Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to respond to some of the questions that have been raised in the last two or three contributions can I turn to the intervention by the Hon Clare Curran who raised a question about clause 13A which makes it an offence to require or request that an individual disregard expungement. As I understood Ms Curran she had two questions. One is focusing on the circumstances in which that might arise and why did the committee think it was necessary to provide a remedy for this possibility and then secondly how would the offence be enforced? So on the first this provision mirrors a similar provision in the clean slate legislation. So somebody who meets the conditions of that legislation of going through a period of time where they have not committed a low-level offence that they have previously been convicted of can apply to have their criminal record effectively cleaned up—hence the name clean slate". What I think under that legislation Parliament at that time considered was the possibility that a person seeking information about prior convictions might try to circumvent the benefit of the legislation by saying "I not only require you to tell me your current convictions but ask you to disregard your rights under"—in that case—"the clean slate legislation." It is important when considering this bill and the fact that people will wish to use it to remove the more stigmatic convictions that they have that they should not be imposed upon by others and invited to abandon the rights they will have under the bill. You can imagine a situation in which an employer a private organisation or whoever who is seeking information about a person because they want to understand about them and perhaps understand about their past track record may be brazen enough to say effectively "We know you have these rights and the benefit of this legislation but we will insist that you abandon your rights under the legislation and we're going to demand that you provide this information. And if you don't we will effectively discriminate against you."To allow an employer or an organisation to do that would be to defeat the objective of the legislation which is to remove discrimination and stigma associated with a conviction for a homosexual offence that is in this day and age not an offence. So it plays a very important role and the members of the committee are to be congratulated for having the wisdom to insert that provision in there.How would it be enforced? Well the reality is it would require a complaint to the police because if an is organisation seeking information which they're not entitled to—and in fact seeking information which the person being asked to supply is not obliged under this legislation and in fact is protected from disclosing—that organisation should not be able to conduct themselves in that way. They should not be able to defeat the individual person's rights and the benefits they would have under this legislation. So they would lay a complaint with the police and the penalty is set at $10000 which is an indication from this Parliament that discriminatory action is seen as a serious thing by this Parliament—that one citizen or one legal entity should not be able to discriminate against an individual.My colleague Dr Duncan Webb asked about clause 5 and the fact that that clause which defines the historical offences which are the subject of the legislation is very specific about the particular offences which can be expunged on application to the Secretary for Justice. And Dr Webb asked the obvious question: why could other offences that may have in their commission related to homosexual conduct not be the subject of an application for expungement?And the problem with that is if you consider offences like disorderly conduct or exposure—I can't remember the technical nature of the offence—that it would add considerable complexity to the job of the Secretary for Justice to consider applications for offences that can be applied in a number of situations for many of which there will be legitimate reasons for the convictions and for which there will be no legitimate reasons to not continue to record that conviction. You know an offence like disorderly conduct has an enormous breadth of application and so although the conduct to which it might apply might be homosexual conduct which this bill in its specificity is seeking to avoid the stigma associated with to determine whether or not the particular offence on that person's record relates to homosexual conduct or something else would add considerable effort and complexity and it would make the bill unworkable.So I think the committee has struck the right balance in ensuring that the bill remains workable and achieves its fundamental objective which is removing the stigma of criminal offences from a day and age when it was regarded as criminal—which in this day and age is not—and to then therefore remove the stigma and shame associated with that.If I could turn to the question raised by the Hon Kris Faafoi in his contribution which is the definition of "representative" under clause 4. And he is right. The definition of "representative" goes through a number of steps. There are the legal agents that a person may have and then there are the family members and there is your spouse and civil union partner and what have you and then there are family members—a parent sibling or child. And the quite legitimate question is: why not a grandchild given that the bill will apply to offences that go back to 4 August 1908? And if there is somebody who has a conviction from 1909 in this day and age it is most likely going to be a grandchild who will want to make the application.But I think he also touches on the answer to the question which is that subclause (d) of that definition of "representative" allows the Secretary for Justice to exercise a discretion to allow somebody who does not fall into the definitions in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) to also make the application and therefore have the application considered. And I think that is the basis on which a grandchild or some other—it might be a nephew or a grandnephew or grandniece who might make the application. I think what the Secretary for Justice will look for is a familial link a proximity of the person making the application to the person who has the conviction on the basis that a conviction of this nature in the unenlightened age when these convictions were happening is as much a source of shame to the family as it is to the individual itself. When the individual has passed on—they're deceased—it is possible for that family to continue to wear the embarrassment and the shame of that conviction which they should not. So I think the member should be reassured if I can do so that the Secretary for Justice will be expected to take a fair large and liberal interpretation of his or her discretion under paragraph (d) to ensure that this bill is of value to those who've suffered the ignominy of a conviction for conduct which today is not at all regarded as criminal. So I thank the member for bringing that issue to the attention of the committee but I consider that it is covered off by the other provisions in the bill."