were used or not or whether it was just simply because it was
problematic and that was the end of
problematic and that was the end of
the conversation. So those are the
two questionss if I could add them
to the mix. Questions,
if I could add them to the mix. If I
could respond to the latest
set of queries.
respond to the latest set of queries. So to the honourable
member Tamati Coffey, who
has raised a couple of questions
about compensation and effectively why not
and I will take the opportunity
in answering Mr Coffey's question to
answer also Darroch Ball's question.
It was considered, as
I understand it, it occupied a significant amount
of the committee's time
to consider the issue of
compensation. Submitters raised it and it is
a legitimate question
legitimate question to ask given that the law changed, people have
that the law changed, people have been tarred with a criminal sanction
been tarred with a criminal sanction
for conduct though is certainly
not criminal today and we would
argue that should never have
been criminal. That was a less
enlightened age and in
1986 we became enlightened. The
difficulty of compensation is there might
be different levels
different levels of compensation for different payment because
of varying different payment because of
varying circumstances. It would be equally
unfair to
unfair to say everybody gets the same
unfair to say everybody gets the
but that would not take into account the circumstances that some faced.
For some the humiliation
may have been greater because of the nature
of the arrest, the circumstances
in which they were detained, the
length of time they
were incarcerated and whether or not they were
subjected to further
to further prejudice and discrimination while they were in
to further prejudice and this state's custody. So huge
complexity about a formula to
complexity about a formula to
achieve compensation and in the end
the judgement was
that it was just too hard.
the judgement was that it was just too hard. I think Mr Ball makes
a very important point, which is
that right now we have compensation for
those who are
imprisoned, wrongfully, and it
is then discovered that the offence for
which they are imprisoned, they
which they are imprisoned, they
actually never committed. They
never committed the act that led to
the conviction that led to
them being imprisoned.
imprisoned. They should therefore never have been detained at all in
prison and they are compensated for
that. What we are doing here
is saying there was
conduct was regarded as criminal conduct once
upon a time in our history,
whether we agree with that or not now. We
clearly disagree with it now because
in 1986 we passed a law
saying that conduct is no longer criminal. Now
we are taking the further step of
saying those who were criminalised
by that conduct but who were
otherwise innocent, we are going to
otherwise innocent, we are going to
expunge the record of that
expunge the record of that
criminalality. But the
act happened. The conduct happened. We might be
able to expunge
the criminal record but we can't expunge the act that,
in fact, took place. If I could turn
to that
in fact, took place. If I could turn
the second question asked by Mr Coffey, which was the
difference between an expungement and
a pardon. The expungement is
of the criminal record. It says,
this record should not exist. We have
made the enlightened decision that even
though you were convicted because of
the conduct that you engaged in at a
time when that conduct
was criminal, it is no longer criminal. You should
not continue to carry the
shame and humiliation of a
criminal record because in this day and age
we don't regard that conduct as criminal. So
we will expunge the record. A pardon
applies where you were accused of
conduct which was criminal but you
were later discovered to have never
committed that conduct
and therefore should never
should never have been criminalised in that sort of way. So that is
why we talk about expungement in
these circumstances, we don't
talk about a pardon, because the conduct, in
fact, happened, even though
that conduct happening today would not
be criminal and would
therefore not attract criminal sanctions. But
there is that difference. So on that
basis, I think the committee has
done a very good
job in distilling out what is the appropriate action
to take. It
is an expungement and that gets us to where we are. I know
Mr
that gets us to where we are. I know that
that gets us to where we are. I know Mr Coffey referred to the petition
that also called upon the parliament
to make an apology to those
convicted and honourable Amy
Adams, the minister who took up this
legislation originally, sponsored it
legislation originally, sponsored it
and brought it to the House and in
the first reading she provided
the apology that was called for in
the petition and I think when we get
to the third reading
we will no doubt underscore that because I think that
is a legitimate thing to
do.
Hamish Walker. I move the question be now put. The question
is that the question be now put.
be now put. The question is that the question be now put. The ayes have
it. The question is that Parts 1 and
2, Schedules 1 and 2 and Clauses
1 and 2 stand part.
2, Schedules 1 and 2 and Clauses 1 and 2 stand part. The ayes have it.
I will report
the bill without amendment.
Members,
Members, the House has resumed. Madam Speaker, the committee has
considered the
considered the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions
for Historial Homosexual Offences)
Bill and reports it without amendment.
Historial Homosexual Offences) Bill and reports it without amendment. I
move that the report be adopted.
The question is that the report be
adopted.
question is that the report be adopted. The ayes have it. The
bill is set down for third reading
next sitting day. I call on
Government order of the day No. 2. Interrupted
debate on the first reading of the
Land Transport Management (Regional
Land Transport Management (Regional
Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. When
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. When we
were last hearing this
bill Michael Wood had 7 minutes and 30
second remaining to speak if
he so chooses. I do so choose. When
remaining to speak if he so chooses.