The Bill centres on a small set of core concepts that change legal status or judicial treatment. Capture of those statutory concepts is necessary to understand who decides, who pays, and how behaviour will change.

• “Government agency” for the new Criminal Code offence: defined in new s 97A(3) to mean either a public sector entity within the meaning of the Public Sector Act 2022, s 8 or another entity prescribed by regulation (s 97A(3)). The definition therefore ties the criminalisation to existing public sector concepts and to regulatory prescription. The criminal provision treats impersonation or false representation of acting for such an agency as a misdemeanour with up to three years imprisonment (s 97A(1)).

• “False representation” in the Criminal Code context: the inserted s 97A criminalises making a false representation that the person is a government agency or acting on behalf of or with authority of a government agency. The section carves out a defence of “reasonable excuse” (s 97A(2)) and gives an example limited to genuine artistic purpose. The new offence is framed as a misdemeanour; the maximum penalty is specified at three years imprisonment (s 97A(1)).

• “Good character” as a sentencing consideration in sexual offences: s 9 of the Penalties and Sentences Act is amended to add recognition of harm to victims and to introduce detailed limits on the mitigation value of “good character” for sexual offences. New sub‑section (3A) makes the limitations applicable when sentencing an offender for an offence of a sexual nature if the offender is determined to be of good character, and then only where the good character is based on one or more enumerated sources: a character reference, standing in the community, or contributions to the community (s 9(3A)(a)-(b)). Subsections (3B) and (3C) narrow the circumstances in which good character may be mitigating to relevance to rehabilitation or risk of reoffending, and permit the court to discount good character where harm to the victim and victim vulnerability make the offence serious (s 9(3B)-(3C)). The amendments also state that a court must not treat good character as mitigating if the good character assisted the offender in committing the offence (s 9(6A), s 9(7AA)).

• Age of 16 or 17 as an aggravating factor: new subsection 9BA requires the court to treat the victim’s age where the victim is 16 or 17 as an aggravating factor in sentencing for Criminal Code s 349 or s 352 offences, unless the court considers it unreasonable because of exceptional circumstances; subsection 9BB permits the court to consider closeness in age when deciding whether circumstances are exceptional (s 9(9BA)-(9BB)).

• “Prescribed offence” in the Working with Children Act: the Bill replaces a fixed cross reference to schedule listings with the dynamic notion “prescribed offence”, and then defines that term broadly in new s 295(3) to include offences listed in schedule 2 or 4 subject to qualifications, counselling/procuring offences, attempts and conspiracies, offences with an element of intention, offences that at the time of commission were of the relevant kind, other reportable offences under the Offender Reporting Act not otherwise prescribed, and foreign-jurisdiction equivalents (Working with Children Act, s 295(3)(a)-(g)). This creates a single statutory locus for screening scope, and makes the concept capable of covering derivative or associated conduct.

• Procedural and administrative mandates: changes to s 609 of the Working with Children Act make cancellation of a negative notice mandatory where the application is successful (s 609(2) and s 609(4)(b) as amended). The Bill also corrects or updates cross references in ss 304B and 304C (cls 17-18).

• Transitional operation: for sentencing amendments (s 9) and the victim impact provision (s 179K), the Bill provides that the amended provisions apply to sentencing that occurs after commencement, irrespective of when the offence or conviction took place (ss 264-265). That mechanism makes the amendments operative against sentences imposed after commencement even where the conduct or conviction is pre-commencement.

Each of these concepts modifies decision rules. For courts, the s 9 changes change the weighing and admissibility value of good character evidence in sexual offence sentencing. For employers and screening bodies, “prescribed offence” changes which convictions or charges engage Working with Children screening rules. For potential offenders and intermediaries, the new criminal s 97A creates a distinct criminal prohibition against claiming to be a government agency or acting with its authority.

The Bill affects multiple groups and decision-makers through distinct mechanisms; who pays and who decides varies by provision.

• Offenders and potential offenders: persons who make false representations about being a government agency or acting with its authority are directly targeted by new Criminal Code s 97A and face a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment if convicted (s 97A(1)). Persons convicted of sexual offences are affected by the sentencing changes in the Penalties and Sentences Act because courts must apply the new constraints on mitigation and the requirement to recognise harm to victims (s 9 as amended, and s 179K(5) as amended).

