A comparative analysis of Australian sex offender legislation for sex offender registries
| Author | Brooke Langskaill,Joe Graffam,Andrew Day,Martine Powell,James Vess |
| Published date | 01 December 2011 |
| Date | 01 December 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865811419065 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
44(3) 404–424
!The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865811419065
anj.sagepub.com
Article
A comparative analysis
of Australian sex offender
legislation for sex offender
registries
James Vess, Brooke Langskaill, Andrew Day,
Martine Powell and Joe Graffam
Deakin University, Australia
Abstract
Australia has followed the course taken by other English-speaking countries in recent years of
enacting legislation that requires convicted sexual offenders to register personal details with
law enforcement agencies. These laws have been enacted to protect the public from the per-
ceived threat posed by sex offenders, but have been written with little apparent reference to
the available research literature about the nature and extent of this threat. In addition, there is
no empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of legislatively based sex offender registries
to either reduce sexual offending or to enable the police to investigate sex crimes and appre-
hend offenders. This article compares and contrasts the current laws governing sex offender
registration enacted by the various states and territories in Australia, and offers a critical
analysis of their provisions in light of the research literature on sexual offending.
Keywords
human rights, public policy, risk assessment, sex offender registration, sex offenders
Since the year 2000, each state and territory in Australia has introduced or amended
legislation pertaining to the registration of sex offenders. The legislation is based on the
premise that sex offenders not only pose an especially grave and enduring risk to the safety
of the public, but also that there is a high probability of repeat offending occurring against
particularly vulnerable members of the community (Petrunik et al., 2008). The concept of
a register first arose in Australia following the publication of the Wood Royal
Commission (Royal Commission, 1997). The Child Protection (Offenders Registration)
Act 2000 was subsequently introduced in New South Wales, with the legislation modelled
on the United Kingdom’s Sex Offenders Act 1997.
Corresponding author:
James Vess, Senior Lecturer, Deakin University, School of Psychology, Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria,
Australia.
Email: jim.vess@deakin.edu.au
As public and parliamentary interest in the idea of registration systems rose, the
Australasian Police Minsters’ Council established a working group in 2002 to consider
the introduction of uniform legislation across all jurisdictions. In July 2003, the Council
reported that the police ministers from each jurisdiction had agreed to develop legislation
that would enable the establishment of a national register (see Table 1). There were,
however, differences in how states and territories approached sex offender registration.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the Australian legislation across jurisdictions and
then address the intended purposes of these policies in light of the relevant empirical
evidence in Australia and elsewhere in the Western world.
Purpose of the legislation
From the legislator’s perspective, the purpose of sex offender laws that require those who
commit certain offences to provide particular personal details to the police is twofold.
First, they are seen as a means of monitoring behaviour in the community in such a way
that further offences are prevented, and, second, they are seen as a way of facilitating the
investigation of any new crimes that are committed. This legislative intent is either clearly
outlined at the beginning of most Acts or easily inferred from the Act’s definition. Table 2
provides an overview of the legislation in each jurisdiction.
Tasmania’s Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, for example, is
introduced as:
[a]n Act to require certain offenders who commit sexual or certain other serious offences to
keep police informed of their whereabouts and other personal details for a period of time
Table 1. Title of sex offender legislation and resulting register in each Australian state and territory
State/territory Date of assent Legislation Register
ACT 29/06/2005 Crimes (Child Sex Offenders)
Act 2005
Child Sex Offenders Register
NSW 27/06/2000 Child Protection (Offenders
Registration) Act 2000
NSW Child Protection Register
NT 04/11/2004 Child Protection (Offender
Reporting and Registration)
Act 2004
Child Protection Offender
Register
QLD 29/11/2004 Child Protection (Offender
Reporting) Act 2004
Child Protection Offender
Register
SA 30/11/2006 Child Sex Offenders Registration
Act 2006
Child Sex Offender Register
TAS 15/12/2005 Community Protection
(Offender Reporting) Act 2005
Community Protection Offender
Register
VIC 01/10/2004 Sex Offenders Registration
Act 2004
Register of Sex Offenders
WA 08/12/2004 Community Protection
(Offender Reporting) Act 2004
Community Protection Offender
Register
Vess et al. 405
To continue reading
Request your trial