- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 8 June 2000
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 7 of 58
| Next Item »
Page: 6907
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 1 June.
Mr ORKOPOULOS (Swansea) [11.32 a.m.]: I support the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill. My strongly held view is that there are no greater crimes than those committed against children. Since my election to this Parliament I have been involved in a number of cases that have shocked and horrified me. In each case the innocence of children was taken away and invariably those children have been scarred for life. Clauses 4 to 8 of division 1 of part 2 of the bill make it mandatory for appropriate authorities to notify local police within 28 days of a relevant offence being proven or a relevant offender being released from custody. Some of the information required to be given under clauses 9 to 16 of division 2 of part 2 include: name, address, vehicle registration and place of employment; any other name by which the offender is or has been known; the name of any employer and the nature of employment; the make, model, and a registration number of any vehicle owned or regularly driven by the offender; and information about the nature of the registrable offences with the date and court of the guilty finding.
This bill strengthens the ability of police to enforce the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Act 1998. These two pieces of legislation, along with the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, recognise the post-release dangers posed by child sex offenders and others who offend against children. A wealth of evidence indicates a high level of recidivism among child sex offenders. This bill gives legislative effect to the announcement by the Premier on 5 March 1999 in response to recommendation 111 of the Wood royal commission, which states:
Consideration be given to the introduction of a system for the compulsory registration with the Police Service of all convicted child sexual offenders, to be accompanied by requirements for :
— the notification of changes of name and address; and for
— verification of the register;
Following consultation with the Police Service, ODPP, Corrective Services, the Privacy Committee and other interested parties.
The bill has been the subject of extensive consideration by the Government, which established an interagency working party which was chaired by the director-general of the Ministry for Police. Represented on the working party were the New South Wales Police Service, the Privacy Commissioner, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Cabinet Office, the Attorney General's Department, the Department of Corrective Services, the Department of Community Services and the Department of Education and Training. The working party sought submissions from 22 government agencies, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties and the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies. The working party examined registration models from a range of jurisdictions and consulted closely with United Kingdom police and the British Home Office. In fact, the introduction of this bill was delayed pending data compatibility with the national child sex offender database that was being developed as part of CrimTrac.
I now address the one model the Government rejected, that is, the model described as Megan's law, which requires public notification of registered sex offenders. My reason for doing so is that a number of people in the Swansea electorate—and throughout the State, I am sure—believe Megan's law is the proper course to follow. I shall enumerate the problems with public disclosure of paedophile information as it occurs under Megan's law. The royal commission noted that one objection to public notification was that offenders are less likely to remain in a stable and supportive environment if they are hounded from place to place, thereby decreasing the prospects of rehabilitation and increasing the stress and other factors that only encourage them to reoffend. Public disclosure may increase and not decrease the risk to children. Megan's law has led to violence and vigilante action, an instance of which was an offender's house being burned down and other offenders being assaulted.
Many of us who strongly support the bill, as I am sure the Minister for Police does, would be aware of the hounding of a convicted child sex offender ultimately leading to his suicide. Of course, that is a tragedy we do not want in this country. Vigilante action is not always confined to the offender. It may be directed at the offender's family, employer or associates. In one case in New Jersey a falsely labelled innocent person was seriously assaulted by a vigilante group. Those sorts of experiences under Megan's law have occurred in the United States of America. The child victim may be identified if information about the specific offence is released. That can cause humiliation and additional hurt to victims. Indeed, the very people we seek to protect would yet again be made victims with the application of what I believe is a flawed model of law.
The threat of public disclosure for life may deter child sex offenders from confessing their offences, resulting in a reduction in guilty findings and increased court costs for contested prosecutions. Community notification of such offenders requires additional police resources as it is not core police business. If Megan's law was in force here, a failure to alert the community in a particular instance may result in strong community criticism of police. Clearly, that is not what we want in this State. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill strikes the right balance. It protects the rights of those who have been convicted, paid their price and are trying to seek as normal a life as possible. The provisions of the bill will ensure that the police are able to track the movement and activities of people who have been convicted of the specified offences. The bill also strikes a balance between the rights of those people—they do have rights, no matter what we think of their crimes—and the rights of victims of crimes. They do not want to relive in the public eye the horrible circumstances of their experience. The bill is a worthy reform of this Government.