• Courts and sentencing judges: the amendments place new obligations on courts. Section 9, as amended, requires courts to recognise victim harm as a sentencing consideration and gives detailed direction on when to treat good character as a mitigating factor for sexual offences, and when not to. The court must treat the age of a 16 or 17 year old victim as an aggravating factor in specified offences unless exceptional circumstances apply (s 9(9BA)-(9BB)). Section 179K(5) instructs courts not to infer little or no harm from absence of victim impact statements.

• Victims: statutory recognition is increased. Section 9(1)(ca) directs courts to “recognise the harm done by the offender to a victim of the offence” as part of sentencing guidelines; s 179K(5) addresses the evidentiary effect of the absence of a victim impact statement, preventing courts from drawing an inference about harm simply because the statement is absent.

• Employers, educational institutions and screening bodies: the Working with Children Act amendments alter screening scope by replacing explicit schedule lists with a “prescribed offence” concept; related amendments in the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 s 282 and Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 s 789A update their references accordingly (Schedule 1). Employers who rely on screening for recruitment, particularly in child-related work, must apply the new statutory definition to determine whether an offence triggers screening or restrictions (Working with Children Act, s 295 as amended).

• Decision-makers under Working with Children Act: officials who make decisions about negative notices now must cancel a person’s negative notice when the statutory test is satisfied, because s 609(2) is amended from “may” to “must” and s 609(4)(b) is amended to “cancel the person’s negative notice” (cl 19). This changes administrative discretion into a mandatory action in successful applications.

• Public sector entities and regulators: the new Criminal Code offence’s definition of “government agency” depends partly on entities prescribed by regulation under s 97A(3)(b). Regulators and the executive may therefore determine scope by regulation, affecting which bodies are protected by the new false representation offence.

• Police and prosecuting authorities: must apply new criminal offence, including assessing defence of “reasonable excuse” and whether the representation was false; also must consider the amended sentencing directions when advising or prosecuting sexual offences prosecuted before sentencing after commencement.

• Individuals subject to reportable offences under the Offender Reporting Act: the Working with Children Act now explicitly covers other offences that are reportable under the Offender Reporting Act but not otherwise prescribed, meaning those persons may fall within screening requirements if captured by the Working with Children Act’s broader definition (s 295(3)(f)).

Timing differences matter. The Criminal Code change (Part 3) comes into force on proclamation, while sentencing amendments come into force 1 November 2025 (s 2). Working with Children changes and Schedule 1 changes commence only after a separate Working with Children Amendment Act provision or assent (s 2(3)). These staggered commencements mean different actors must track multiple operative dates.

The Bill creates and modifies specific duties for courts, administrative decision-makers, employers and persons making representations. It also confirms certain rights and defences.

Duties on courts

• Recognise harm, and consider antecedents: Section 9(1)(ca) explicitly requires courts to recognise harm done to a victim when sentencing. Section 9(2) is amended to include “antecedents” alongside “character” as material for sentencing consideration.

• Limit use of good character as mitigation in sexual offences: Under s 9(3A)-(3D) courts must apply the narrow test before treating good character as mitigating for an offender convicted of a sexual offence if determined to be of good character. The court may treat good character as mitigating only if it is relevant to rehabilitation or risk of reoffending (s 9(3B)). The court may decline to treat good character as mitigating where the nature and seriousness of the offence, including harm to victim and victim vulnerability, make it inappropriate (s 9(3C)). Where good character “assisted the offender in committing the offence”, courts must not treat good character as mitigating (s 9(6A) and s 9(7AA)).

• Treat age 16 or 17 as aggravating in certain offences: Section 9(9BA) makes it mandatory for the court to treat a victim’s age of 16 or 17 as an aggravating factor for Criminal Code s 349 or s 352 offences unless exceptional circumstances exist; s 9(9BB) permits consideration of closeness in age when assessing exceptional circumstances.

• Avoid inference from absence of victim impact statements: Section 179K(5) now requires that absence of a victim impact statement, or absence of details of harm at sentencing, does not of itself give rise to an inference that the offence caused little or no harm.

Duties on administrative decision-makers

• Cancel negative notices where application succeeds: Section 609 is amended so that a decision-maker must cancel a person’s negative notice when the statutory test in s 609(2) is satisfied; s 609(4)(b) is amended to require cancellation.

Duties on persons and organisations

• Avoid false representation of agency status: New Criminal Code s 97A makes it an offence to falsely represent that one is a government agency or acting with the authority of a government agency. The person has the burden of showing a reasonable excuse where relevant as a defence; the statute provides one example of a “reasonable excuse”, namely a genuine artistic purpose (s 97A(2)).

Rights and defences

• Reasonable excuse defence: Section 97A(2) supplies a statutory defence if the person has a reasonable excuse, with an express example of artistic purpose. The text does not define “reasonable excuse” beyond the example, so ordinary interpretive questions will arise at application.

• Transitional application to sentences: The transitional provisions ss 264-265 ensure that the new sentencing rules apply to sentencing after commencement regardless of when the offence or conviction occurred. This gives parties the right to have sentencing determined under the new rules even for older offending, but only when sentencing occurs after commencement.

• Regulatory prescription: Section 97A(3)(b) creates a right for the executive to prescribe entities that count as government agencies by regulation. That regulatory power affects who is protected under the new criminal offence.

• Procedural corrections: The Bill clarifies cross-references in the Working with Children Act so that action after decision and notifications are aligned with the correct subsections (cls 17-18), which changes operational duties for decision-makers and notifying bodies.

The Bill leaves open interpretation of several terms that will affect the exercise of duties and rights. Examples include “reasonable excuse” in s 97A(2), “exceptional circumstances” in s 9(9BA), the scope of “offence of a sexual nature” in s 9(3A), and how closely “prescribed offence” will be applied in practice under the Working with Children Act. Those interpretive gaps will be relevant to court guidance and administrative implementation.

Penalties

• New criminal offence penalty: The Bill creates a new misdemeanour in the Criminal Code, s 97A(1), with a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment for making a false representation that one is a government agency or acting with its authority. The statute frames the offence as subject to a “reasonable excuse” defence (s 97A(2)).

• No new monetary or administrative fines specified: The Bill does not introduce explicit fines or civil penalties in the provisions supplied; its immediate penal effect is the new criminal offence in s 97A. Administrative consequences follow from Working with Children Act provisions, such as cancellation of negative notices, but the Bill does not specify monetary penalties for non-compliance by employers.

Enforcement actors and mechanisms

• Police and prosecutors: The new Criminal Code offence will be enforced by police and prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions or relevant prosecutorial authority as with any misdemeanour. The text does not amend investigatory powers but creates a new prosecutable offence to be applied through existing criminal procedure.

• Courts: Sentencing courts are the primary enforcement actors for the s 9 amendments. The Bill instructs courts how to treat certain factors in sentencing sexual offences and directs treatment of victim harm and absence of impact statements (s 179K(5)). Courts will enforce the mandatory directions about mitigation, aggravation and inferences at sentencing hearings.

• Administrative decision-makers under Working with Children Act: Section 609 changes the decision-maker’s obligation from permissive to mandatory cancellation of negative notices where the application succeeds. Sections 304B and 304C cross-reference changes reframe the administrative pathway for notification to notifiable persons and potential employers.

• Employers, education and police administrative bodies: Schedule 1 amends statutory cross references in other Acts so that screening and information-sharing obligations now hinge on the “prescribed offence” as defined in the Working with Children Act. Employers and education providers enforcing working-with-children restrictions must apply the revised statutory scope.

Operational enforcement context and limits

• Commencement staging affects enforcement timelines. Part 3 requires proclamation for the Criminal Code changes to commence (s 2(1)); Part 4 commences 1 November 2025 (s 2(2)); Parts 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 commence only after a separate Working with Children Amendment Act provision or assent (s 2(3)). Prosecutors and administrative bodies must therefore track different operative dates for criminal enforcement, sentencing approach, and screening obligations.

• The Bill relies on existing prosecutorial and judicial infrastructure. It does not create new procedural enforcement mechanisms beyond changing mandatory or discretionary duties. For example, the reasonable excuse defence in s 97A will be tested within current criminal trial process; the Bill does not shift evidential burdens except insofar as it creates the statutory defence language.

• No private right of action or direct civil enforcement: The Bill does not create a civil cause of action for victims seeking remedies under the new sentencing provisions. The sentencing amendments operate exclusively at the criminal sentencing stage. Administrative remedies under the Working with Children Act continue to be the pathway for negative notice cancellations and related employment screening consequences.

The Bill explicitly cross-links multiple Commonwealth and State statutes and creates dependency on regulatory instruments.

Direct statutory cross-references

• Public Sector Act 2022: The new Criminal Code s 97A(3)(a) defines “government agency” to include public sector entities as defined by the Public Sector Act 2022, s 8. That cross-reference imports the Public Sector Act’s definitional framework into the new offence, meaning the outer reach of the offence depends in part on how “public sector entity” is defined under the 2022 Act.

• Regulatory prescription: Section 97A(3)(b) allows other entities to be prescribed by regulation to be “government agencies” for the purpose of the offence. This creates an interaction between primary criminal law and subordinate instruments; regulators or the Governor in Council will be able to extend the statutory protection to entities designated in regulation.

• Offshore petroleum legislation: Amendments to the Crimes at Sea Act replace references to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Commonwealth) with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Commonwealth) and replace specific cross-references to subsections with references to section 8(1) or 8(2) of the Offshore Act (cl 6). The Bill therefore re-aligns the Crimes at Sea Act to contemporary Commonwealth offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage frameworks.

• Offender Reporting Act: The Working with Children Act’s new s 295(3)(f) makes certain “other offences that are a reportable offence under the Offender Reporting Act” a category of “prescribed offence” where they are not otherwise prescribed. That makes a reportable offence under one regime capable of triggering screening consequences in the Working with Children Act without additional amendment.

• Education and Police Powers Acts: Schedule 1 amends the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 s 282 and Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 s 789A to reference “a prescribed offence within the meaning of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, s 295” rather than the earlier schedule-based cross-references. These amendments align multiple State laws to the new single locus for screening offences.

Transitional and temporal interactions

• Sentencing and pre-commencement offences: The transitional provisions ss 264-265 make the amended sentencing guidelines and s 179K applicable to sentencing that occurs after commencement whether the offence was committed before or after the commencement. This produces an interaction between new sentencing law and pre-existing convictions; sentencing courts must apply the new rules to past offences when sentencing is ordered after commencement.

Implementation dependencies and interpretive gaps

• Undefined terms imported from other laws: Because s 97A defines “government agency” partly by cross-reference to another Act and by regulation, the practical meaning depends on external definitions and subordinate instruments. Similarly, the Working with Children Act’s “prescribed offence” concept refers to schedule 2 and 4 entries and to the Offender Reporting Act, so practitioners must consult those provisions and any secondary instruments to understand current scope.

• Judicial interpretation required for open standards: The Bill uses open standards that will require judicial interpretation to operationalise, such as “reasonable excuse” for s 97A, “offence of a sexual nature” for s 9(3A), and “exceptional circumstances” for the age aggravating factor in s 9(9BA). Those standards interact with case law and criminal procedure, none of which is specified in the text of the Bill.

No repeal of other enforcement mechanisms

• The Bill does not repeal other criminal offences for impersonation or fraud. It creates an additional targeted offence in s 97A rather than displacing other potentially overlapping offences; practitioners will need to consider charging options in light of existing theft, fraud or deceit offences.

Overall, the Bill effects a network of textual cross-links and operational dependencies rather than wholly novel statutory regimes; its practical reach therefore depends on how courts interpret new standards and how regulations and related acts are updated to reflect the new “prescribed offence” and “government agency” concepts.

The document supplied is the Bill text titled Penalties and Sentences (Sexual Offences) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. It contains the proposed amendments but does not include an explanatory memorandum or a prior amendment timeline. The Bill itself sets its short title in s 1 and specifies staged commencement dates in s 2. The Bill amends the following primary statutes by clause:

• Crimes at Sea Act 2001, via Part 2 (cls 3-7), adjusting schedule definitions and map references (cls 4-7).
• Criminal Code, via Part 3 (cls 8-10), inserting new s 97A and amending chapter heading (cl 9 and cl 10).
• Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, via Part 4 (cls 11-14), rewriting s 9, amending s 179K, and inserting Part 14 Division 26 transitional provisions (cl 12-14).
• Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000, via Part 5 (cls 15-19), substituting “prescribed offence” and defining it in s 295, and amending s 304B, s 304C and s 609 (cls 16-19).
• Other Acts identified in Schedule 1: Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 and Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 have specific textual amendments to refer into the Working with Children Act’s new concept (Schedule 1).

The Bill replaces references to older Commonwealth petroleum legislation with references to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Commonwealth) in the Crimes at Sea Act schedule, which indicates legislative housekeeping to align with more recent Commonwealth frameworks (Part 2, cl 6).

No previous versions, earlier amendments to the same provisions, or legislative history prior to this Bill are contained in the supplied text. The Bill includes transitional application clauses (ss 263-265) to address how the timing of the sentencing changes will operate in relation to offences and convictions occurring before commencement. The criminal offence insertion is subject to proclamation for commencement (s 2(1)), suggesting the government intends flexibility on when to bring that provision into force.

Because the Bill text as provided is self-contained, this amendment history section records only the statutory changes proposed in the Bill itself and their immediate commencement scheduling. There is no further legislative amendment history in the supplied material.

The supplied Bill text does not name or invoke any judicial decisions or litigation history. It inserts new statutory rules and definitions that will be subject to future litigation and judicial interpretation, but no cases are cited or included in the document.

The Bill identifies several open-textured terms whose interpretation will likely be the subject of future litigation, including:

• “Reasonable excuse” in new Criminal Code s 97A(2). The Bill gives a single example, “a person makes a false representation for a genuine artistic purpose”, but does not define the outer reach of reasonable excuse. Courts will determine the standard and evidentiary onus in prosecutions under s 97A.

• “Offence of a sexual nature” in Penalties and Sentences Act s 9(3A). The Bill makes the s 9 limits on mitigation conditional on the offender being “determined to be of good character” and the offence being “of a sexual nature”; classification of offences as sexual in nature will require judicial construction where borderline facts exist.

• “Exceptional circumstances” in s 9(9BA) for treating the age of a 16 or 17 year old victim as an aggravating factor. The Bill directs courts to consider closeness in age among matters relevant to exceptional circumstances; the exact contours of exceptional circumstances remain for judges to craft.

• The scope of “prescribed offence” in the Working with Children Act s 295(3). Because the Bill allows for extension to attempted, conspiratorial, and foreign-jurisdiction equivalents, courts and tribunals may be asked to determine whether particular foreign convictions or inchoate conduct fall within the statutory categories.

Anticipated focal points of litigation, therefore, are statutory construction issues rather than retroactive application challenges, because the Bill supplies transitional clauses specifying temporal application (ss 264-265). Practitioners should expect initial litigation to centre on interpretive limits and evidentiary burdens under the new s 97A defence and on the boundaries of what counts as an “offence of a sexual nature” or “prescribed offence”.

No recorded litigation history is included in the Bill text. The statutory changes will generate case law over time, but none exists in the supplied material.

The Bill contains multiple points where legal practitioners and administrators should pay attention to potentially counterintuitive consequences. These are textual features that create practical compliance or litigation risk because they change discretion, broaden scope, or leave important terms undefined.

• Staged commencement creates operational complexity. The Criminal Code changes commence by proclamation (s 2(1)), the sentencing amendments commence 1 November 2025 (s 2(2)), and Working with Children and Schedule 1 amendments commence only after a separate Commonwealth or State provision or assent (s 2(3)). Different operative dates mean that criminal charges, sentencing hearings, and employment screening may be governed by different rules depending on timing. The transitional provisions make sentencing changes apply to sentences imposed after commencement irrespective of when the offence occurred (ss 264-265). Practitioners must check the exact commencement dates to advise clients correctly.

• “Good character” mitigation narrowly confined and source-limited. The amendments at s 9(3A) limit mitigation value of good character in sexual offence sentences to the extent that good character is founded on specific sources, namely character references, community standing, or contributions. Good character grounded in other proofs may be excluded. That is likely to affect how defence counsel frames evidence: only certain sources are given statutory traction. See s 9(3A)(b) and s 9(3B).

