Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Website: Human Rights

DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ON THE
BASIS OF CRIMINAL RECORD

Click here to access:

Submission No. 79 - Joint Submission from Sisters Inside Inc., Catholic Prison Ministry, Prisoners Legal Service

Sisters Inside Inc.
PO Box 3407, South Brisbane Q 4101
Phone 07 3844 5066
Fax 07 3844 2788
E-mail admin@sistersinside.com.au

Catholic Prison Ministry
PO Box 5251, West End Q 4101
Phone 07 3846 7577
Fax 07 3844 2703
E-mail cpm@cpmqld.com

Prisoners Legal Service
PO Box 5162, West End Q 4101
Phone 3846 5074
Fax 3844 2703
Email pls@plsqld.com

9 th March 2005

Ms Susan Newell
Policy Officer, Human Rights Unit
Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission
GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Ms Newell

RE: DISCUSSION PAPER - DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL RECORD

Please find enclosed the joint submission in response to the Discussion Paper “Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of Criminal Record”, which has been jointly prepared by the following organisations:

Sisters Inside Inc.
Catholic Prison Ministry
Prisoners Legal Service

If further information is required please do not hesitate to contact me on the above telephone number during office hours.

Yours sincerely

Debbie Kilroy
Director
Sisters Inside Inc.

FOR & ON BEHALF
Denise Foley , Coordinator, Catholic Prison Ministry
Susan Bothmann, Coordinator, Prisoners Legal Service

We are greatly encouraged by the initiative of the HREOC to prepare a Research Paper that will examine the issue of discrimination in employment on the basis of criminal record. The dismantling of such discriminatory practices is critical to the goal of rehabilitation for previous offenders and to the preservation and promotion of the right to work.

The three organisations covered by this submission, Sisters Inside (SIS), Prisoners' Legal Service Inc (PLS) and Catholic Prison Ministry (CPM) each has a perspective about the issues concerning discrimination in employment based on criminal conviction, many of which you raise. Our perspectives are similar and have considerable common ground as a result of our common client group, prisoners and ex prisoners in Queensland.

Our clients suffer particular prejudice when their previous convictions are disclosed. Not only do they face discrimination arising from their criminal convictions but further prejudice from the fact that they have suffered periods of incarceration. There tends to be a perception in the uninformed community that if one has suffered imprisonment then one is by definition a 'serious' criminal. This creates an overwhelming burden on ex prisoners attempting to rehabilitate themselves.

Employment as part of the rehabilitation process

Engagement in employment is often a critical factor in the rehabilitation of individuals who carry the burden of a criminal record. Employment can and does provide a means to support their families and provides opportunities for vocational and educational development.

Discipline, responsibility, social engagement and financial independence can provide a diversion from some of the emotional and domestic challenges faced by people who find themselves in conflict with the law. Working men and women are less likely to re-offend and thus have better prospects and motivation to improve and cope more effectively with the various stressors that may be present in their lives. We understand the difficulties of balancing complex and sometimes disparate needs of stakeholders involved in this issue but see the benefits for both people with a criminal history and the community at large in past offenders becoming participatory members of society and free from offending lifestyles requires non-discriminatory employment practices and opportunities.

Social context of people in conflict with the law

National statistics

National statistics for criminal convictions are not available; however data relating to prison populations remains relevant to an analysis of trends in criminal convictions.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that:-

Of the average daily number of full-time prisoners in Australia in the June quarter 2004, 21,568 (93%) were male and 1,581 (7%) were female.. Males were 14 times more likely to be in prison than females. ^[1]

In respect of statistics for Indigenous prisoners the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that:-

In 1992, 14% of all male prisoners were Indigenous and 18% of all female prisoners were Indigenous. By 2002 this proportion had risen to 20% for Indigenous males and 25% for Indigenous females. even though Indigenous persons were estimated to comprise just over 2% of the total Australian population in 2002. ^[2]

It is quite likely that indigenous women would be over represented in the class of offenders who do not receive a custodial sentence just as they are over represented in prison. Indigenous women comprise 29% of all women under custodial orders in Queensland.^[3]

Most custodial sentences are actually short. Approximately 85% of women have been sentenced to less than two years imprisonment. Most men are serving sentences of less than four years. Whilst the rates of reoffending are relatively similar, the reasons as reflected in the types of offences are different. In the case of men offences against the person figure significantly, whereas for women offences that are drug related are predominate.

Approximately 61% of male prisoners had served previous prison sentences, 54% of the female prison population had a prior history of imprisonment. Drug offences accounted for 17% of women in prison but only 7% of men. While 57% of men were convicted of violent offences, only 38% of women were.^[4]

According to the Department of Corrective Services Queensland:-

There are significant differences in the offending patterns between male and female offenders. Drug offences make up a greater proportion of offences committed by women in contrast to men. Fewer women than men are convicted of violent offences. Homicide offences for women have decreased over the past five years; however, robbery and break and enter offences have increased. Fraud and misappropriation account for a significant proportion of all property offences for women. There is a small number of women imprisoned in Queensland for sex offences.

Women prisoners, on average, serve less time in custodial centres than their male counterparts. In general, the crimes they are convicted of are offences that carry less penalty and there is a significant impact on the correctional system of admissions of women for fine default. ^[5]

Over 85% of female prisoners are mothers of young children and are usually the heads of single parent households. Although no statistics are available to confirm, it is the view of the Women's Policy Unit of the Department of Corrective Services Queensland that this figure is likely to correlate with the numbers of women on community based orders also.^[6]

Upon their release from prison, women are less likely than men to be convicted of a subsequent offence, even less so a crime of violence. This suggests that the risk of women offending violently against the community is low.

Women's context

We generally submit that women found guilty of offences should be treated differently from their male counterparts, as the nature of women's offending behaviour is quite different to that of men.

Women compose a significantly smaller proportion of the total number of offenders and by the nature of their offences, pose a minimal threat to the community. Women often suffer as victims of crime and as perpetrators of crime. They are economically disadvantaged and bear the overwhelming responsibility for the care of their families. Thus in the interests of proportionality, fairness and equality, these women should not be indifferently placed in the same category as male offenders but that the Research Paper should consider the unique status of women with criminal records.

Of those women offenders who receive a sentence of imprisonment for their behaviour, many characteristically suffer dependency and poor self esteem linked to poverty, lack of education, lack of skilled employment, abusive relationships, early parental separation, foster care, prostitution, homelessness, suicide attempts, self injury and substance abuse.

Prior to being imprisoned, many women have experienced multiple disadvantages. Over 50% of women in prison have been placed "in care" as children and approximately one quarter had been imprisoned in a juvenile detention centre. Prior to incarceration, 98% of women prisoners had experienced physical abuse and 89% had experienced sexual abuse.^[7]

The previous information provides a snapshot of the statistics and social context for criminalised Indigenous and non-Indigenous women. However, as statistics specific to women convicted of offences in Queensland or nationally are scarce, much of the information identifies trends as they relate to the statistics on women who have received sentences of imprisonment. (see also Appendices One and Two )

What needs to be done to eliminate instances of discrimination on the basis of criminal record?

Privacy vs public interest: How should information concerning criminal records be managed?

Employment Issues

A job applicant or an employee with a criminal record is clearly at a disadvantage in circumstances where an employer seeks information regarding any previous convictions. The position of the convicted applicant or employee remains tenuous and uncertain while they wait for the employers "verdict". This insecurity affects the applicant or employee even in circumstances where the convictions recorded against them are irrelevant to the employment position. Ultimately, an employer is in a position to exploit the vulnerabilities of applicants or employees with criminal convictions. If we expect convicted persons to become law abiding citizens, we must address this imbalance by introducing measures that protect and promote their right to work.

It is only possible to discriminate against people with convictions if others are aware of the convictions.

The underlying assumption in relation to disclosure of convictions to employers must be that there could be a risk to the employer or other staff if a convicted person is employed without that 'status' being acknowledged.

We are concerned about the ever increasing reliance on the notion of risk in modern jurisprudence. It is not provable that a person with a conviction will be more likely to offend against his/her employer. Furthermore, it is notoriously difficult if not impossible, to assess this risk in specific cases in advance.

