Page 860 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with licensed agents, and section 51, dealing with people who work with real estate agents and who are licensed real estate agents but not the principal agent. In both instances, if they had been convicted in the ACT or elsewhere of an offence involving dishonesty, they could not be an agent—the Spent Convictions Act applies to that—for 10 years, basically, as I understand it.
The opposition fully supports the Spent Convictions Act. I think we introduced it. The government accepted it and agreed to it. There is some argument that even that may be too generous, but it is certainly quite fair. It deals with all convictions, for anything. One thing I probably disagree with the attorney on is that I do not see how Dr Foskey’s amendment actually compromises the Spent Convictions Act at all, because it deals with everything—murder through to parking, not that parking offences ever were actually recorded, but murder through to, say, a minor speeding matter or disobeying a red traffic light, which appears on someone’s record.
All of those are affected by and covered by the Spent Convictions Act. I think certain crimes actually remain there, but others are certainly dealt with as spent convictions. So there is a plethora of offences which that act deals with. We are only dealing with one section of the criminal law here, an offence involving dishonesty. I do not necessarily agree with the attorney in what he is saying there in terms of this amendment effectively throwing out the Spent Convictions Act. It does not, because it only deals with offences in relation to dishonesty.
Perhaps Dr Foskey is referring to the fact that at some stage people do need to be given another chance and rehabilitation does need to kick in. She does have a provision here that the person cannot be convicted of any offence—and I assume that means any offence at all—for five years before the day the person made the application. Maybe she can indicate whether she just means any offence of dishonesty. At any rate, even if it is that, that person has to be squeaky clean in terms of being honest for the five years.
The other condition which has to kick in is that the commissioner, himself or herself, has to be satisfied that the disqualification is not in the public interest. Quite clearly, that gives the commissioner a very wide discretion there. If a disqualification was in the public interest—perhaps the offence of dishonesty was just so bad, or whatever factor was there; there was some lingering doubt—the commissioner could say, “No, sorry, Abe, go away and come back at some other stage.”
I think there may be a problem with proposed subsection (1B) in terms of a conviction not including a conviction for which a prison sentence of longer than six months has been imposed. I had a quick chat with Dr Foskey’s adviser in relation to that and I think he indicated that, were this to have any chance of success, they would be happy to amend that. I think, if they were happy to amend that, that would significantly improve it, because I think it would be more appropriate, especially in the ACT, to refer to, say, a serious offence of dishonesty which carries a maximum penalty, for example, of X years rather than someone actually being in prison for longer than six months, because that may not be a very good yardstick to use, from my experience in the courts here, in terms of what she is trying to achieve. I think they actually accept that.
I have some sympathy for what she is trying to do and, with the greatest respect to the attorney, I do not think it does seriously compromise, or perhaps even compromise at all,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .