By Susan Merrell

Between the years 1994 when Australia’s child-sex tourism legislation was adopted and March 2009 when the latest charge under this legislation was laid there have been 30 arrests according to statistics provided by Childwise, Australia’s leading child protection agency.

Only 5 of these offences were committed in the Pacific.  So one every three years. Does this crime hardly ever occur in the Pacific?

Not according to Bernadette McMenamin AO, CEO of Childwise who thinks the explanation lies with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) who are falling down on the job.

Ms. McMenamin believes that most child-sex tourists are not being caught. She believes Police have become reactive instead of pro active, in fact the words she used were “incredibly lazy.”

“Police don’t even go into the bars where most offences are committed,” she said.  “Apparently their protocol doesn’t allow it.”

Yet the AFP’s website claims that: “The Australian Federal Police actively monitors and prosecutes child sex tourists.”

“The Australian government won’t even let Childwise do any preventative work in the Pacific,” said Ms. McMenamin. She doesn’t really know why.

Ms McMenamin was also disappointed with the paltry sums of government money that was given her organization – even when they were conducting national campaigns.

Child-sex tourism is a complex issue revolving around unequal power and poverty. There’s a large element of neo-colonialism. Child-sex tourists often exist in a dissociative state. “They’re different to us, so it’s OK.” The children are poor, they need the money. Poverty is also the explanation why witnesses to the crime are easily bought off.

The same paradigms exist in reverse. It’s also relatively easy to find someone who will make a false allegation of child-sex tourism if enough money is proffered. In the Pacific, throw enough money around (and it doesn’t need to be a lot) and you can get people to say what did happen didn’t, and what didn’t did.

Of the five people charged for child-sex tourism in the Pacific there’s only been one solid conviction. Of the other four, there’s been one acquittal and one withdrawal through lack of evidence.

Then there are the cases of Fred Martens and Julian Moti.

If Ms. McMenamin is correct in her belief that the AFP lack the will to prosecute child-sex cases generally then these two cases are glaring anomalies.

The  AFP tenaciously pursued Fred Martens and obtained a conviction. Martens’ family finally found the evidence that proved his innocence. This was evidence that the AFP had sworn under oath did not exist. Some of this evidence they had wilfully removed. By this time Martens had been in jail for around three years. Martens is suing for $45 million dollars. That’s going to prove an expensive stuff-up by the AFP on the public purse!

In the case of Moti, Tuesday 1 June, will be another chapter in his saga. It’s when the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) will begin an appeal in the Brisbane Supreme Court against the decision of Justice Debra Mullins when she granted Moti a permanent stay of proceedings because the payment to witnesses brought the court into disrepute. (Interpretation: AFP bribed the witnesses for testimony)

So it seems the criminals buy off witnesses in child-sex cases to stop them testifying and the AFP do too but to secure testimony.  It makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad, doesn’t it?

For Fred Martens also has irrefutable evidence that people were paid by the AFP to bear witness in his case.

It’s bribery, and it’s wrong. Justice Mullins saw that. Blind Freddy can. But the CDPP will expensively argue their case regardless.

Besides, the child-sex tourism laws were meant to function as a back-up for when paedophiles escaped prosecution in the jurisdiction where the crime was allegedly committed. Ms. McMenamin states that the Australian authorities certainly prefer that option, given the costs of a prosecution.

Not in the Moti case. They prosecuted even though the charges had already been heard by a Vanuatu court that found Moti had no case to answer.

For Martens, he was never allowed to go back to Papua New Guinea and face his accuser – he was willing to.  No expense has been spared pursuing these two men.

Why are these two cases so anomalous with the usual uninterested conduct of the AFP in child-sex tourism cases?

Politics motivated the prosecutions. And for that allegation there is overwhelming evidence that is much more than circumstantial. I’ve seen this evidence. It comes straight from official minutes of the AFP and has everything to do with Australia’s political agenda in the Pacific.

To explain a very complex issue in a few words: Moti as attorney general of the Solomon Islands was considered an impediment to Australia’s interests. In the case of Martens, Australia needed to justify –with a successful arrest – its proposed policing role in Papua New Guinea (which was eventually to falter under a PNG court ruling of the illegality of one of its terms.)

Even the family of Moti’s alleged victim – the very family that were having all their expenses paid in order that they be available to testify (and still are despite the December ruling) have stated to the press (The Age May 28) that although the AFP couched their encouragement to prosecute in terms of ‘justice’ in reality it became evident that their motives were political.

This is as much abuse of the alleged victim as is the alleged crime.

Child-sex tourism legislation is good legislation – if only someone would use it well and as intended.

First published at    Open Forum Sunday 30 / 5 / 2010