Locked up for life? Unpacking South Australia’s new child sex crime laws
- Written by: Xanthe Mallett, Criminologist, CQUniversity Australia
It’s election time[1], which means the age old “tough on crime” rhetoric is being heralded by many politicians aiming to score votes.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton is pushing for a national public sex offender register[2]. Currently only Western Australia has a registry that is open to the public.
In South Australia, Premier Peter Malinauskas brought in tougher child sex offender laws[3] earlier this week.
What are these new laws in SA?
Under these new laws, serious child sex offenders are to be permanently locked up or electronically monitored[4], if they reoffend.
Automatic indefinite detention is a significant change.
Previously, the South Australian attorney-general could apply to the Supreme Court to request an offender be indefinitely detained, if the offender was considered to remain a danger to children and could not be rehabilitated.
The courts would then decide if they would grant the request, basing their decision on medical and other expert evidence.
The changes in SA mean those found guilty of a second serious sexual offence against anyone younger than 17 now receive automatic indefinite detention.
To be considered for release under the new law, an offender needs to show they can control their sexual instincts – so the onus is on them to prove they are not at risk of reoffending.
To achieve this, two court-selected psychologists would have to provide reports demonstrating the offender was both willing and able to resist committing further sex offences.
And if they are ever released, they will be electronically monitored for the rest of their lives.
In addition, registered child sex offenders would be banned from working with anyone under 18.
The new law also strengthens “Carly’s Law[5]”, which focuses on reducing the sexual grooming of children online by adult predators.
Inconsistencies across Australia
The age of legal consent is 16 across Australia[6], except SA and Tasmania, where it is 17.
In 2024, an Australian Institute of Criminology report[7] highlighted many of the inconsistencies across the country, including terminology and definitions of sexual offences, despite efforts to achieve national regularity.
Each state and territory approaches the problem of child sexual abuse differently.
In NSW, for example, sentencing for child sexual offences has increased over time[8]. This reflects societal expectations given what we know now about the long-term, traumatic consequences[9] of victimisation.
However, one consideration in sentencing in NSW is whether the sentence could have a “crushing” effect on the offender, and whether they may be entitled to an “element of mercy[10]”.
Certainly, a full life sentence is a significant departure from this position.
Why now?
There is little doubt this is a political move, as these changes were first promised by Labor in the build-up to the 2022 SA election.
Then in January 2025, Labor announced it planned to introduce them in March – right before the federal election.
On the face of it, toughening laws aimed at reducing sexual violence against children is a good thing. No one would argue.
However, the legislation has been fast-tracked in the wake of a number of cases where those previously convicted of a sexual offence against a child reoffended.
One such case is Dylan Lloyd[11], who is alleged to have assaulted a 12-year-old girl while she travelled alone on a train. Lloyd had previously been convicted of assaulting a 10-year-old girl in 2021, and since then more alleged victims have come forward to police.
Cases such as Lloyd’s are preventable, as in this case Lloyd should still be imprisoned. This is one step forward. But consistency across states is needed and the long-term consequences need considering more fully.
Whether these laws will have the desired deterrent effect has not been answered.
We need to ensure personal and societal factors affecting crime rates, and which influence peoples’ attitudes and behaviours, are not overlooked.
Will the laws be good for the community?
These changes do have the potential to have a meaningful impact, but changing the behaviour of potential offenders is far more complex.
Potential offenders usually don’t consider the law[12]. At a micro level, their behaviour is most affected by biological and psychological factors[13], including alcohol, drug addiction and mental health issues, as well as social and environmental factors.
In addition, there are numerous human rights and constitutional issues with permanent detention or lifelong monitoring, and the SA government may be walking into a legal minefield now they have removed the possibility of parole.
It would be better to allow judges options for discretion, as the context in which the offending happened is crucial in determining the likelihood of someone being successfully rehabilitated.
Mandatory full life sentences ignore the fact many sex offenders can be successfully rehabilitated.
One study in Queensland[14], which considered local and global evidence, indicated sexual recidivism can be significant reduced when offenders complete sex offender treatment programs.
Although it costs money to run these programs, the savings outweigh the costs of ongoing incarceration – particularly if we consider indefinite detention.
Black-and-white laws with little room for movement produce unintended and harmful outcomes.
It will be interesting to see how the new laws in SA play out in court and if any other states and territories follow suit.
References
- ^ election time (theconversation.com)
- ^ national public sex offender register (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ tougher child sex offender laws (www.premier.sa.gov.au)
- ^ permanently locked up or electronically monitored (www.premier.sa.gov.au)
- ^ Carly’s Law (www.aph.gov.au)
- ^ is 16 across Australia (www.aic.gov.au)
- ^ Australian Institute of Criminology report (www.aic.gov.au)
- ^ has increased over time (www.judcom.nsw.gov.au)
- ^ long-term, traumatic consequences (bravehearts.org.au)
- ^ element of mercy (www.judcom.nsw.gov.au)
- ^ Dylan Lloyd (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ don’t consider the law (academic.oup.com)
- ^ biological and psychological factors (www.sciencedirect.com)
- ^ study in Queensland (www.publications.qld.gov.au)
Authors: Xanthe Mallett, Criminologist, CQUniversity Australia
