SPENT CONVICTIONS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2007. Page 239.)

Ms PORTOLESI (Hartley) (11:16): Today I rise on behalf of the government to oppose the second reading of this bill. The bill provides for minor criminal convictions to become spent upon the offender having completed a prescribed period during which he or she has not reoffended. A minor criminal conviction is defined as any offence, other than an offence in relation to which the convicted person is sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate term or for a term exceeding three months, whether or not the sentence is suspended, or is ordered to pay a fine exceeding $2,500.

The government released a discussion paper on spent conviction legislation in 2004. The government diligently sought the public's view on whether South Australia should enact spent conviction legislation and, if so, what form it should take. The government received many responses to the discussion paper. The majority (albeit slim) of these responses argued in favour of spent conviction legislation. The majority recognised the need to structure the legislation in order to ensure that it cannot be used by habitual or dangerous criminals to conceal a history of serious criminal behaviour where disclosure is in the public interest.

Another common theme was the need to ensure as far as possible consistency with other jurisdictions; and I am sure the member would agree with that. All jurisdictions, except Victoria and South Australia, have spent conviction legislation. At present the scope of the regimes varies across the different jurisdictions. Discrepancies exist between the legislative schemes resulting in consistencies, meaning some convictions can become spent under one state's legislation but not under another. This was a problem identified by supporters of the legislation.

A national uniform model for spent convictions has been under examination by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG). However, there have been delays in finalising this matter. In particular, because of the variations in the existing schemes, some fundamental policy questions need to be worked through. Many of these have now been addressed and a model draft bill is being drafted for presentation to ministers soon; although, obviously, that has been suspended while we are in this caretaker period.

Although no commitment to participate in a national scheme has been given at this stage by the state government, we believe that, if South Australia is to pursue such legislation, it should follow the national model, if one can be agreed on. Given recent developments of SCAG in this area, the government believes that it would be premature for the parliament to legislate in this area when the national model is so close. For this reason the government opposes the second reading of the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.