• “Assisted the offender in committing the offence” bars mitigation. The amendments to s 9(6A) and s 9(7AA) require courts not to treat good character as mitigating where it assisted the offender. The statutory phrase “assisted the offender in committing the offence” is not defined; determining when good character “assisted” will be a contentious factual and legal question at sentencing.

• Age aggravation for 16 and 17 year old victims in specific offences. Section 9(9BA) requires courts to treat age 16 or 17 as an aggravating factor for Criminal Code s 349 or s 352 offences unless exceptional circumstances apply. The Bill references those Code sections but does not define their elements; practitioners must therefore assess exposure by cross-checking the Criminal Code. The narrowness to s 349 and s 352 means the age aggravation is not automatically generalisable to all sexual offences.

• “Prescribed offence” broadens screening reach, and includes inchoate and foreign offences. The Working with Children Act now treats attempts, conspiracies, counselling or procuring, offences with an element of intention, reportable offences under the Offender Reporting Act and foreign equivalents as potentially “prescribed offences” (s 295(3)(a)-(g)). This is a material expansion from a fixed schedule listing and may capture persons convicted abroad or for inchoate conduct who were previously outside WWC screening triggers.

• Mandatory cancellation of negative notices reduces decision-maker discretion. The change of s 609 from “may” to “must” introduce a statutory compulsion to cancel eligible negative notices (s 609(2) and s 609(4)(b)). Administrators must ensure procedural safeguards are in place; failure to cancel when the application is successful would now be inconsistent with the amended statute.

• New criminal offence depends on regulatory prescription for scope. Section 97A(3)(b) permits regulations to prescribe an entity as a government agency for the offence. Until regulations are made, coverage of the offence may be narrower. Conversely, regulations may expand the offence’s reach beyond state public sector entities. Practitioners advising organisations should monitor subordinate instruments.

• Absence of definition for key terms. The Bill leaves open definition of various key terms such as “reasonable excuse”, “offence of a sexual nature”, “exceptional circumstances” and the precise reach of “assisted the offender”. These gaps create interpretive uncertainty and increase litigation risk. Courts will need to develop tests and standards for these terms.

• Administrative cross-reference housekeeping could have substantive effects. The replacement of schedule references with “prescribed offence” in multiple Acts (Working with Children Act, Education Act, Police Powers) is framed as a drafting change, but in practice it centralises control over screening scope in the Working with Children Act’s s 295 and any subordinate instruments, which changes who decides what is a disqualifying offence.

• The “reasonable excuse” example is narrow. The supplied example of a reasonable excuse in s 97A(2) is artistic purpose. It does not mention, for example, journalistic impersonation, public interest sting operations, or authorised conduct by contractors. Prosecutors and defence counsel will need to litigate the scope of permissible excuses under the statute.

Readers should not infer the existence of other protections, exemptions or procedural steps where the Bill does not provide them. The listed items above are purely the concrete textual risks and compliance traps that follow from the Bill as drafted.

Legal practitioners, employers, administrative decision-makers and public entities will need practical steps to comply with the Bill once it commences. The following actions are directly grounded in the statutory text.

For organisations and individuals who might make representations about government status

• Update scripts and communication protocols. Any public communications or intermediaries that could be construed as representing a person as a “government agency” must be revised. The new Criminal Code s 97A prohibits false representation that a person is a government agency or acting with its authority (s 97A(1)). Include express disclaimers where necessary if communications could be ambiguous about agency status.

• Establish internal authority checks. Before claiming to act with the authority of a government agency, obtain documented authorisation. Ensure third parties are contractually prevented from implying government authority unless expressly authorised.

• Train staff on the “reasonable excuse” defence limit. The statute supplies “a genuine artistic purpose” as an example of reasonable excuse (s 97A(2)), but otherwise does not define the defence. Document the purpose for any ambiguous actions at the time they occur to preserve evidence of any reasonable excuse.

