Page 914 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Social Security Act—I think it used to be section 175 or 138—and I think some of the more minor offences, such as shoplifting.
I think there is strength in what she is trying to do. From my days as a prosecutor and perhaps on the other side, too, I am well aware of a number of people with no prior convictions having been convicted just once for a crime of dishonesty. There is often some reason why they committed the offence. That would indicate to me that those people are probably far more deserving of a chance than people who commit violent crimes which are not covered by this particular act and section but which would preclude a person from getting a job.
I point out that for more minor crimes, such as shoplifting and crimes under the Social Security Act, the courts in the ACT always take into account the circumstances of the offence and the defendant. A person may be a cleanskin and there may be reasons that would justify the court taking a lenient approach that would result in no conviction being recorded—for example, a section 402, which was the old section 556A, whereby an offence is proven but no conviction is recorded. Indeed, they could get a bond under that section which would require them to be of good behaviour for a period. That does not count as a conviction. So there would be instances where people would not get convictions for crimes of dishonesty and would still be okay under the current legislation. I think it is proper to make that point.
There is also a possible distinction to be drawn between proposed new clause 6A and proposed new clause 7A. Clause 6A is in relation to, I believe, the principal, the real estate agent—the one who runs the business. I have heard anecdotally today that there may well be some agents who feel that, if it is just in respect of an agency that employs a person as a worker to sell real estate, that might be a different sort of situation. That is in Dr Foskey’s proposed new section 51 (1A). There may be some scope in relation to differentiation there as well.
I have considerable sympathy for what Dr Foskey is trying to do, but I think it is important that the people involved in the industry, especially those involved in the peak body, get another opinion on it, at the very least, and preferably support it—or, indeed, that a number of agents come forward and support it. If that is the case, as I have indicated, I am more than happy to suggest to my people that we support something in the future. The information I have received today from the real estate institute is basically that they do not want to see any change. Accordingly, we will not be able to support the amendments today.
It is my experience that the real estate institute and real estate agents are not backward in coming forward and, if agents have a problem, they will go to their institute and also to members. I certainly have had representations from agents in the past. Sometimes they want to push the envelope more than the parent body, which might not want to do so, but if they see that there is a problem they will tell you. More often than not, the institute will go in to bat for them and we will hear from both the institute and individual agents. There has been deathly silence in relation to this particular issue. Certainly no-one has complained to me about it. Nor, as the institute tells me, have they had complaints from their agents. But I think it is an important issue and something that could well be revisited at another time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .