Protecting Queenslanders from Violent and Child Sex Offenders Amendment Bill 2018
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill sought to make supervision orders for dangerous sex offenders indefinite rather than fixed-term, and to create automatic lifelong electronic monitoring for repeat sex offenders. It was a private member's bill introduced by Mr Janetzki MP that lapsed at the end of the 56th Parliament and did not become law.
Who it affects
The bill primarily targeted people convicted of serious sexual offences, who would have faced indefinite supervision after prison release. Repeat offenders convicted of two or more serious sexual offences would have been subject to mandatory GPS monitoring for life.
Key changes
- Supervision orders would have had no end date, continuing until the Governor in Council determined the offender was no longer a serious danger
- The Governor in Council would review orders after five years, then annually, based on psychiatric assessments by two psychiatrists
- Automatic indeterminate supervision for anyone convicted of two or more serious sexual offences, applied by operation of law without a court order
- Mandatory indefinite GPS electronic monitoring for all repeat sex offenders, plus exclusion zones around schools (200m) and places children gather (1km residential)
- Community safety elevated to the paramount consideration, and courts prevented from considering risk management options or impact on the offender when assessing dangerousness
- A lower threshold for finding dangerousness, allowing courts to make orders even where reoffending was assessed as less than 50 per cent likely
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Introduced19 Sept 2018View Hansard
Vote on a motion
A follow-up procedural motion moved by the LNP, also unrelated to the National Redress Scheme bill debate, which was defeated along party lines.
The motion was rejected.
A formal vote on whether to accept a proposal — this could be the bill itself, an amendment, or another motion.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (42)
Noes (48)
▸1 procedural vote
Vote to grant leave
Mr Janetzki (LNP) sought leave to move a motion without notice after introducing the Protecting Queenslanders from Violent and Child Sex Offenders Amendment Bill. This was a procedural motion unrelated to the National Redress Scheme bill debate.
Permission was refused.
A vote on whether to grant permission — for example, to introduce an amendment or vary normal procedure.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (43)
Noes (46)
▸Committee19 Sept 2018View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee
The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee examined this private member's bill over five months, receiving three submissions and holding a public hearing. The committee recommended the bill not be passed, citing significant concerns about proportionality, the removal of judicial oversight in favour of executive review by the Governor in Council, and potential constitutional invalidity. LNP members filed a statement of reservation disagreeing with the committee's recommendation.
Key findings (5)
- All three submitters (Bar Association of Queensland, Queensland Advocacy Incorporated, and Queensland Law Society) raised concerns about the bill's scope and impact on individual rights
- The bill's definition of 'repeat offender' was considered overly broad, potentially capturing individuals convicted of two offences in the same proceeding
- The proposed indeterminate supervision orders, including lifetime GPS monitoring, were found to raise serious fundamental legislative principle issues around proportionality and personal liberty
- The bill would transfer review of supervision orders from the courts to the Governor in Council, removing the prisoner's right to present their case or be legally represented in the review process
- The Queensland Law Society raised significant concerns about the constitutional validity of the bill, noting it may go beyond the scope upheld by the High Court in Pollentine v Bleijie
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Protecting Queenslanders from Violent and Child Sex Offenders Amendment Bill 2018 not be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading8 Sept 2020View Hansard
▸10 members spoke5 support5 oppose
Moved the second reading on behalf of the shadow Attorney-General, arguing the bill was necessary because the government had no plan for dangerous offenders like Robert John Fardon. Outlined the bill's key provisions including indeterminate supervision orders and Governor in Council review.
“It will guarantee that monsters like Robert John Fardon will never ever be able to hurt another woman or child again. I urge the House to support the bill.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
As Attorney-General, strongly opposed the bill on the grounds that it would fundamentally change the constitutionally tested DP(SO) Act framework and risk having the entire act declared invalid, leaving children and the community unprotected.
“If DPSO legislation that has stood the test of time, become the framework for every other jurisdiction in country and is the framework on which the terrorism laws in this country are based ... so if it is undermined and dismantled because of what is in this bill ... we put everything at risk.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
Argued the bill was necessary because relying on self-reporting by offenders like Robert John Fardon is insufficient. Read the LNP committee members' statement of reservation supporting the bill into Hansard.
“Someone of that nature does not abide by the law. Indeed, he has no respect for anyone. The requirement that he should attend a police station or any other reporting requirement and that he could be entrusted to fulfil that obligation simply of his own volition is appalling.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
Spoke against the bill, arguing there was no need for the legislation as the existing framework was robust. Detailed the Fardon court decision showing the risk of reoffending was assessed as low by three psychiatrists.
“There is absolutely no need for this legislation, and I will be urging members of this House to vote against this totally unnecessary piece of legislation.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
As a former federal prosecutor of paedophiles, argued the bill was needed to ensure repeat sex offenders are GPS tracked for life and that community safety is paramount. Criticised Labor's laws as weak.
“Under the LNP, repeat dangerous sex offenders would be GPS tracked for life—no ifs, no buts.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
Spoke against the bill, arguing the LNP's proposals sound good but do not work and risk constitutional challenge. Cited research showing GPS monitoring devices alone give victims false peace of mind and put them at risk.
“If they are really interested in the safety of the community, they should talk about things that work. What is really offensive about the way they talk about this and all of the other bills when they use these catchphrases is that they are not just talking about the community; we are actually talking about kids.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
Supported the bill as necessary to protect families, arguing Labor's post-conviction monitoring laws are an embarrassment that relies on an honesty system for the worst criminals.
“Someone like Robert John Fardon, one of Australia's most notorious sex offenders, should never be able to walk our streets unsupervised. Labor's post-conviction monitoring laws are an embarrassment.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing the LNP's own record showed they weakened supervision when in government by reducing reporting periods, resulting in 1,723 child sex offenders no longer being monitored. Defended Labor's record of strengthening laws.
“When those opposite were in government, they weakened the legislation. They were the only government in Queensland history to weaken supervision of child sex offenders.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
Supported the bill, arguing the core role of every government is community protection. Defended the bill's provisions for indeterminate supervision orders, mandatory GPS tracking, and restrictions on where offenders can live.
“Who can argue that one of these monsters should be able to live near a school or a park? Who could credibly argue that? Who could credibly argue that someone having to report to Corrective Services is wrong?”— 2020-09-08View Hansard
Spoke against the bill, arguing it was eerily similar to the LNP's 2013 bill ruled unconstitutional. Defended the existing DP(SO) Act as legally robust and constitutionally sound.
“As lawmakers we do not get second chances in this area of law, particularly the importance of this area of law in keeping our children safe. In order to protect the community, the law in this area must be constitutionally robust and it must be valid.”— 2020-09-08View Hansard