For courts and defence/prosecution counsel preparing for sentencing

• Prepare evidentiary strategies for “good character”. For sexual offence cases, counsel should ensure that if mitigation by good character is to be relied upon, it is demonstrably grounded in one or more of the enumerated sources in s 9(3A)(b): character references, standing in the community, or contributions to the community. Develop factual material that ties good character to prospects of rehabilitation or low risk of reoffending as required by s 9(3B).

• Address potential “assisted the offender” arguments. Anticipate and prepare to rebut points that the offender’s good character “assisted” in committing the offence, because s 9(6A) and s 9(7AA) bar mitigation where assistance occurred. That requires careful fact analysis and possibly expert evidence on the connection between trust, standing and facilitation of offending.

• Ensure victim harm is front and centre. Section 9(1)(ca) obliges courts to recognise harm to victims as part of sentencing. Prosecutors and victim support services should prepare comprehensive victim impact material. Defence teams should be ready to address the substance of harm in mitigation submissions.

• Account for age aggravation in appropriate offences. Where Criminal Code s 349 or s 352 are involved and the victim is 16 or 17, counsel should be ready for the court to treat age as an aggravating factor unless exceptional circumstances are proved; closeness in age is a specified consideration for exceptional circumstances (s 9(9BA)-(9BB)).

For employers and screening bodies subject to the Working with Children Act

• Revise screening matrices and policies. Replace references to schedule lists with the “prescribed offence” concept and consult the updated s 295 text to determine covered offences, including attempts, counselling, conspiracies, and foreign equivalents as listed in s 295(3)(a)-(g).

• Update HR checklists and job offer conditions. For child-related roles, ensure pre-employment checks and conditional offers account for the updated definition of disqualifying offences. If an individual has a negative notice under the Working with Children Act, note that s 609 changes mean authorised bodies must cancel it if the application meets the statutory test.

• Coordinate with legal counsel about foreign convictions. Because s 295(3)(g) covers offences under other jurisdictions that would have constituted prescribed offences if committed in Queensland, ensure that recruitment processes accurately capture relevant foreign convictions and their potential effect on eligibility.

For administrative decision-makers under the Working with Children Act

• Implement mandatory cancellation procedures. Because s 609(2) has been amended from “may” to “must”, and s 609(4)(b) requires cancellation, adjust internal procedures to process successful applications promptly and to ensure cancellation is recorded and notifications made in accordance with s 304C.

• Check cross-references and notification processes. The Bill updates cross references in s 304B and s 304C to point to s 304(1) and s 304(2) respectively. Ensure IT systems and notification lists are consistent with the new subsection numbering and that affected notifiable persons and potential employers are properly notified of cancellations.

For regulators and the executive

• Consider regulations to prescribe additional “government agencies” if intended. Section 97A(3)(b) allows prescription by regulation. If the executive intends entities other than public sector bodies to be covered by the new offence, prepare regulatory instruments and stakeholder consultation.

• Coordinate with Commonwealth-linked regimes. For Crimes at Sea Act changes, align the State’s map and adjacent area descriptions with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 references to avoid inconsistency (Part 2, cls 6-7).

Administrative and practical next steps for all affected parties

• Monitor commencement orders and subordinate instruments. Because Part 3 requires proclamation and Parts 5 and 6 are contingent on another legislative provision or assent, track commencement determinations so compliance steps are timed correctly (s 2(1)-(3)).

• Train front-line staff. Provide training for recruiters, compliance officers, legal teams and call-centre staff about the new criminal offence, the s 9 sentencing constraints, and the broader scope of “prescribed offence”. Ensure staff can identify potentially risky conduct and escalate for legal advice.

• Update public-facing materials and templates. Revise application forms, negative notice processes, recruitment pack disclosures, and any contractual clauses that might imply government agency status.

• Document decisions and decision-making criteria. Because s 97A contains a “reasonable excuse” defence and the new s 9 regime relies on judicial fact-finding and discretion, maintain contemporaneous records that bear on intent, authorisation, and the factual basis for mitigation evidence to support any later legal contest.

These steps map directly to textual duties and prohibitions in the Bill: s 97A for false representation; s 9 and s 179K for sentencing and victim impact treatment; s 295, s 304B, s 304C and s 609 for screening and administrative processes; and Schedule 1 for cross-act alignment.