trial. Do you think that is going to promote the welfare of children?

Ms Beddoe —The way you have just described it makes it sound trite. I do not wish to offend you regarding what you have said. If the model were developed correctly, we would not necessarily have individual cases of spanking taking up most of the time of the commissioner. I think that we need to have correct protocols in place if we are going to develop along that model.

Mr TRUSS —But individual cases take up most of the time with the commission now, don't they?

Ms Beddoe —I believe so, yes.

Mr TRUSS —It has been suggested to us by other witnesses that it would be better to have a stand-alone office that looks at the effects of legislation on children, at children's issues, and makes reports on those sorts of issues in a generic sense. That is not a model that you would prefer?

Ms Beddoe —No.

Mr TRUSS —What is wrong with that model?

Ms Beddoe —Nothing.

Mr TRUSS —Are you aware of the Queensland Commissioner for Children?

Ms Beddoe —Yes, I am.

Mr TRUSS —I appreciate that it has not been going long enough to make too many judgments, but what do you feel about it as a model?

Ms Beddoe —As a model, so far it appears to be less effective than it could have been.

Mr TRUSS —Had what happened?

Ms Beddoe —I think it is too early to make firm judgments about the particular model, but I think we do have to look at what is happening and what is not happening in

the Queensland situation and draw upon our experiences from that if we are to develop a model at the national level.

Mr TRUSS —But you said that the model has not been as effective as it would have been had other things happened. What other things and why has it not been effective?

Ms Beddoe —Not so much if things had happened. From my understanding of the Queensland situation, I believe that there is a fair amount of bureaucracy and lack of funding associated with untying all those problems. Perhaps we need to look at those administrative issues as to why it is possibly not working as effectively as its structure.

Mr TRUSS —If you are talking about lack of funding being an issue, why would you then suggest that the Commonwealth commissioner for children be attached to the human rights commission?

Ms Beddoe —One would hope that sufficient funding would be given to it to make it more effective.

Mr TRUSS —But would it not be more likely to get sufficient funding if it were a stand-alone organisation rather than being tied up with one with a declining funding base?

Ms Beddoe —That makes the assumption that there is still going to be a declining funding base to the human rights commission.

Mr TRUSS —And you do not make that assumption?

Ms Beddoe —That is not what I was asked to do.

CHAIRMAN —If I can just take that a little further. If you are pushing the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission model, then implicit in that is that it has to have a statutory base.

Ms Beddoe —Yes.

CHAIRMAN —Then, bearing in mind the various interpretations of what CROC really means to Australians, how feasible is it for the federal authorities to produce umbrella legislation at the federal level to cover adequately the principles and requirements involved in CROC?

Ms Beddoe —In asking that question, I think what you have also uncovered is one of the other areas in our submission, if not in many others—the need for much greater education. We talk about grey areas of CROC. Part of that is because the wider community does not understand what CROC is all about because there has been a failure to disseminate correct information. When you talk about CROC to taxidrivers they say,

`That is bad because that means we cannot smack our kids.'

CHAIRMAN —How are we going to do that? What is involved in the educative programs? How is Australia going to educate Australians about what the CROC really entails for Australians?

Ms Beddoe —Using our own example of how we have had to educate Australians about what child sex tourism or child sex abuse is all about, we have to start right at the beginning to make sure there are no grey areas and to make sure people understand their responsibilities as parents, as carers, as teachers and as individuals in a community which respects and upholds so many democratic principles.

When it comes to children, people still feel that it is a very individual responsibility. I think we have to start, as we have done, very much from the basic principle that we all have a responsibility to protect all children, not just our own children. As such, that lays the groundwork for educational programs right through the community.

CHAIRMAN —That begs the same question as the development of appropriate legislation. If you are going to educate Australians, what are you going to educate them on, bearing in mind the interpretive question marks about this convention? I suggest that it means different things to you than it means to Senator Cooney or Mr Truss. How do you bring it together to have some sort of definitive view before you start the education program, bearing in mind those question marks, and before you develop some sort of legislation which substantiates it and backs it up?

Ms Beddoe —There are many interpretations of individual points or definitional issues, but that does not mean to say that you should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. I think the majority of the convention is very clear and there are certain principles within it that are very clear. If we do not accept those principles by the mere fact that there are certain interpretive problems, then I think we are doing ourselves a great injustice.

I think the majority of people sitting in this room would understand at least the majority of the full context in which it was written. Therefore, we should be working on that as a very basic principle from which we go forward with education.

CHAIRMAN —I will give you a couple of examples that have been given very widely in evidence to this committee and were around in 1988-89 prior to ratification. They relate to articles 12 to 16 in particular and the rights of children as distinct from the rights and responsibilities of parents, and that sort of thing. On top of that, you hear: what is the child? Is the child a physical child? Is the child the unborn child? Surely some of these things, I would suggest to you, make it very difficult for some sort of umbrella legislation.

Ms Beddoe —Difficult, but I dare say not impossible. If you reflect upon the so-called difficulties of implementing the child sex tourism legislation, there were all sorts of debates and questions surrounding a number of issues, but that did not prevent it from being passed. I think that we are still having difficulties in parts of that legislation. That does not necessarily mean that it has not been effective.

CHAIRMAN —So what you are basically saying is that you think the interpretative problems can be got around. You would, of course, want some sort of legislative base for such a concept within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Ms Beddoe —Yes.

Senator COONEY —You have referred to articles 19, 34 and 35. Article 34 confines itself to the sort of sexual violence against children, but the other articles do not. They refer to a wider situation of violence or even its wrong use in the workplace. Is there any reason why you confined the effort you are making to the sexual area only? It sounds like a good idea. Why don't you widen it out?

Ms Beddoe —As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, ECPAT was set up as a campaign to end child prostitution, child pornography and the trafficking of children for sexual purposes. We draw upon articles 34 and 35 as our platform for action. We have a very specific and very limited mandate. Therefore, in giving evidence or our expert opinion, we did not want to reach into areas where we do not actually work. That is why we have been very specific about those articles as mentioned in the submission.

Senator COONEY —There has never been a temptation for ECPAT to get wider? I was just wondering why.

Ms Beddoe —Wider than?

Senator COONEY —What has led you to concentrate only on the sexual side of the abuse of children? Has there been any discussion to go wider? Has it never occurred to you?

CHAIRMAN —Basically it was an historical thing, wasn't it?

Ms Beddoe —It is an historical aspect of why we were to go—

Senator COONEY —I can follow that, but has there ever been any temptation to go wider? I am not trying to trick you. It sounds a very good idea that you should take up this cause. But, if you have a remedy or an instrument that may help in this area, has it ever occurred to anybody in ECPAT to widen it?

Ms Beddoe —ECPAT operates on an extremely limited budget and very limited

resources. We have at the moment two part-time personnel. That is all. We have an extremely limited capacity to take on anything more. We think it would actually detract from our expert knowledge of these areas if we were to broaden into other areas where there are other agencies already working on it. We would not like to take funds away from existing Australian agencies which are currently working on broader issues of child abuse, of which there are very effective agencies working in that area. It would seem counterproductive to do so. We have connected to the wider ECPAT international operations, which are groups in over 30 countries around the world. As such, we have developed a very specialised base of information, and it would not appear wise to go away from that.

CHAIRMAN —Before I ask Mr Truss to ask further questions, yesterday we had evidence from World Vision. We got into the specifics of paedophilia, and the department of foreign affairs, and there is that case about which you know quite a lot. As it turned out, with a little bit of discussion in the committee, we decided that, rather than go in camera, we would ask World Vision to take a series of questions on notice. We made the point that, if they did not want to answer some of those questions, that was their prerogative, bearing in mind that in some of these areas there is potential defamation if people do not watch it. We were just trying to protect the witness in terms of that.

After listening to your first reaction to Mr Smith's questions, I think ECPAT could probably make a contribution on those questions as well. So what I think we will do is send you a copy of the Hansard record, which will hopefully be available in 10 days or so. We will send you a copy of that particular evidence in relation to a long list of questions that Mr Smith specifically put to World Vision. If you see fit, we would welcome your response as a specialist in this area. In many ways, they are the sorts of questions we should be asking you. You may not want to answer some of them for a number of reasons; others you may not be able to answer. Would you be happy to do that?

Ms Beddoe —Yes, that is fine.

CHAIRMAN —The other point that I made to World Vision yesterday is that if, in responding to any of those questions, you want them to be categorised as confidential—which has implications in terms of the evidence—please do that as well.

Ms Beddoe —Are these specific questions relating to the one case?

CHAIRMAN —Yes, there were two children involved. We made the point yesterday that, if it is classified as confidential, there is still a right of reply if people are mentioned. Perhaps I do not have to warn you, but please just be careful in responding to some of these questions. I am just trying to protect you regarding some of those responses.

Mr TRUSS —Following on from your answers to Senator Cooney's questions in relation to your own organisation, could you tell us a little bit about what ECPAT is?