The convicted person will have received some disposition arising from the offence(s) and have completed any sentence, paid or be paying off any fine or undertaken community work. These dispositions constitute the penalty or punishment the law and society deems fitting. The principle that the offender has then paid their debt to society is well established and universally recognised.

We submit that there must be overwhelming justification before it can be a requirement that a convicted person must or should disclose his/her convictions. The emphasis on risk aversion in modern management practice is intrinsically discriminatory. It may seem as if the individual offender's risk of reoffending in the employment setting is the focus of a policy allowing disclosure, but the aim of risk management is not to actually prevent an individual from offending, rather it is to protect the employer from legal consequences and increasing costs of insurance should an offence occur in circumstances where all supposed risks have not been disclosed. There is no empirical correlation between risk management indicators and actual incidence of offending behaviour. It is universally accepted in all studies on the subject that past offending, in isolation, is not an indicator for future offending.

Yet the impact of the stereotype "once a crim always a crim" combined with the risk aversion culture mitigates against proper assessments of specific circumstances being made from real data. Generalities become so sweeping as to be meaningless, but their impact is grossly discriminatory.

We submit that by limiting the availability of information forming part of an individual's criminal record, discrimination based on criminal records is less likely to occur. Information regarding a person's criminal record should not be publicly recorded and publicly available, but should be able to be accessed on a need to know basis only.

As your paper points out, there is no selectivity in relation to criminal records in most States. If the employer has the right to ask and receive this information he/she gets it all. It then becomes a post facto exercise for him/her to determine whether the offences are relevant to the inherent requirements of the position. This allows potential prejudice to arise. Our experience shows that once a prospective employer knows that a client has been in prison the chance of the offender being offered the job is slight.

The post facto exercise in relation to criminal records has been addressed in the past in Queensland by the existence of organisations such as Second Chance Business Register. As well as assisting prisoners to find employment upon their release services such as Second Chance were able to work with employers to educate, resource and support businesses to understand the barriers faced by ex prisoners and to work with them when they employ people returning to the work force from prison. The demise of these services has left those with criminal records being serviced by mainstream employment services that are unable to provide the same level of support to employers and consequently do not promote successful outcomes for employers. Education and support are essential for both employers and those with past convictions so that job placements are successful. Furthermore, education and support reduce reliance on the risk aversion approach to criminal records which are provided without any annotation or discussion.

For women particularly, the shame, public humiliation and stigma of being labelled a "bad woman" by the criminal justice system can often be crushing. Perhaps she is in a violent relationship, suffering marriage breakdown, has lost her job or is experiencing family trauma and, through a combination of drug abuse and poor decision making, finds herself in conflict with the law. She knows that she must receive her punishment on her day in court and serve her sentence over the designated period. Must she also carry the stigma of a recorded conviction with her every time she goes to the employment office, enquires about a vacancy or goes to a job interview?

It is the circumstances which follow once disclosure is required or has occurred that are what give rise to the potential for discrimination in a number of ways. Disclosure can lead to failure to obtain the position; it can lead to inappropriate suspicion and accusations in the work place, victimisation, potential for blackmail or other coercive behaviours towards the convict and the potential for other staff to take advantage of the offender's vulnerability.

We would submit that in an overwhelming number of cases there is no need for criminal convictions to be required by employers and potential employers. Problems do arise in the workplace but they are just as likely to be initiated by other staff members as the ex offender. In our experience the positive step of having obtained a job, which is generally very difficult for under-educated unskilled ex prisoners, is something that our clients would be reluctant to jeopardise.

We accept that some positions of employment require degrees of trust to be shown by and towards staff members. Nevertheless the fact that employers are permitted to ask whether an employee has convictions as a matter of course should be addressed. The imbalance the current situation creates between the right of privacy and the interests of the employer is itself a potential trigger for discrimination.

There will of course be circumstances where employer's engaged in certain enterprises (eg childcare, security providers etc) may wish to gain access to an individual's criminal record. It is submitted that it is not appropriate to permit employers to simply seek disclosure of such information directly from the applicant. The employee or applicant who reveals the existence of a criminal record is immediately compromised regardless of the relevance or otherwise of their criminal history.

