This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
The bill would add several Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences to the list of crimes that carry mandatory minimum prison terms.
Some Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences were not covered by mandatory minimum prison terms, and some existing minimums stayed at 4 years. Julian Leeser MP’s bill expands the listed offences, raises some minimum terms to 6 years, and limits conditional release unless exceptional circumstancesA high threshold requiring unusual or special facts before a court can make a recognizance release order for these offences. apply.
Commonwealth law already imposed mandatory minimum prison terms for some child sexual abuse offences, but the Coalition argued gaps remained after the 2024 Maloney sentencing and a sharp rise in Australian Federal PoliceThe national police agency whose reports of online child sexual exploitation were cited as part of the argument for the bill. online child exploitation reports in 2024-25. After Sussan Ley publicly demanded mandatory minimum terms in October 2025, Julian Leeser MP introduced a private member’s bill to add more offences, lift some minimums to six years and restrict conditional release, but it was later removed from the Notice PaperParliament's official list of business waiting to be dealt with; removal from it ended this bill's recorded progress in the House..
The main criticism is that mandatory minimum sentences can make child sexual abuse sentencing less fair and less effective by reducing judges’ ability to fit punishment to the facts, weakening incentives to plead guilty and shifting power to prosecutors. This concern was raised mainly by legal bodies and sentencing experts in debates over similar child sex sentencing laws, while no party represented in the recorded debate on this bill opposed it.
Julian Leeser MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Liberal Party, LNP.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
211 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would add several Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences to the list of crimes that carry mandatory minimum prison terms.
Mandatory minimum prison terms for some listed child sexual abuse offences would rise from 4 years to 6 years.
Courts would generally be barred from releasing people sentenced for Commonwealth child sex offences on a promise to obey conditions, unless exceptional circumstancesA high threshold requiring unusual or special facts before a court can make a recognizance release order for these offences. justify release.
Courts would face the same exceptional-circumstances limit when making a new conditional release orderA court order that lets a person be released after promising to obey conditions, instead of staying in custody for the whole sentence. for a sentence for a Commonwealth child sex offenceA child sexual abuse offence under federal law, rather than a state or territory offence..
offence against subsection 471.19(1) of the Criminal CodeCrimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) introduced bill text
3 Subsection 16AAB(2) (table items 11, 12 and 13, column 2)Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) introduced bill text
(4A) A court must not make a recognizance release order in respect of a sentence for a Commonwealth child sex offence unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the making of the order.Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) introduced bill text
(2A) However, a court must not make a new recognizance release order in respect of a sentence for a Commonwealth child sex offence unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the making of the order.Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) introduced bill text
Context
Commonwealth law already imposed mandatory minimum prison terms for some child sexual abuse offences, but the Coalition argued gaps remained after the 2024 Maloney sentencing and a sharp rise in Australian Federal PoliceThe national police agency whose reports of online child sexual exploitation were cited as part of the argument for the bill. online child exploitation reports in 2024-25. After Sussan Ley publicly demanded mandatory minimum terms in October 2025, Julian Leeser MP introduced a private member’s bill to add more offences, lift some minimums to six years and restrict conditional release, but it was later removed from the Notice PaperParliament's official list of business waiting to be dealt with; removal from it ended this bill's recorded progress in the House..
Maloney sentencing becomes a focus for minimum-sentence calls
ABC reported that a Victorian parent known as Maloney received a four-year and nine-month sentence, with a two-and-a-half-year non-parole periodThe minimum time a sentenced person must spend in prison before they can be considered for parole., after sexually abusing their five-year-old daughter on at least 19 occasions and producing child abuse material.
ABC News ↗AFPThe national police agency whose reports of online child sexual exploitation were cited as part of the argument for the bill. online child exploitation reports rise sharply
In debate on the bill, the opposition said the Australian Federal PoliceThe national police agency whose reports of online child sexual exploitation were cited as part of the argument for the bill. received more than 82,764 reports of online child sexual exploitation in 2024-25, a 41 per cent increase in 12 months.
Hansard ↗Sussan Ley demands mandatory minimum terms for child exploitation offences
ABC reported that the Coalition called on the government to legislate mandatory minimum sentences, citing the Maloney case as an example of punishment it considered insufficient.
ABC News ↗Bill speech links the proposal to the Maloney case
The second reading materialThe stage of debate where MPs explain the purpose of a bill and argue for or against its main idea. said the bill would close a loophole exposed by the Maloney case by limiting recognisance release orders for Commonwealth child sex offences to exceptional circumstancesA high threshold requiring unusual or special facts before a court can make a recognizance release order for these offences..
Second reading speech ↗Julian Leeser MP introduces the private member’s bill
Julian Leeser MP introduced the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025, saying parliament should urgently address child sexual abuse and perpetrators being brought to justice.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill is removed from the Notice PaperParliament's official list of business waiting to be dealt with; removal from it ended this bill's recorded progress in the House.
The parliamentary record shows the bill was removed from the Notice PaperParliament's official list of business waiting to be dealt with; removal from it ended this bill's recorded progress in the House. under standing order 42A House of Representatives rule used to remove this bill from the Notice Paper after it did not proceed., ending its recorded progress in the House.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage of debate where MPs explain the purpose of a bill and argue for or against its main idea., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe stage of debate where MPs explain the purpose of a bill and argue for or against its main idea. moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism is that mandatory minimum sentences can make child sexual abuse sentencing less fair and less effective by reducing judges’ ability to fit punishment to the facts, weakening incentives to plead guilty and shifting power to prosecutors. This concern was raised mainly by legal bodies and sentencing experts in debates over similar child sex sentencing laws, while no party represented in the recorded debate on this bill opposed it.
Criticism was about sentencing design and court discretion, not the seriousness of child sexual abuse offences.
Less judicial discretion in individual cases
Legal critics argue mandatory minimums can force courts to impose a fixed floor even where the facts, culpability, rehabilitation prospects or other sentencing factors differ substantially between offenders.
Risk of fewer guilty pleas and more pressure on prosecutions
Sentencing experts have warned that mandatory sentences can reduce incentives for offenders to plead guilty, increase contested proceedings, and place more pressure on prosecutors in deciding which charges to pursue.
Overstated deterrence expectations
Experts have questioned whether mandatory minimum penalties will deter child sex offending as much as supporters expect, warning that fixed minimums may create unrealistic public expectations about sentencing outcomes and crime prevention.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Julian Leeser supports the bill and says stronger action against child sexual abuse is an urgent, non-partisan priority that parliament should deal with quickly.
Read in Hansard ↗Andrew Wallace strongly backs the bill, arguing that current sentences for Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences are far too lenient and that mandatory minimums and tighter limits on early release are needed to protect children and deliver real justice.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There can be few more important or urgent matters for parliament to deal with than the prevention of child sexual abuse and the bringing of perpetrators to justice, as is outlined in this bill. I said all of the things I wanted to say when we moved a suspension of standing orders recently. This is not a partisan matter, but it is an urgent matter. On that basis, I cede the remaining part of my time to the new shadow Attorney-General, the member for Fisher.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second readingThe stage of debate where MPs explain the purpose of a bill and argue for or against its main idea. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage of debate where MPs explain the purpose of a bill and argue for or against its main idea., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42)
Removed from the Notice PaperParliament's official list of business waiting to be dealt with; removal from it ended this bill's recorded progress in the House. in accordance with (SO 42)
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
