Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion.
Briefing Paper No. 12/1997 by Marie Swain
Page Content
- In light of recent events, both here and overseas,
consideration has been given to the establishment of a national child sex
offender database, which would serve as the primary database for each of the
States and Territories as well as being the principal conduit of information
and intelligence exchange on child sex offenders within the Australian law
enforcement community. Only police units responsible for investigating child
exploitation would have direct access to the database, but intelligence from it
would be released to authorised government and non-government third parties
that have a duty of care over children. The background to this proposal is
discussed on pages 3 to 6.
- The first issue to be resolved prior to the establishment of
such a database is the scope of its coverage. Will it contain details on
paedophiles only ? Or will it contain information on anyone convicted of child
sex offences, be they intra-familial or extra-familial ? Although the term
paedophile is used often as a synonym for child sex offender , there is a
clinical difference. How the term is defined has legal implications for
determining whether a crime has been committed, and whether people should be
entered onto such a database (pp 7-11).
- Given the fact that the creation of a database on a particular
category of offender is a novel concept, there are a number of other issues
which need to be addressed. These include: what type of registration system
should be used; whether information on those suspected of child sex offences
should be kept; the extent to which the information is made available; the
degree to which past details will be included; and whether any notification
requirements will flow (pp11-17).
- Those in favour of such registration schemes commonly rely on
the following arguments: the public has a right to know; it allows
precautionary measures to be taken; law enforcement agencies will be assisted
in their investigations; and it has a deterrent effect because offenders know
they are being monitored (pp17-18).
- Those opposed list the following as reasons not to support such
schemes: civil liberties and the right to privacy; they may force offenders
underground; they create a false sense of security in the community; they are
resource intensive to maintain and as such an inefficient use of State funds;
and they could lead to additional litigation as certain aspects would be open
to challenge in the courts (pp18-21).
- Registration schemes covering sexual offenders generally are
already in place in many overseas jurisdictions. While there are numerous
differences between the various schemes on a practical level, the fundamental
notion of keeping tabs on those who may offend or re-offend in the future is
the same. Active notification procedures are also a feature. The experience in
the United States and the United Kingdom is discussed on pages 22 to 26.