Mr TINK (Epping) [11.41 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill, the objects of which are to require persons who have been found guilty of certain offences against children to keep the Commissioner of Police informed as to where they live and work and what motor vehicles they drive, and to make consequential amendments to give effect to the bill. As previous speakers have indicated, the bill stems from recommendation 111 of the royal commission's paedophile inquiry, concerning compulsory registration of all convicted child sex offenders by police. Previous speakers have also indicated that the bill follows the United Kingdom model, which provides for notification to police rather than to the public at large, as occurs in many American States under the Megan's law arrangements.
The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the notification should be wider than simply the Commissioner of Police, at the very least in circumstances in which the commissioner believes that it should happen. It does not seem to me that there is any provision in the bill that allows that. We do not seek to take that any further at this stage but we will keep the matter under fairly close surveillance. I note that the Ombudsman will review the Act in due course. It is lamentable that there have been some appalling failures by State government authorities in the wider sense of the word. People convicted of crimes have ended up living extremely close to their victims. If my memory is correct, an extremely bad example occurred in the Maitland area not long ago. There have been other examples of extraordinary outcomes. In one case a murderer ended up living just down the road from the victim's family.
Unfortunately, history shows that relying on public authorities wholly and solely in these matters is far from foolproof and there have been some appalling lapses along the way. It is said that the bill provides a balance in relation to victims. I am not at all sure that it does. I do not think there is a reference in the bill to victims. There are plenty of references to perpetrators and to the Commissioner of Police but—somebody may be able to point me where—there is no reference to the rights of victims in this bill. We will keep an eye on this. I put on the record that I have the strongest reservations about an open Megan's law approach, particularly because the royal commission has made strong recommendations in this regard that weigh very heavily with us. We think that the bill should go forward in its current form without our attempting to amend it. But nobody is infallible. The royal commission is not infallible and the Government is not infallible on this issue.
The United Kingdom precedents are not infallible either. We will keep a watching brief because we know from experience that the New South Wales bureaucracy has, unfortunately, delivered extraordinary outcomes. The victims of the most serious crimes and their families have been subjected to having the criminals involved in the crimes against them living in the closest proximity to them. If the system can deliver that it cannot be trusted not to deliver outcomes in which paedophiles end up living close to their victims. That cannot be ruled out in light of the experience with failure to notify and failure to cross-reference the particulars and details across government agencies.
There is simply no guarantee that this will not happen again. I hope it will not happen again but if it does we will quickly consider amendments to the legislation. In the meantime the system should be monitored particularly in relation to the need for balance between the rights of the victims and the responsibilities of the offenders. They are the issues that we will keep under watch as the legislation is implemented. I repeat that the Opposition supports the bill as it stands. The bill results from a royal commission recommendation but we will vigilantly watch its implementation and await reports by the Ombudsman with great interest.
Mr BROWN (Kiama) [11.47 a.m.]: I speak in favour of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill. As a Parliament we should do everything in our power to protect our children. Their innocence and vulnerability put a heavy onus on us to ensure their safety. The main purpose of the bill is to require convicted child sex offenders, along with other specified serious offenders against children, to inform police of changes to certain personal information. A central register will record the movements of convicted paedophiles. This in turn will provide greater protection for children. The bill fulfils a Wood royal commission recommendation and a key Carr Labor Government commitment. Recommendation 111, which is found in Volume 5 of the final report of the paedophile inquiry, spelt out clearly the need for the bill. Specifically, the recommendation is:
Consideration be given to the introduction of a system for the compulsory registration with the Police Service of all convicted child sexual offenders, to be accompanied by requirements for:
The notification of changes of name and address; and for
Verification of the register;
Following consultation with the Police Service, ODPP [the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions], Corrective Services, the Privacy Committee and other interested parties.
Child sex offenders registration schemes have been in effect in other jurisdictions. The first registration scheme was introduced in California in the 1940s. By 1996 all States in the United States of America and a number of Canadian provinces had introduced registration systems. The United Kingdom followed in 1997. Queensland has had a limited registration scheme since 1988. The Queensland scheme provided that courts, in certain circumstances, may order sex offenders to report details of names and addresses to the police. Victoria has not yet introduced such a scheme but in 1995 the Crime Prevention Committee of the Parliament of Victoria recommended that this be done.
