Labor refuses to debate LNP sex offender Bill

by Ted Sorensen
Comments are off for this post.

Freed paedophiles will be allowed to ‘self-report’ under Palaszczuk’s soft laws

The Palaszczuk Government has today refused to allow the LNP’s tough laws to protect Queenslanders from all violent serious sex offenders to be debated by Parliament.

While blocking debate, the panicking Palaszczuk Government said it would press ahead with its own weak legislation, which will rely on paedophiles to ‘self-report’ to police on release.

Labor’s draft amendments will allow violent sexual predator Robert John Fardon to be released unsupervised into the community on October 3 should the appeal to continue his supervision order fail.

Liberal National Party Leader Deb Frecklington said Annastacia Palaszczuk was failing Queensland’s democracy and failing to protect vulnerable Queenslanders.

“The Palaszczuk Government is now so arrogant that it will not even allow alternative legislation to be discussed in Parliament – the forum of our democracy,” Ms Frecklington said.

“What are they so afraid of? This gutless Government won’t even let MPs discuss an LNP Bill.

“Labor’s soft laws won’t cover all violent sexual offenders, they won’t keep Queenslanders safe.

“I also want mandatory GPS tracking of offenders from the day they are released to the day they die, because I don’t trust pedophiles to ‘self-report’ to police.

“These weak laws are not good enough – Queenslanders deserve proper protection.”

The key differences between the LNP-backed Protecting Queenslanders from Violent and Child Sex Offenders Amendment Bill and Labor’s draft legislation are outlined in a graphic below.

Key differences: LNP and Labor draft legislation

 

Protection LNP Labor
Applies to all violent sex offenders. Yes. No, does not include serious violent sex attacks on adults.
GPS Tracking of repeat violent sex offenders until they die. Mandatory. Not mandatory, but may be imposed by a court, if police make an application for a prohibition order, after an offender commits ‘concerning conduct.’

The prohibition order will only apply for five years.

Power to extend supervision orders. Empowers the Attorney-General to extend an order indefinitely. No power for the Attorney-General to extend. Labor’s regime is only enacted once an order expires.
Constant monitoring. Allows for constant monitoring until offenders die (GPS requirement is mandatory). Constant monitoring has to be court-sanctioned after ‘concerning conduct’ is committed, with reporting obligations relying on the offender to do the right thing.

Also, an offender can apply to the Supreme Court to suppress their reporting obligations after 15 years.

Puts community safety first. Yes. No, requires offenders to engage in risky behaviour to trigger the application for a prohibition order – putting community safety at risk.

 

Share this article

Comments are closed.