To overcome such prejudice, it is recommended that employers should not be permitted to directly seek criminal history information from employees or applicants. Rather, it is suggested that such information could be provided to employers upon application to an independent agency with the consent of the applicant/employee. The intention is that employers seeking criminal history information should, as a matter of practice, make application to an independent agency in respect of all applicants/employees. In this way, the need to identify an employee/applicant as having a criminal history is circumvented and the possibility of irrelevant discrimination is averted.

The agency should assess the application according to the "inherent requirements test". If satisfied that the employment position meets the test, the agency should advise the employee of their decision and the reasons for their decision. The agency should only have the power to release information on the criminal record that is relevant to the employment position. The employee should have a right of review in respect of the agency's decision. Should criminal history information be released to the employer, the employer must provide procedural fairness to the employee before any decision to terminate or vary the conditions of their employment is made.

The HREOC Act and State legislation do not currently provide sufficient protection to employees and job seekers who have criminal convictions. As discussed previously, legislation should be enacted to control the dissemination of information regarding criminal convictions in order to create an environment where a convicted person need only reveal their criminal history in circumstances where it is relevant to their employment.

Furthermore, the HREOC Act does not currently provide sufficient remedies or legal protection to persons who have suffered discrimination on the basis of an irrelevant criminal history. The Act should outlaw such discrimination and provide remedies to successful complainants including reinstatement and compensation.

It is submitted that the HREOC should recommend to the Federal Attorney General and to all State Attorneys General (except the Northern Territory and Tasmania^[8] ) the enactment of legislation outlawing discrimination of any kind against persons who have a criminal record. Such legislation should ensure that each jurisdiction has a tribunal which has the power to make orders for reinstatement, compensation and (where appropriate) costs against the unsuccessful party.

The HREOC should, where necessary, recommend amendments to Federal and State industrial relations legislation to ensure that the unlawful termination of employment on the basis of an irrelevant criminal record is reflected in unfair dismissal provisions.

Disclosure of Identity

It is clear that the administration of justice must occur in an open and transparent manner to enable the public to freely criticise and scrutinise the legal process. However, it is submitted that the role of the media in this open and transparent process is not self evident.

We do not suggest that court proceedings should occur in camera, or that the identity of the convicted offender should be suppressed. We suggest that whilst the details of a case or sentence should be revealed in full, the publication of the convicted person's name should be suppressed in the media and on the public record.

The notion that the press can be censored in such a way is not without precedent. There are specific matters during court hearings that the media is not permitted to report. For example the name of a defendant during committal hearings is not disclosed by the media, there is also an implied direction that the hearing of a voir dire in criminal proceedings is not permitted to be reported upon until the jury has delivered its verdict. ^[9] Furthermore, a report revealing the criminal history of an accused, in circumstances where the jury is unaware, could amount to contempt of court. In certain circumstances, the court can also impose measures to prevent the publication of the identity of a witness or evidence. ^[10]

As such, it is submitted that statutory protections should be afforded to convicted persons to prevent the publication of their names in the media. Similar controls should be put in place to ensure that the public record reflects only the details of the offence and not the identity of the offender (as occurs in the case of juvenile offenders).

Ultimately a person's right to work following criminal conviction should form part of their rehabilitation rather than as another obstacle to be overcome in the struggle to regain the dignity and self esteem needed to support themselves and their family. The release of a convicted person's name should be the exception rather than the rule.

In Queensland those charged with offences of a sexual nature often have their names suppressed so that the identity of the victim is protected. We currently face an environment in Queensland where those convicted of child sex offences are increasingly being identified in the media, as their release dates draw closer. Whilst this is a complex issue, one of the by products of this "outing" is the ultimate denial of employment opportunities for these individuals. Once their names and photos have been plastered all over the media, their opportunities for employment and meaningful contributions to life and society are greatly diminished. Dislocation and isolation is particularly unhelpful in ensuring that these categories of offenders remaining offence free.

As a complement to a general media control order, legislation should be introduced to prevent private providers from accessing or trading in information regarding an individual's criminal history particularly in circumstances where the information is available from government bodies. The business of obtaining a private profit from such information is objectionable and, we would suggest, unethical. Penalties should be imposed for unlawfully trading in such information.