To try to protect children the bill provides that certain categories of child sex offenders are to supply police with information. The categories include offenders who sexually assault a child, child murderers, offenders who have indecently assaulted children, offenders who kidnap a child, persons found guilty of possessing or publishing child pornography, and persons found guilty of child prostitution offences, other than child prostitutes. The bill also covers what will happen if a person fails to register. Failure to register without reasonable excuse or registering but giving false information will make a person guilty of an offence carrying a maximum penalty of $11,000 and/or two years imprisonment.
Some in the community would like to have developed a community notification system, under which information on child sex offenders is made publicly available, rather than the system of compulsory police notification that is provided for in this bill. That sort of registration process is often referred to as Megan's law and is not supported by the Carr Government. Research suggests that such community notification does not deter child sex offenders from reoffending. In fact, it has been argued that Megan's law may reduce compliance with registration requirements, thus preventing police from effectively tracking and monitoring those who pose a risk to children.
The statistics are interesting on this point. Compliance in some areas of the United States of America where Megan's law is operative is under 10 per cent, whereas in the United Kingdom, which carries strong presumptions against community notification, compliance is as high as 97 per cent. Community notification has the potential also of exposing the identity of the victim. This is particularly so as child sexual assault is often intrafamial. The honourable member for Epping referred to the rights of victims and this bill considers victims in this regard. Compulsory community notification could be a cause for humiliation of and additional hurt to the very people this process is meant to protect. Further, the royal commission also opposed the introduction of Megan's law.
I return now to the bill. Clause 9 deals with the relevant personal information that registrable persons must provide. Registrable persons must advise police of their name and any other names by which they have previously been known. They must also notify the police of information regarding places where they regularly reside or, if they are transient, the localities in which they are generally found. Registrable persons must also provide information on where they work, the name of their employer and the nature of their employment. They must also provide information on the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle they own or regularly drive. That reflects United States research, which found that many child sex offenders offend in or from their motor vehicles. Registrable persons must also provide other information of a machinery and verifying nature, for example, a birth certificate or a motor vehicle licence. I am pleased to speak in support of the bill and will continue to work hard to ensure a safer community for our children.
Ms HARRISON (Parramatta) [11.52 a.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I support the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill, which requires convicted child sex offenders and others who have committed specified serious offences against children to supply the police with certain personal information. Child sex offender registration schemes result from research showing that child sex offenders have high rates of recidivism. Bearing in mind the seriousness of their offences, that means that they may pose a further risk to children when released into the community. In 1998 the New South Wales Parliament passed three Acts that recognised the post-release dangers posed by child sex offenders and other offenders. They were the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act, the Commission for Children and Young People Act and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Act. Recommendation 111 of the Wood royal commission recommended that the Government should consider introducing a compulsory registration system for all child sex offenders, and the bill is a consequence of that recommendation.
The bill requires offenders to provide police with the following information within 28 days of an offence being proved or an offender being released from custody: name, address, vehicle registration and place of employment; any other names by which the offender is, or has been, known; the name of any employer and the nature of employment; the make, model, colour, and registration number of any vehicle owned or regularly driven by the offender; information on the nature of the registrable offences and the court at which the finding of guilt was made and the date on which the finding was made; and any documentation required by regulations to prove the above information.
The classes of offender that must provide this information are offenders who sexually assault children, child murderers, offenders who indecently assault children, offenders who kidnap children, persons found guilty of possessing or publishing child pornography and persons found guilty of child prostitution offences other than child prostitutes. Persons will not be required to register if an offence is technically proved but no conviction is recorded. The scheme will apply to those sentenced after the commencement of the legislation and those who are under some correctional or parole supervision at the time of commencement. It will also apply to relevant offenders who enter New South Wales from other jurisdictions.
The registration period will last between eight and 15 years after release into the community, depending on the nature of the offence and the person's offending history. Persons on lifetime licence or parole will register for life, and there will be no avenue for review. Juveniles, who are more susceptible to rehabilitation, will register for half the above periods and will not be registered for life. Persons who fail to provide police with registration information without reasonable excuse and persons who deliberately provide police with false information will be guilty of an offence which carries a maximum penalty of $11,000 and/or two years imprisonment. Given the nature of the scheme, and to ensure that police apply the legislation appropriately, the Ombudsman will be given broad powers to monitor the legislation and to report on it.