Ms Beddoe —Certainly. I would be more than pleased to. ECPAT acts as an advocacy lobbying an education and public awareness campaign. We work with both government and non-government agencies, as well as the general public, to raise awareness and action against the commercial sexual exploitation of children, as laid down in the convention. So that is working on child prostitution, child pornography and the trafficking of children for sexual purposes.

Our range of activities is quite varied. We have a number of different programs in place at the moment. We are working with school groups at one end, right through to working with different government departments. We look at ways in which policies can be strengthened to protect children, both in Australia and outside Australia, against sexual exploitation.

We work globally in one sense, although we look very much at the role of Australia and Australians in the offences against children. So, whilst we may be looking at Australia's involvement in South-East Asia, that does not necessarily limit us to South-East Asia. I am currently working on a program looking at the Pacific Islands. We also work with our partners around the world to look at the involvement of Australians in other parts of the world.

So whilst we, on one hand, look at the prevention and the programs and the strategies and the policies that can be put into place on prevention, we are also very much working at the other level, which is looking at ways in which law enforcement agencies can work more effectively on this issue, particularly in regard to the child sex tourism legislation. We are very disappointed to hear that in one state in particular, Western Australia, resources are being withdrawn from their local child sexual exploitation unit. We are also very disappointed, as mentioned earlier, that the Australian Federal Police in Canberra are restructuring and withdrawing priority to their paedophile task force. So these are some of the things that we have been working on currently.

Mr TRUSS —Who funds your organisation?

Ms Beddoe —Fifty per cent of the funding for ECPAT comes through AusAID, and 50 per cent is to be raised through other private sources and non-government agencies. So, for that 50 per cent covering the past year, we have raised money through sponsorship by World Vision, Community Aid Abroad, Save the Children Fund Australia, National Council of Churches Australia and various other individuals and agencies.

Mr TRUSS —What sort of people are your directors?

Ms Beddoe —We operate with a board of committee that is made up of representatives from most of those organisations I have mentioned, as well as representatives from other sectors. We have a representative of the Victorian Police Child Exploitation Unit, the media. We have—

Mr TRUSS —And who appoints them? Do certain nominated organisations appoint a representative to your committee?

Ms Beddoe —From a historic perspective, ECPAT, as described earlier, was developed following a conference on child sex tourism in Asia. It was then that a number of different organisations got together and developed the ECPAT umbrella to cover individual agencies. From that sort of historic perspective, it has now grown to encompass other disciplines, such as the media, tourism and certainly the police.

CHAIRMAN —Can I just ask one question on that: what is the annual budget, roughly? What sort of money are we looking at?

Ms Beddoe —Currently it stands at $180,000.

CHAIRMAN —So a very small budget really.

Ms Beddoe —Very small.

CHAIRMAN —You would like to see it a lot bigger, obviously.

Mr TRUSS —On a different subject again, going back more to my previous line of questioning, you also put in your recommendations that there should be a public reporting mechanism for reporting breaches of the convention. Who is going to decide what are breaches of the convention and who is going to do the reporting?

Ms Beddoe —Given that our earlier recommendation was for a commissioner of children post, then I would imagine the responsibility for determining that would come out of that post.

Mr TRUSS —So that recommendation is dependent upon there being a commissioner for children established?

Ms Beddoe —If not a commissioner, then certainly an independent mechanism.

Mr TRUSS —All that person or mechanism could actually do would be to identify breaches that were brought to their attention, obviously.

Ms Beddoe —I would like to think that the post would also encompass a much more proactive stance as well.

Mr TRUSS —As alluded to by the chairman earlier, his first difficult task would be to interpret what is a breach of the convention and what is not, because we have heard extraordinary variations as to what the thing means in the first place. So how valuable is it to report that somebody thinks something is a breach of the convention when maybe

somebody else thinks it is not?

Ms Beddoe —With all due respect, I think every UN convention has these same problems. I think that, if we get a person in the post who is particularly specialised in their understanding of children's issues, some of the problems will be alleviated because of that. They already would have a very strong understanding of the principles involved.

Mr TRUSS —For instance, we have had a number of groups argue to us that the convention outlaws abortion, yet others say pretty well the opposite. You are really dealing with a fundamental problem with understanding what the convention means. If in fact there is that scope for imagination in what it says, breaching the convention, in somebody's mind, might not be all that serious.

Ms Beddoe —I am sorry, there is no question to answer there.

Senator COONEY —If it did become a dispute on the law and the meaning, if this was made domestic law, would you have any problems with the High Court making an interpretation?

Ms Beddoe —I think I would need to think about that a lot more and look at the implications of that further.

CHAIRMAN —Any final points, incisive comments you would like to make?

Ms Beddoe —No, just to thank you for the opportunity.