Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I once again thank members for their contributions and I'd like to take a moment to respond to some of the issues raised.Our colleague Raymond Huo referred to clause 9(7) and the fact that court records will continue to be retained. So this bill allows for a process for the conviction to be expunged and therefore for the person making the application to not be required to disclose that there was a conviction—that is the nature of expungement—and for those requesting that information not to be able to have access to it. But it doesn't mean that the record of the conviction is therefore destroyed. It is important—as I think the Justice Committee was advised—that public records because of the obligations under other statutory obligations need to be maintained and that a combination of the application for expungement which is then granted changing or altering what appears in the record that's accessible to officials who will be providing information and also constraining those officials from disclosing a conviction that is otherwise expunged I think provides the protection and the certainty that those making applications under this bill would be looking for. Once again Mr Huo raises a question about compensation. He notes that there is still a right for those who have been convicted under previous legislation and who would be entitled to an expungement under this legislation to bring claims for damages in relation to conduct against them while in custody or while incarcerated or otherwise while being handled by the authorities in relation to the offence which they were subsequently convicted of. There is that angle but compensation merely for the fact of conviction which would lead to an expungement under this legislation is too problematic and too complex to contemplate which is why the bill does not provide for compensation and why the Government also outside the confines of the legislation is not considering a compensation regime.The honourable member Greg O'Connor referred in his contribution to the definition of people who can apply for expungement on behalf of those who have been convicted. So those who are deceased but who had a conviction can posthumously achieve an expungement if someone applies on their behalf. So the legislation calls for a definition of a representative of those people and that is clearly laid out. Mr O'Connor very assiduously—and I would say with great eloquence—went through those who are defined as a representative who can make that application. It does require some proximity of relationship to achieve that. It is not any old Joe Bloggs who can turn up there and apply on behalf of somebody they don't know but because they are a busybody and might have some interest in some historical figure. It has to be somebody—a member of the family bearing in mind that a conviction of a person under those historical offences will feel a sense of shame as well and it is as much for the assuagement of their sense of shame as much as for the person who had the conviction as well.Finally Virginia Andersen referred to the issue about compensation again in clause 22 and I confirm the select committee's view is that compensation is not provided for. But then Ms Andersen focused on the test for expungement. And what that test for expungement focuses on is not just merely the conviction; it's the conduct underlying the conviction and that allows the Secretary for Justice who has to consider the applications for expungement to consider whether the nature of the conduct that led to conviction was innocent was consensual or whether there was a predatory character to it or coercion or some other nature of the conduct that vitiated the consent that you would expect that you would expect there to be in relation to activities that today would not today attract a criminal sanction.So those things are covered off and once again I thank members for their questions. I look forward to the ongoing discussion.