Page 3301 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 22 September 2015

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

week or so. I can indicate that we have looked at this in detail and that the comments made by the scrutiny committee are enlightening and useful in terms of commentary on the bill. But I am satisfied that the government’s response and the amendments moved by the Attorney-General satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

I take the opportunity to commend my chief of staff, Ian Hagan, who spent till late into the night going through all this correspondence, all this legislation and all these comments to make sure that we, as the opposition, are satisfied that the concerns that have been raised have been addressed. It is not ideal that we are going through commentary like this at the last moment on important legislation. However, we have reacted to it. We do accept that this is a piece of legislation that will, in effect, tighten up the legislation around child sex offenders. That is a worthy intent, and we will be, as I said, supporting the amendments moved by the Attorney-General.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.28): I made my in-principle comments about this bill in the Assembly last week. So I will just briefly discuss some of the amendments proposed by the attorney in response to the scrutiny committee’s report. I support the amendment put forward by the attorney which clarifies the operation of the derivative and direct use immunities which operate in the bill. The amendment clarifies when evidence found by police when executing an entry and search warrant or when examining electronic data of a registered offender cannot be used for the prosecution of any offence except for those in the child sex offenders act. As I discussed last week, this is one of the protections in the bill to help ensure it balances human rights considerations with its purpose of protecting the community, in particular young people, from harm.

I also note the answers the Attorney-General has provided to the scrutiny committee. One of the main concerns was the committee’s comment that the child sex offenders scheme may have little impact on preventing future offending. The Attorney-General has clarified that there is, in fact, a good case that the scheme and the amendments will reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The reply also points out that the government gave consideration to whether any offender should be able to apply not to be registered rather than just young offenders. A deliberate choice was made to apply the new provision to young offenders only, with the aim of promoting rehabilitation and individualised justice for young people, consistent with particular provisions of the Human Rights Act.

The reply also addresses several other issues, and I am satisfied that the reply and the amendments proposed are a suitable reply to the issues raised by the committee.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video