David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 2055:

(1) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 8 (lines 1 to 25), to be opposed.

This amendment by the Greens seeks to remove from the bill the provisions that give expanded power to ASIO to use, record and disclose spent convictions information. As I'm sure the chamber is aware, a spent conviction is a conviction where there have been at least 10 years since the date of the conviction in circumstances where the individual has not been sentenced to imprisonment or was not sentenced to imprisonment for a period of greater than 30 months. I think the equivalent provision for a minor is five years. The purpose of the spent convictions regime is to allow people to get on with their lives after they've been convicted of a more minor offence so that, after 10 years, that offence doesn't keep coming back and haunting them. Of course, the spent convictions provisions only apply where there has been no further offending.

Where someone has breached the law, been taken before a court and had either a non-custodial or modest custodial sentence imposed, our law has always given people a bit of a second chance, after a period of 10 years, to not have it continually raised with them when they're seeking a job, when they are seeking to travel and when they're seeking to get on with life. Of course, over time, there have been a variety of exemptions to that so that, for certain national police record searches, spent convictions can continue to be included in a conviction search. That is for more sensitive occupations, in particular. But the broad position is that, after 10 years for those relatively minor offences, ASIO and other security agencies can't keep accessing and sharing that information. In particular, it's the sharing of information that this bill seeks to allow. It seeks to allow ASIO to continue to share information of spent convictions.

This matter went to the Human Rights Joint Committee, and the Human Rights Joint Committee gave this as their view:

1.98 The committee notes that permitting ASIO to use, file or record and disclose spent convictions information in the exercise of its functions or the performance of its functions, limits the right to privacy, particularly as it is not clear to whom ASIO may disclose personal information about spent convictions. The committee considers the measure seeks to achieve the legitimate objective of allowing ASIO access to the information necessary to perform its functions, and to protect Australia from security threats. In considering the proportionality of the measure, the committee considers it would have been useful had the statement of compatibility identified any applicable safeguards. The committee appreciates this information may not be available on national security grounds, however, without information as to whom the spent conviction information may be disclosed, it is not possible for the committee to fully assess the compatibility of this measure with the right to privacy.

1.99 The committee draws this matter to the attention of … the Parliament.

So through you, Chair, I asked the minister: what are the safeguards? The Human Rights Joint Committee has said that they can't find any. The EM contains none. The bill contains none. What are the safeguards on spent convictions?