Ley Finally Finds an Easy Issue

Sometimes, almost in spite of herself, opposition leader Sussan Ley remembers that she has a spine. But only when she can try and wedge Labor on the easiest of issues.

Paedophiles, for instance. Nobody but an academic or a legacy media journalist will defend paedophiles, so when Ley challenges the Labor government to get tough on paedophiles, she knows she’s on an easy wicket.

She’s not wrong, though.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has demanded mandatory minimum jail terms for child exploitation offences, as the coalition seeks to further drive a wedge through Labor on an issue the party has long opposed but yielded to before the federal election.

Notice how the ABC tries to frame it as merely some kind of political gamesmanship, which is likely not entirely untrue, but deliberately avoids the key question: should convicted paedophiles face a mandatory minimum sentence? After all, Labor were quick enough to impose mandatory minimum sentences for displaying Nazi symbols.

Apparently, though, some LARPing edgelord doing his little sieg heil is far worse than a paedophile, in Labor’s books.

Or is it just that the ABC has its nose out of joint because the coalition is drawing attention to the shockingly soft treatment of a cross-dressing kiddyfiddler?

In making its demand, the coalition has raised the case of a Victorian parent who was given a four-year and nine-month jail term after sexually abusing their five-year-old daughter on at least 19 occasions, as well as producing child abuse material.

The sentence carried a non-parole period of two and a half years.

As previously reported on the Good Oil, this is for a particularly vile case of a crime which carries a maximum term of 15 years’ prison. The standard sentence is 10 years. So, why did this repeat child-rapist get such a light slap on the wrist?

Because he put on a dress and some makeup.

The 2024 case prompted fury within some political circles when the judge accepted that the parent had reduced "moral culpability" due to isolation and vulnerability resulting from the their [his] gender transition from male to female [male] […]

[Victorian County Court Judge Nola Karapanagiotidis] said Maloney was “much less able to make objectively the right and healthy choices” due to loneliness and Maloney’s “vulnerabilities”, also taking into consideration “additional hardship” Maloney would likely face in prison as a trans woman [man].

To paraphrase Dirty Harry Callahan, well, I’m just all broken up about that man’s hardship.

“If a parent abuses their child 19 times and only receives a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence, the system is broken and needs to be fixed immediately,” Ms Ley said in a statement.

“When a monster abuses a five-year-old child, yet is then free to roam the streets of Victoria when that poor child hasn’t even turned eight, that is not justice – it is a betrayal.”

Naturally, the hand-wringers of the legal profession are clutching their pearls for all they’re worth.

“This has the potential to disproportionately impact vulnerable groups,” [Law Council of Australia ] president Juliana Warner wrote.

Which group is more vulnerable than children?

The coalition has said that falls well short of an offence that is punishable with a maximum term of 15 years’ prison, and is calling for minimum terms of three years for those offences.

“Those who abuse children should expect to do serious time behind bars. I think every parent in Australia would agree with me,” Shadow-Attorney General Julian Leeser said.

Mandatory sentencing is certainly a start.

Passing laws to make judges accountable for their sentencing decisions would be even better.