Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 2854 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

covered by the Commonwealth's spent convictions scheme. That applied to all convictions recorded by ACT courts up to 30 June 1990. The 10-year period provided by that legislation allowed people convicted before that time to expunge their records. People convicted after June 1990 are now coming through the system, and they are not able to claim the 10-year period under the Commonwealth legislation. So it is very appropriate for us, at this point, to protect people in those circumstances.

The New South Wales scheme has been in operation since 1991. There are also spent conviction schemes in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. Our bill is based very largely on the legislation in New South Wales, but we have taken some elements from the Commonwealth scheme.

The bill was released for exposure draft, and I think it has had quite wide support. Members have discussed the exemption provisions provided for in the legislation. I am aware that some commentators would prefer the operation of the scheme to be widened so that a greater number of offenders can benefit from it. Others would prefer that it be more restrictive, so that more people who have had convictions in the past can be tracked, as it were, throughout their lives. There are still other commentators who would prefer that clause 19 contain a shorter list of instances where convictions which are otherwise spent must nevertheless be disclosed. I think others believe that the list is probably too short. I think we have struck an appropriate balance in this bill. I will comment on Ms Tucker's amendments when they come forward. I certainly think we have to balance the need for people to know in certain circumstances and for others to be able to walk without the stigma of a previous conviction.

The Law Society expressed some concerns about the operation of the bill-members may recall that-and its effect on disclosure or discussions concerning convictions which are spent. I would like to spend a moment addressing issues the society raised.

I would like to assure members that, as I assured the Law Society some time ago, the bill does not totally preclude any discussion or disclosure of a person's spent convictions in all contexts. It does not prevent persons who are aware of a spent conviction, for example, from discussing that conviction. It limits the purposes for which a person such as a court official or a police officer who has access to records kept by a public authority may disclose a spent conviction. It does not require archives or libraries to purge their collections of any material that may relate to a conviction. It does not make it an offence for an archive or library to make any such material available to a member of the public.

The bill's provisions relating to disclosure are based on New South Wales legislation that has been in operation, as far as I am aware, without controversy or complication since 1991. We are basically putting an onus on those who maintain records, people such as court officials or police, not to disclose that information in an inappropriate way. That is the extent of the legislation. It does not prevent person A from saying to person B, "You know that so-and-so was convicted of assault in 1986." That is not the intention of the legislation.

There has been some confusion about the jurisdictional operation of the bill, which is understandable. Some jurisdictions inside and outside Australia operate spent convictions schemes which can operate in conjunction with the ACT scheme so that

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .