Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you members too for your contributions so far. To Mr King it's good for members in legislation like this to be able to bring their personal experiences and it's for that reason that the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill specifically provides not only for the expungement in whatever nature that takes but actually that subsequent disclosure by an official of a conviction that has been expunged ought to lead to consequences too. So it was good to be able to bring that inside.Can I just come to a couple of the questions that have been raised by members so far. Kiritapu Allan asked a couple of questions: one about the extent of expungement and the other about what is disclosed. So in relation to the extent of expungement the bill is pretty clear. The specified offences which have led to a conviction those are expunged from the record but if somebody is convicted of an offence such as disorderly behaviour that might relate to the same sort of conduct that would otherwise have led to those other offences the offensive disorderly behaviour will not be expunged. But then the failure to expunge that particular offence will not lead to an inference or an implication that the person making the application has engaged in a homosexual offence and therefore subject to the discrimination that might be associated with that.On the issue of what is disclosed and particularly in relation to dealing with overseas bodies and organisations and parties I think the bill and the consideration by the Justice Committee saw that this was particularly problematic. In any event it will come down to the sort of question that is asked. So if the question is Do you have a relevant conviction or a conviction?"—and in this case the conviction under this bill has been expunged—then the person is quite free to say "No there is no conviction." because it has been expunged. If however the question is "Have you been arrested for an offence?" that will not allow the person to say no they have not been arrested. They will have to disclose that they've been arrested; they will not have to disclose the offence. So people do need to understand that particular limitation.I'm thankful to Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her adumbration of the issues that she gave. She notes the in a sense arbitrary date around which the historical offending is limited and it is offences after 4 August 1908 because it deals with the first legislation that provided for those offences which was the legislation that took effect from 4 August 1908 and then subsequently the Crimes Act 1961.The obvious question is why wouldn't you go to a period earlier than 1908 and I think the Justice Committee made a pretty pragmatic conclusion which was that it is most unlikely that there would even be descendants who would be concerned enough about convictions made before 1908 that would warrant the system to be able to accommodate that. So yes the cut-off date back to 1908 is arbitrary but I think there are good reasons for that.In terms of the specific question that Ms Radhakrishnan raised which is why compensation has not been provided for I think it was pretty clear from a policy point of view and I think the select committee discovered it was just going to be too problematic. I think it is true also to say that there are mixed views within the community about whether compensation is warranted or justified and even if you did want to work out a compensation regime how would that work what are you compensating or what is the extent of compensation? In the end I think what most submitters raised was that in order to remove the stigma associated with a conviction for these offences or this conduct that is no longer regarded as a criminal offence it is removing the record of that offence. That is the right outcome to achieve rather than trying to come up with a complex arrangement for compensation.So on that note I'm happy to have answered those questions and I look forward to the ongoing discussion."