Any introduction of a public child sex offender register in Queensland needs to be evidence-based and preserve access to judicial reviews, the Queensland Law Society (QLS) and the Bar Association of Queensland (BAQ) Criminal Law Committee has urged.
At a recent public hearing, members of QLS and BAQ addressed the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee on the Community Protection and Public Child Sex Offender Register (Daniel’s Law) Bill 2025.
In their opening statements, representatives from both organisations raised “serious concerns” over the Bill.
QLS President Genevieve Dee said the Society’s written submission made recommendations to enhance transparency in decision making and preserve access to judicial rights reviews.
“Both of which are essential to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of our legal system,” she said.
“Child sex offender registers are a blunt instrument,” she said.
“Without appropriate safeguards, community education and adequate resourcing, such registers risk undermining the intended purpose and may produce unintended consequences.
“The erosion of review rights in this context raises significant rule of law concerns.”
Genevieve noted that many of the submissions to the committee pointed to research “that indicates registers of this kind have not been found to enhance community safety, and may instead contribute to stigma, acts of vigilantism, misinformation and reduced rehabilitation outcomes”.
Named Daniel’s Law in honour of Daniel Morcombe, the Bill currently proposes a three-tiered register aimed at increasing community awareness by making specific information about reportable offenders available to the public in certain circumstances.
There are protections in the legislation aimed at potential misuse of information, via acts of vigilantism, with the potential to harm offenders and other individuals.
BAQ Criminal Law Committee Deputy Chair Laura Reese said the Association endorsed the submissions made by QLS, among others, particularly those pertaining to the “lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of public sex offender registries both nationally and internationally”.
“The question of whether a public sex offender register will have any impact on rates of sexual offending against children must be properly interrogated in order to understand whether this measure can be justified on any metric,” she told the committee.
“We are also concerned with the express removal of any right to seek judicial review of any decision made under this scheme.”
BAQ Criminal Law Committer member Charlotte Smith said they had initially understood the Queensland Bill would be modelled closely off WA legislation, but it had become “notably different”.
“This is where unintended consequences can arise,” she said.
Charlotte provided the committee with several examples of how the Bill had deviated from what was outlined in an initial consultation.
“One of the things that has been noted is really an absence of measures which would go to some sort of oversight or procedural fairness, and that’s a concern that, as has been highlighted, relates not only to criminal offenders but to victims as well,’ she said.
“It vests in the Police Commissioner a very broad discretion, if he or she considers at any time a reportable offender poses a significant risk to the community they can deem that person to be a serious risk offender and there is no guidance with the Bill as to how that decision would be arrived at.
“It does seem to vest in the Police Commissioner a power to deem someone a serious risk offender even if they have not been convicted of a sexual offense relating to children.
“To have that kind of power without any oversight is concerning.”
QLS Criminal Law Committee member Adam Moschelle said there was support for new vigilante offences for individuals who misuse the disclosure scheme.
“Obviously it needs to be plainly clear that kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and the proposed intention of the scheme is not to operate in this way,” he said.
However, Adam said recommended those offences be reconsidered and “potentially be higher” due to the intent behind the offending and the risks of harm.
In the closing question to the QLS and BAQ, committee member and Maiwar MP Michael Berkman thanked the organisations for their submissions and asked if any amendment made would “be sufficient to get support from QLS and the Bar Association?’.
“Or is the concern with public reporting and the absence of evidence so profound that you wouldn’t support such a public reporting scheme in any form?” he said.
Laura said that in light of the concerns raised, the BAQ would not support tiers 1 and 2, which are outlined as a ‘missing non-compliant offender website’ and a ‘locality search’ respectfully.
“We come down here not necessarily to advocate for or against a particular intention of government but to provide information and advice about how we see it operating, and whether there is an evidentiary and legal basis open to act in the way that parliament intends,” she said.
“We raise these issues, we raise them seriously.”
You can read the QLS submission to the Committee here and view the full Committee proceedings here.
Share this article