The bill offers significant new protection to children. It will increase and improve the accuracy of police child sex offender intelligence, assist in the investigation and prosecution of child sex offences committed by recidivist offenders, provide a deterrent to reoffending, assist police from New South Wales and other States in monitoring high-risk child sex offenders, assist in the management of child sex offenders in the community, provide child abuse victims and their families with an increased sense of security, enable child murder and kidnapping offences to be considered for the purposes of employment screening and prohibiting child-related employment, and assist police to enforce the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Act 1998.
I take this opportunity to make one or two points about a community notification system, which is not supported by the Carr Government, or the alternative of enacting legislation to allow community group notification in all but the most exceptional circumstances, which I believe would be Megan's law or notification by stealth. Research suggests that community notification, whilst populist, does not reduce recidivism amongst child sex offenders. There are legitimate concerns that notification may reduce protection for children, and protection of children should be our aim. In fact, community notification may reduce compliance with the registration requirements and prevent police from effectively tracking and monitoring people who pose a risk to children. Compliance in some areas of the United States of America is under 10 per cent whilst the United Kingdom system, which carries strong presumptions against notification, has a high 97 per cent compliance rate. It is my understanding that the compliance rate in the United States of America decreased after Megan's law was enacted.
Under a community notification system offenders are likely to move more frequently to escape community hostility, making it more difficult to monitor them. The resulting community labelling and hostility may serve as a barrier to the successful rehabilitation of offenders and make them more likely to reoffend. Offender identification may also identify the victim, particularly as child sexual assault is often intrafamilial, which can cause humiliation and additional hurt. It may create a false sense of security in the community, with less attention being given to protecting children from non-registered sex offenders. This may result in fewer offenders admitting their offences and, in turn, with fewer successful prosecutions. There are concerns that community notification will lead to vigilantism, which has happened overseas and has been a potential problem in New South Wales. Although many of us have little sympathy with child sex offenders, it is not in our interests to promote vigilantism in any form.
Numerous incidents have proved that community notification has actually been against the interests of the community. For instance, in California when residents were notified of the release of a former offender, they responded by firebombing his car. When residents of New Jersey received a similar notice, a mob of 250 severely beat an innocent bystander whom they had mistaken for the former offender. There are many examples of such consequences of the notification system which I shall not go into now. However, they prove that community notification is not the way to go. This bill is a sensible and measured response to public demand that a child sex offender register be established. Our goal is to assist in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of child sex offences. If we encourage child sex offenders to register, police will know those offenders' whereabouts for law enforcement purposes. This is a sensible and responsible solution to a complex problem, and I commend the bill to the House.
Ms BEAMER (Mulgoa) [12.00 noon]: Acts of paedophilia are beyond my comprehension and that of most honourable members. Desiring a prepubescent child for sexual gratification is something that I will never come to terms with. I hope that all first sexual encounters occur as a result of informed consent and agreement in an atmosphere of love and care. Unfortunately, some first sexual encounters are bewildering, violent and scary. For victims of the crime of paedophilia, these encounters are abusive, manipulative and demanding. A government can take measures to help to protect the young and vulnerable: abuse and exploitation will never be tolerated. All possible steps must be taken to protect our precious future.
The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Bill is just one part of our child protection armoury and realises recommendation No. 111 of the Wood royal commission. Methods for investigating child abuse through the Child Protection Enforcement Agency have become first-class and we need to build on that success. To help victims of abuse and reduce the impact and trauma of legal proceedings, court audio and video recordings of child victim statements have been introduced. In 1998 the Government introduced three Acts that acknowledged the recidivist nature of paedophile activities. These Acts can impose certain restrictions on child offenders upon their release from prison. Schemes involving the registration of offenders require offenders to provide information to a government agency, usually the police.
