Page 861 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Spent Convictions Act, which would still apply. I am concerned that it is late. I thank her offsider for apologising for that. It is difficult in this place, at times. I am concerned, though, that basically I do not know that it would be the view of the real estate agents themselves. It is certainly something I have not actually had any representations on. We probably would be mindful of supporting this with amendments, but I would certainly like to hear from Dr Foskey further in relation to whether the real estate institute or anyone has actually complained about this matter and has suggested that this is a good way forward. I note the government’s view. This amendment is going to go down anyway. But I would like Dr Foskey to address that point, if she could.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (11.49): Just on a point of clarification: the point I was seeking to make in relation to spent convictions was not that it undermines the Spent Convictions Act across the board. The point I was making essentially was in relation to the introduction into the operation of the spent convictions legislation of a hierarchy in relation to the professionals or the industry representatives, or however one might classify them, that are covered by the Agents Act—in other words, real estate agents, stock and station agents, employment agents and travel agents. They are the agents that are covered by the Agents Act. The point I was making was simply that there is a whole range of other professionals, covered by the same provision as the spent convictions legislation in relation to dishonesty, who are also disqualified for 10 years.
So we are developing, through this particular amendment, a hierarchy of disqualification as between professionals operating under the Agents Act and professionals who operate under other legislation. I would have perhaps to go back to the Spent Convictions Act. I talk about lawyers. I assume the spent convictions legislation applies to a lawyer and would apply in the same way to a lawyer as a real estate agent. I assume that. I would perhaps have to look at that. I have not looked at the legislation, but I use a lawyer by way of example.
The amendment would have the effect of providing, in relation to real estate agents, stock and station agents, employment agents and travel agents, a regime in relation to spent convictions where the spent conviction related to an offence around dishonesty. At the moment the spent convictions legislation applies equally as between professionals, namely, real estate agents, stock and station agents, employment agents, travel agents and other professionals. I said, for example, lawyers. I assume they would, under the spent convictions legislation, be in exactly the same boat as real estate agents. But you can name any other professional that might fit, and there is a hierarchy created.
So why have the spent convictions legislation in relation to professionals or industry operatives at all? Just say, “Look, we will deal with that in industry-specific legislation. Any legislation under which a professional who is registered operates will deal with issues in relation to spent convictions. We will not bother to have a generalist piece of policy in relation to spent convictions. We will do it industry by industry in their separate registration.” Pick a ball. I do not know whom it applies to. I have not looked. Is it to nurse registration, physiotherapists, other people perhaps where there is some fiduciary duty? I am not sure. I would have to go back to the Spent Convictions Act, but that is the concern. Why create a hierarchy in relation to different industry or professional groups in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .