 |
Other Parliamentary SpeechesThis page is dedicated to Peter's speeches during parliament that do not fall under Questions or Questions without notice. They range from debating legislation, reporting on events or issues in his seat of Southport and his Ministerial Statements.
Child Sex Offenders |
![]() |
| Posted by Administrator (admin) on Oct 06 2004 |
| Other Speeches >> |
Mr LAWLOR (Southport-ALP) (6.10 p.m.): Once again the member for Burnett has confirmed the suspicion of everyone in the House that he got into the gene pool when the lifeguard was not looking. I support the amendment. At the outset I say that the original motion is further evidence, if it was needed, that the National Party is on the slide.
Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order. I am offended by that statement. I would like it withdrawn.
Mr LAWLOR: I withdraw. The National Party is on the slide. It is prepared to jump on any bandwagon. It gets its ideas and policies from the local media and crickey.com. It is struggling for relevance and verging on extinction.
The present sentencing regime in Queensland for child sex offenders is amongst the strongest in the country. Over the last six years, maximum sentences have been considerably increased to ensure the judiciary has available to it substantial terms of imprisonment should the circumstances of the particular case require it. The Court of Appeal, which provides the most significant guidance concerning
appropriate sentencing levels to the judiciary, has made it abundantly clear over a number of decisions that, in the absence of some exceptional or compelling circumstances, those who commit sexual offences against children ought to be imprisoned. That is the fundamental sentencing principle that Is applied in every case of this nature throughout the state. The precise level of sentence is then governed by a variety of circumstances, which include the nature and duration of the misconduct, whether there was violence or threats used, the extent of any breach of trust, whether there was a plea of guilty or other factors relating to the perpetrator.
By their very nature mandatory sentences do not reflect the circumstances that surround the commission of the offence. What is to be made of a 17-year-old youth who maintains a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl? It certainly cannot be condoned, but should there be a mandatory term of imprisonment? Surely that is vastly different to a situation where, say, a 50-year-old man maintains a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. That is why the judiciary must retain its discretion as far as sentencing is concerned.
This government has taken substantial steps to ensure the protection of our children. It has done so by reforming the laws of evidence in relation to how and when children need to give evidence and by increasing maximum penalties in relation to certain offences, when that has been considered necessary, by properly resourcing the arms of the criminal justice system by ensuring there is education about abuse in the community and that support groups are available, and by leaving to the judiciary the task of determining an appropriate sentence in an individual case. This is not the easy solution to these matters, but it is the best solution. It is a solution far more attune to the principles of justice and fairness than that provided under the jackboot of mandatory sentencing regimes.
Yet again the opposition has been loose with the facts in trying to mount an argument for its draconian proposal of mandatory sentencing. The Premier and the Leader of the House have gone through the selective statistics already provided by the National Party. In other words, if one wants to look at statistics for this period, Queensland was in line with other states in terms of the way its courts deal with sex offenders. It is not unusual for the opposition to propose an argument based on misleading and selective information. In this case it uses that misleading information to claim that mandatory sentencing is the answer. This flies in the face of research worldwide.
Mandatory sentencing is such a simplistic approach. There is no evidence from any jurisdiction anywhere to show that it acts as a deterrent. The member for Hervey Bay mentioned that there are judges in the United States actually resigning over the issue. There are various forms of mandatory sentences in the USA, which has the highest percentage of its citizens incarcerated but still has a high level of violent crime. Mandatory sentencing treats every offender the same way by imposing a minimum jail term no matter how serious the offence is. It does not ensure that the punishment fits the crime. It does not encourage offenders to undertake rehabilitation because there is no prospect of an early release. It does not deal with post-release issues such as attempted contact with victims.
A more effective approach is the one taken by our government. We have demonstrated the toughest approach of any state against paedophiles and sex offenders through wide-ranging reforms of our laws. As the opposition well knows, the concept of mandatory sentencing taking away the right of the judiciary to ensure that punishment fits the crime, as I said, has never been effective anywhere in the world. What we are seeing today is an opposition devoid of ideas, trotting out the same old tired policies that are one dimensional and do nothing to respond to the issue in a modern and effective way.
Time expired.
Last changed: [PUBLISHED_DATE] at 12:00 AM
Back
|
|