In seeking the best model for New South Wales, the Government examined 60 international schemes. It is a sad fact that child sex offenders often reoffend and pose a risk to children upon their release back into the community. Child sex offences have a low reporting rate, which makes that recidivism risk even more alarming. Although it recommended registration, the Wood royal commission did not recommend the so-called Megan's law, which was first enacted in New Jersey in 1994. That name is usually used to describe schemes that require public notification of paedophile activities and information. It is often extremely hard for legislators to remove themselves from the emotion of events and to avoid making knee-jerk reactions. People looking into their son's or daughter's precious eyes and thinking that their children might be at risk from a next-door neighbour or from someone across the street would be more than emotional.
Megan's law was enacted in the United States of America with the best of intentions, but it has created enormous notification problems. A major problem with notifying the public is that convicted paedophiles refuse to register. By so doing they are breaking the law and are, therefore, likely to remain undetected. If the rate of offender registration is only 10 per cent, the community does not have most of the relevant information about former offenders. Megan's law would work in a perfect world where offenders decided to register, but that does not happen.
The system that allows registration to the local police, as occurs in Great Britain, has a higher success rate. The United Kingdom scheme has a compliance rate of 97 per cent, which contrasts starkly with the 10 per cent rate in some American states. If we are to inform the police about paedophile activity and enable them to act more effectively, we will be far better off with the scheme that has the best compliance rate. It is difficult to tell the community that, in the context of a scheme, we are considering the greater good, not the individual rights of parents who would scream, "You knew that that person was living in my neighbourhood and you never told me". We often balance individual rights against the rights of an entire community. In this case, we are talking about a heinous crime that affects small children and the rights of their parents and the community to know.
However, laws in other jurisdictions about informing the community have led not only to poor compliance rates but to vigilantism. Several people have been attacked on the mistaken assumption that they were paedophiles. In one instance, a police station in Britain was surrounded by a mob who believed that a child sex offender was inside. The mob attacked the station over several days and several police were hurt. Those models will not work in our community. We must learn from overseas experiences. It is a pity that the community will not be told, but such laws simply do not work. If we could find a way of informing part of the community—that would not happen in small communities where everyone would know—by telling teachers to be wary, for example, we would do that. However, we have explored that option and it seems impossible to implement.
There are different kinds of offences against children. The most common offence occurs when one parent removes his or her child from the other parent during a custody battle. In such cases, the general public is not put at risk and people found guilty of that offence would not have to be registered. Other crimes against children involve registration. Having two stages of offences—stage one offences are far more serious than stage two offences—enables the police to track offences against children. We must sometimes consider difficult legislation, and I think that this is one such occasion. We must come to terms with the fact that the crime of paedophilia is occurring in our community and that there is a high rate of recidivism among child sex offenders. That is very sad for potential child victims. Most victims of child sex offences are girls, and they are most at risk from a trusted family member or someone who knows the family rather than from a predator on the street. In most cases young girls are at risk of assault from a trusted family member, not from a predator in the street.
This legislation is but one small cog in the wheel to help victims, and it should be enhanced. The Child Protection Agency should be given sufficient armaments to help it to solve crimes of paedophilia. As I have mentioned, three Acts which were introduced by this Government in 1998 are part of that armament of securing convictions. It is unfortunate that a community notification system will not work. I support the bill.
Ms MOORE (Bligh) [12.11 p.m.]: I strongly support the bill. I fully support the Government's approach, which, by and large, has moved away from the Megan's law style of legislation which places paedophiles at risk of becoming the victims of lynch mobs. Instead, police will monitor the movements of convicted paedophiles. My one concern is with what might happen with the information that the police have. The intent of the legislation could be undermined if police reveal information on the paedophile register to unauthorised persons. The problems are easy to see: A police officer in a rural town may go home and tell his wife about a registration, and suddenly the information is all over town. Or, a paedophile may be seen going into a police station and giving information over the counter, rather than in the privacy of an office, and suddenly the information is out.
A few years ago a police officers gained unauthorised access to information on celebrities via the computer operated police system. It is a concern that a convicted paedophile, who has done the right thing, could find that information has gone into the public domain and the media. This law depends on encouraging convicted paedophiles to register. There are strong sanctions to encourage them to register, but this could be undermined if they fear the information will be disclosed, putting their safety and wellbeing at risk. Unauthorised disclosure will be reported in the media, and it will drive convicted paedophiles underground. That is the opposite of the purpose of the legislation. There needs to be strong sanctions against police to reduce this risk. There may be adequate provisions in other legislation to discourage police. I request that the Minister provide assurances that sanctions exist in other legislation which are strong enough to overcome such risk.
Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [12.13 p.m.]: I cannot say that it is with pleasure that I support this bill; it would be my pleasure to say that it is not necessary to have such a bill. I support the bill out of necessity. I am passionate about the rights and needs of children, I have four of my own. I am a member of a foster care organisation in the Illawarra and of an adoptive parents support group. I have met children who have been permanently scarred by criminal acts. As pointed out by my colleagues those crimes involved child murderers, offenders who indecently assaulted a child, offenders who kidnapped a child, persons found guilty of possessing or publishing child pornography, and persons found guilty of child prostitution offences other than child prostitutes.
That type of crime destroys a child's life. As the honourable member for Parramatta said this bill offers new protection to children, it improves and increases police intelligence in that regard, and provides a deterrent to recidivists. I know what I would like to do with them! The legislation does not go quite far enough by not ensuring that offenders should be permanently on the list. We are talking about a serious crime, there is no greater crime than hurting a child. This Parliament has shown its commitment to doing everything possible to protect the community. This week this House discussed the recording of DNA testing on criminals. This bill is designed for the protection of children, the most vulnerable in our community.
In a recent press release the Minister for Police commented that people who commit those offences automatically lose some of the rights that responsible citizens enjoy. I agree with the Minister's comment and add that no greater crime can be committed than that against a child. How can a child protect himself or herself? Children trust adults, unless they have been victims. I cannot understand how adults could betray that trust. It is beyond my comprehension. We are not talking about someone who has been picked up for shoplifting, we are talking about offenders who sexually assault and abuse children. That is one of the most serious crimes and I have no hesitation in supporting the bill.
Mr CAMPBELL (Keira) [12.16 p.m.]: I join with the honourable member for Illawarra in strongly supporting this legislation. The community that I represent has, on the whole, been traumatised over recent times, particularly through the revelations of the police royal commission into the crime of paedophilia. The commission named people, whom the community held in high regard, as recidivist paedophiles. In most communities a number of individuals have been traumatised by paedophilia. This legislation is a result of a recommendation of the Wood royal commission that the Government consider introducing the compulsory registration of all child sex offenders. The legislation requires convicted child sex offenders to register with police changes to their name, address, place of employment and vehicle registration and other verifying information after they are released into the community. Information collected as a result of this legislation will be compatible with the national child sex offender database which is being developed as part of CrimTrac.
Yesterday, when speaking to the legislation about DNA testing, I indicated the importance of having a national system administered by the Commonwealth. That would ensure registration of child sex offenders across the country, and is an important aspect of this legislation. The relevant offenders are those who sexually assault a child; child murderers, but not those who are convicted of manslaughter—for example women who suffer from post-natal depression; offenders who sexually assault a child; offenders who kidnap a child—but not those who have had the previous care relationship with the child, as those complex custody and access matters should be resolved through the Family Court; persons found guilty of possessing or publishing child pornography; and persons found guilty of child prostitution offences, other than child prostitutes.
The more serious offences of murder and sexual assault are class one offences, the remainder are class two offences. Persons will not be required to register if an offence is technically proved, but no conviction is recorded. For example, two 15-year-olds in a sexual relationship will be committing an offence, but there is no child protection benefit in requiring them to register. I make that point because there is a balance in the legislation. It is vitally important to provide police with the resources, information and tools to enable them to monitor persons found guilty of these offences, but at the same time strike a balance to ensure that the monitoring is not excessive.
This bill also offers significant new protections to children. It will: increase and improve the accuracy of the police child sex offender intelligence; assist in the investigation and prosecution of child sex offences committed by recidivist offenders; provide a deterrent to reoffending; assist police from New South Wales and other States in monitoring high-risk child sex offenders; assist in the management of child sex offenders in the community; provide child abuse victims and their families with an increased sense of security; enable child murder and kidnapping offences to be considered for the purposes of employment screening and prohibiting child-related employment; and assist police to enforce the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Act 1998.
