Login
LCA slams ‘absurd’ consultation period for sex offender register
Having less than 36 hours to provide “initial high-level views” on the Peter Dutton’s proposed sex offender register is “inappropriate and completely inadequate”, said the Law Council of Australia.
Jerome Doraisamy
LCA has issued a statement, saying it has “significant concerns” about the “very limited timeframe” the federal government had allowed for stakeholder consultation into its proposed National Public Register of Sex Offenders, especially given that no detailed proposal had been received.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The national legal advocacy group said it had only been given until close of business last Friday, 11 January to provide “initial high-level views” on the register, amounting to less than 36 hours, after the proposed register was announced last Wednesday, 9 January by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton.
LCA president Arthur Moses SC described the initial consultation period as absurd.
“A consultation period of 36 hours to provide views on such a complex and serious proposal is inappropriate and completely inadequate,” he said.
“The Law Council calls on the federal government to allow more time for initial consultation because [an] unconsidered, rushed policy will lead to bad legislation. A proper proposal needs to be developed before adequate consultation can occur. Otherwise, there is a real risk of the register not protecting the community and it may have myriad unintended consequences.”
LCA argued for a “comprehensive consultation process based on a detailed proposal”, which it said should occur before any legislation is introduced.
“The legal profession would be very troubled if this issue is being rushed for political purposes rather than considered reform. Politicising this issue or rushing it through without proper thought would be an afront to all victims of sexual abuse. Furthermore, a range of parties including the victims of sex offenders need to be heard on this issue to ascertain what, if any register, should be developed,” Mr Moses continued.
“The community expects our political leaders to formulate policies based on evidence, and which are effective. As I said when the proposed register was announced, the Law Council does not, in principle, object to its establishment. However, it must be proportionate and effective.”
LCA does, however, firmly believe only offenders who pose a demonstrated risk to children should be placed on a register by order of a court, Mr Moses added.
“Child sex offending is heinous and debates on these matters are highly emotive. Despite many strong views on the issue though, the rule of law must always be respected,” he said.
“This requires adequate consultation with key stakeholders – and 36 hours is certainly not adequate.”
The comments follow LCA’s statement from earlier last week in response to the proposed register, in which it said that only offenders who pose a demonstrable risk to children should have to be listed on a National Public Register of Child Sex Offenders.
