Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (6):

(6)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of the bill, add:

9  At the end of Division 6

Add:

                 Other than as provided for in this Act, it is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on criminal history information, that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986

10  Subsection 3(1) (at the end of paragraph (c) of the definition of unlawful discrimination)

Add “or”.

11  Subsection 3(1) (after paragraph (c) of the definition of unlawful discrimination)

Insert:

         (caa)    Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914;

This contains a number of amendments. I am basically moving the balance of the amendments that we have proposed en bloc. This second group is something quite different. It is about reinserting some balance into our laws, because a long-established right is being removed. With respect to Senator Brandis’s comments about the idea of spent convictions being a relatively recent innovation, nonetheless that is something that can be granted in appropriate circumstances in courts around the country, and people have an expectation of that. So we are suggesting that amendments be made to the human rights and equal opportunity act to insert discrimination on the grounds of criminal record and make that unlawful.

This is something that was proposed by the Law Council and by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, as it was known. The commission submitted that such an insertion would ensure that employers with access to spent convictions make decisions based on the relevance of the conviction to the person’s ability to perform the inherent requirements of the particular job, so there is some affinity here with the first bloc of amendments that I moved, principally being about relevance.

Protection at the federal level is particularly important in the light of the absence of comprehensive protection on a state and territory level. Tasmania and the Northern Territory, I believe, have laws that specifically prohibit discrimination on the grounds of criminal record, so this would seek to level the playing field. It seems like a perfectly appropriate time to do so, given the nature of the bill that we are debating this afternoon. I commend this final amendment to the chamber.