As has already been indicated, the bill does not provide for or support the development of a community notification system. It is important that the bill provides this type of protection, but equally does not provide for an open system, which may encourage vigilante groups and other types of occurrences in the community. Overseas experience demonstrates that that sort of mayhem will not necessarily stop a person reoffending and does not strengthen the community. I share the concerns of the honourable member for Bligh about confidentiality and other issues for registrable persons. I wish to make a couple of points about that. The bill recognises that providing relevant personal information to police may be a traumatic experience. Other registration schemes provide little support to offenders, which may reduce compliance with the registration. We must encourage compliance.
Accordingly, clause 12 (7) (b) of the bill allows a registerable person to bring a support person of their own choosing to the police station when they register. Clause 12 (5) allows parents or carers to give registration information on behalf of a child or person with a disability, although clause 12 (6) encourages such persons to physically attend the registration if they are able to. The bill also recognises the importance of keeping registration information confidential. Requiring offenders to physically attend a police station to register promotes confidentiality. Clause 12 (7) (a) provides that offenders are entitled to register in private, where no members of the public are present. Given the sensitive nature of registration, clause 12 (1) provides that only sworn police officers may receive registration information.
Subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 12 require police to give offenders written acknowledgement of their registration obligations. This will prevent police from subsequently charging an offender who has properly registered. The written acknowledgement will be drafted in such a way that it is not apparent on the face of the acknowledgement that the offender is a registered offender. This means that an offender will not be compromised if the acknowledgement falls into the hands of a third party. Registration information will be held on a secure part of the New South Wales Police Services computer operated police system. The Privacy Commissioner will be consulted to ensure that this information is accessed appropriately and securely stored. I mentioned earlier the need for balance. Those confidentiality provisions are important.
Lest someone who reads my contribution at a later date thinks that in any way, shape or form I support child sex offenders, I make it clear that my desire for some confidentiality and balance in this legislation in no way offers any support to those who have been found guilty of offences that require registration under this bill. Such people stand condemned, and they should face stiff penalties. I make that point in conclusion of my contribution to this important legislation.
Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [12.24 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their valuable contributions to this important debate. This bill amounts to a competent and carefully considered improvement to our child protection laws. It has been developed with regard to the successes and failures of more than 60 similar schemes in other jurisdictions. As I have already noted, the bill complements a suite of existing government initiatives for the protection of children. It is designed to serve a number of purposes. Firstly, it will improve the accuracy of police child sex offender intelligence. Secondly, the legislation will assist in the investigation and prosecution of child sex offences committed by recidivist offenders. Thirdly, it will assist police from New South Wales and other jurisdictions in monitoring high risk child sex offenders, as well as assisting in the management of child sex offenders in the community.
Fourthly, it will reduce the opportunities for and provide a deterrent to reoffending. Fifthly, it will provide child abuse victims and their families with an increased sense of security. Finally, it will assist police in enforcing the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Act 1998. As I have said, the bill toughens the Government's response to paedophiles. It forms a central plank in the Government's commitment to make New South Wales safe for the people of New South Wales. The system will result in compliance. It will not chase sex offenders underground, as happened in the United States of America. The honourable member for Epping said that victims were not mentioned in the bill. He is correct. This is a registration scheme for law enforcement purposes to protect children. It is sponsored by the courts and endorsed and maintained by the Commission of Police. The rights of victims are covered by the Victims Rights Act 1997, which this Government introduced. Under the Charter of Victims Rights, victims have access to information on convicted serious offenders.
Corrective Services maintains a victims community-based offenders register as part of its victims register. Registered victims may, upon request, be advised as to the general location of the offender's residence, whilst the offender is serving a community-based order such as parole, a community service order or home detention. The Department of Juvenile Justice has recently established a victim's register and the Mental Health Review Tribunal is in the process of establishing a register for the victims of forensic patients. This bill does nothing to affect those registers. The bill is a balanced response to a difficult issue. I repeat, I welcome the contribution of members. I commend the bill to the House.
Lastly, I advise that the provisions of the Police Service Regulation, read in conjunction with the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, will make it an offence for police to release information contrary to the instructions, the penalty being $11,000 and/or two years imprisonment. This will prevent police releasing this information to the broader community. That issue was raised by the honourable member for Bligh.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:37:44 : Update this page