The first government roadshow promoting a new sex abuser ‘name and shame’ website provoked an odd reaction: once they heard the details, people overwhelmingly rejected the idea.
Abuser website gets thumbs down
By Bill Rowlings*
The first roadshow to ‘sell’ the NT government’s sex offender website into the community had exactly the opposite effect: those attending the forum overwhelmingly rejected the idea.
The website, proposed under draft legislaiton known as ‘Daniel’s Law, an idea imported from Queensland, is the initiative of outgoing Attorney-General John Elferink, who has announced he will shortly retire from politics.
The 29 January 2016 forum, attended by about 35 community and advocacy people, was intended to promote the concept of a public website carrying details of convicted sex offenders and where they live.
Photo: A sex offender website from Florida USA
The roadshows are needed because the AG’s proposal met strong community opposition when first floated last year. The website idea re-emerged during the January ‘silly season’ for news, with the roadshows following closely on the second public promotion of a idea many people though had died a natural death.
In the NT News, Christopher Walsh reported that the roadshow bombed. His article quoted Maxine Pache, who attended thinking that the proposed public website registry of sex offenders would protect children: she changed her mind after listening to the facts.
“I came today 100 per cent sure I would want that done and now I don’t,” she told the forum. “It’s only from what I’ve heard today and seen. To me, it’s more detrimental than it is a safety thing.
“One thing I’ve thought of that I didn’t think before I came, if this (website registry) was in Queensland before Daniel (Morcombe) was murdered, it would never have saved him. So it wouldn’t help anybody if you look at it that way.”
The vice-president of the Civil Lawyers Association of the NT – and Civil Liberties Australia member – Felicity Gerry QC outlined some of the problems with the website as highlighted by CLANT:
- victims of child sex offenders would be identified and stigmatised;
- victims would be deterred from reporting abuse by family members (the most frequent perpetrators);
- innocent family members of offenders would be identified and stigmatised;
- the value of property of innocent people living near an offender would drop;
- the website wouldn’t decrease offending; and
- the move would provoke alarm by ramping up paranoia, panic and loathing towards sex offenders, risking ‘vigilante’ action.
She pointed out that ‘Daniel’s Law’ would permit publishing the general location of an offender, along with their name, date of birth, offending history and a photograph, making it very easy to use social media to track down the precise address. http://tinyurl.com/jotyrvz
“Family abuse is much more complex than a list on a website. The time and the money is better spent on services and proper policing,” Ms Gerry said.
She said that the website proposal came without projected cost, or an indication of whether the funds would come from the police budget. It would be added responsibility of police to keep the website up to date. “There’s a dire need for more services in relation to helping abuse victims,” she said.
Ms Gerry gestured to those at the forum, saying that there was no obvious Indigenous representation: she said much more and wider consultation with the NT’s Indigenous community was needed.
North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency principal lawyer Jonathon Hunyor told the forum he was concerned the website would give the public a false sense of security. He also took issue with Mr Elferink’s continued assertion that anyone against the public registry is “on the side of paedophiles”.
“I find that … to be deeply offensive. I think everyone in this room wants what’s best for our kids,” he said. “(But) the evidence shows us this just doesn’t work.”
Mike Campbell of Victims of Crime NT told the crowd he was afraid the website would go ahead despite fundamental design flaws. “If the legislation were to go ahead in the form it was proposed earlier, it would be harmful to a lot of young people,” he said.
Mr Elferink, who did not attend the forum, said the government would decide how to proceed with the ’Daniel’s Law’ draft act of parliament after the public consultation sessions. http://tinyurl.com/hxc2wrr
ENDS
* Bill Rowlings is CEO of Civil Liberties Australia