SPENT CONVICTIONS BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:20): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to encourage the rehabilitation of offenders by providing that certain convictions will become spent on completion of a period of crime-free behaviour; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I will not take up much of the time of the house, because this is a reintroduction of legislation I have previously put to the parliament. I just want to quickly emphasise that this is for people who have committed a minor offence and who have been crime-free for a period generally of 10 years; except where a juvenile is involved, when the crime-free period will be five years, or where the person was found guilty without a conviction actually being recorded, where the crime-free period is defined as two years.

I emphasise that this only applies to minor crimes such as use of indecent language, perhaps urinating in a public place, and things of that nature. We are not talking about bank robbery, rape, murder, or anything like that. In any case, where the offence involved something against a person by way of assault that would have to be specially considered, as would any other matter which the Attorney-General, by way of regulation, determined should be considered by a judge before the conviction could be spent.

People ring me all the time asking when this will happen. I had correspondence from the Attorney in August, in which he said that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General had been working on a national model bill. That is good, but we are still waiting to see what will eventuate. In his letter the Attorney-General said:

…we had hoped to publish the bill soon after the March meeting and consider comment at the July meeting. Alas, publication has not yet occurred…I expect that the bill will be published soon and I will be glad to consider your comment on it.

As I have said before, I do not care who puts up the legislation; I am not looking for any particular accolades in respect of this. However, we have people in the community who did something minor or silly many years ago—in some cases 20, 30 or 40 years ago—and who still have that stain on their record that prevents them from getting on with their life and, in some cases, prevents them from visiting relatives in the United States. It is causing considerable and, in my view, unnecessary pain to those people.

I am keen to see this matter resolved quickly. If the Attorney can do it more quickly then so be it. Many jurisdictions already have this provision, and we all know that if you try to get all the Attorneys-General around Australia to agree, especially now that there are governments of different flavours, the process will take ages. You have to be realistic.

I would appeal to the Attorney: let the government back this bill, let us get it through the parliament, let these people get on with their lives, and let us remove something which is currently hindering them and restricts them from leading a full life long after they did something minor and silly. Let us see a little bit of what I would call forgive and forget. I commend this bill to the house and ask members to support it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.