Page 3189 - Week 10 - Thursday, 17 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
sex offender register and to the ability of police to monitor sex offenders and investigate child sex offences.
As horrendous as child sex offences are, it is of course important to ensure that the new protections are balanced with our human rights obligations. The proposed changes engage important rights such as the right to privacy, rights in criminal proceedings and the right to recognition and equality before the law. These rights are not absolute because they must be weighed against other considerations such as the rights of children to be protected from exploitation and abuse. Indeed, there is a positive obligation on governments to ensure the protection of these kinds of rights.
It appears to me that in developing this bill the government has taken care to balance these rights. This is reflected in the very thorough explanatory statement which carefully considers all of the affected rights and why their limitation is reasonable and proportionate in this instance. It is also reflected in the government’s willingness to defer the detail stage of the bill so that it can address the scrutiny comments. The comments are substantial, some 20 pages. That clearly points to the fact that we need a bit of time to consider them and the government’s response from the attorney.
Perhaps the most significant change in the bill is that it allows police to enter and search premises of registrable sex offenders. Police will also be able to request a registrable sex offender’s details relating to encrypted information such as passwords. Practically, this change will improve the ability of the police to monitor registrable sex offenders and it will allow them to verify reported information, identify unreported details and check compliance with the conditions in a prohibition order. Obviously this is a limitation on the offender’s human rights. The entry and search power is therefore limited. It only applies to a small category of people, registrable offenders. It requires a special application process and can only occur in circumstances where the offender obstructs the verification of reporting details or compliance checking relating to prohibition orders.
Requesting access to an offender’s encrypted information is, obviously, an intrusion on privacy. It is not an arbitrary intrusion, though. Again, it is to protect the rights of others, and the legislation limits the use of the power to quite specific circumstances. For example, the application for use of the power must describe the location and types of material to be searched for. The reality is that it is basically impossible to access encrypted data without passwords. The material being sought can often be hidden and deleted. If the police are to effectively protect the safety of children and prevent offenders accessing illegal material, they need to be able to keep up with technological advancement.
A second amendment in the bill will allow the Chief Police Officer, in limited circumstances, to issue a public notice with the name, description and photograph of a registrable offender. Similarly, a police officer may order that photographs be taken of a registrable offender in certain circumstances. Again, the rationale for these new powers is to improve the ability of the police to monitor and manage registrable offenders and to ensure community protection and safety. The ability to release a photo of an offender will assist in locating them if they have skipped reporting
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video