Persons applying for admission, licences or registration in certain occupations

In keeping with the above submissions, it is suggested that licensing boards, professional registration bodies etc (the "licensing body") must not seek information concerning an applicant's criminal history status directly from the applicant. Rather, the licensing body should only be permitted to access an applicant's criminal history status by application to the independent agency mentioned above.

As discussed above, the agency should assess the application according to the "inherent requirements test". If satisfied that the admission, licence or registration meets the test, the agency should advise the applicant of their decision and the reasons for their decision. The agency should only have the power to release information on the criminal record that is relevant to the application. The applicant should have a right of review in respect of the agency's decision. Should criminal history information be released to the licensing body, the licensing body must provide procedural fairness to the applicant before any decision to refuse or vary the conditions of their licence, registration or admission is made.

In Queensland the introduction of the Blue Card system to prevent people with child sexual offences from gaining employment in child related fields, has had two unintended consequences that concern our organisations.

The first being the attachment to this legislation of a very wide schedule of offences. Whilst the initial intention of the Blue Card provision was to directly target those with child related charges and convictions, we are aware of individuals who have been required to seek special exemption because of largely old convictions that appear in the schedule but were not child related (for example property or drug offences totally unconnected with children).

Our second concern in relation to the Blue Card is the impact this process has on indigenous community members. High incarceration rates of Indigenous Australians and our increasing awareness of indigenous Australians both experiencing abuse and being perpetrators of sexual abuse in Indigenous communities has resulted in a Blue Card system that is indirectly discriminating against Indigenous people. There are numerous Indigenous people who have had prior convictions for sexual offences but who have endeavoured to, and succeeded in, rehabilitating themselves in order to provide leadership and role modelling in their communities. The Blue Card system in Queensland requires a great deal of advocacy on an individual's behalf to override a prior sexual offence and significantly limits Indigenous people's ability to work in many youth and welfare related fields.

Spent convictions legislation

As HREOC may be aware, the Commonwealth Attorney General's office is considering the merits of a national uniform spent convictions scheme. Sisters Inside and Prisoners' Legal Service prepared submissions in response to the consultation which was forwarded to the Queensland Attorney General's office in October 2004.

The status of spent convictions legislation in Australia will be critical to any strategy to eliminate discrimination against people with criminal histories. Spent conviction legislation is of limited benefit while the only criteria is the passage of time - far more expansive and decisive measures need to be taken if the right to work is to be promoted and protected.

Sisters Inside response to a proposed national uniform spent convictions scheme generally argued that women found guilty of offences should be treated differently from their male counterparts because of the different nature of women's "offending" behaviour.

We do not accept ten years as the benchmark period following which an adult offender is entitled to treat their criminal record as effaced rather we argue that a context and individual circumstances would be more appropriate measures.

In addition, the benefits of the scheme should not be confined to "less serious offences" or to offenders sentenced to serve a period of 24 months of imprisonment or less. We offer support to many prison "long termers" and reject the notion that people serving terms of imprisonment longer than 24 months are beyond the scope of the scheme and thus by implication, beyond rehabilitation.

For example, the current Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) and the proposed national uniform spent convictions model, would mean that Debbie Kilroy, the Director of Sisters Inside, would remain beyond the scope of the scheme - in effect beyond redemption. Under the current proposal she could never be a member of a recognised incorporated association's management committee due to her particular conviction. Despite the fact that since completing her sentence she has been a valuable and contributing member of the community - she has completed a Bachelor of Social Work, is currently completing a Bachelor of Laws, has been awarded the Order of Australia Medal (2003), the Telstra business woman of the year(2003), the Human Rights medal by HREOC (2004) and has been the Director of Sisters Inside since 1998 - she is still not considered to be rehabilitated by certain aspects of the law and the situation would not improve under the new proposals.

It is submitted that the HREOC should contribute to the consultation in order to highlight the deficiencies of the proposed national uniform spent convictions model in addressing discrimination faced by persons falling outside of the current scope of the scheme.

Not directly related to employment issues but significantly impacting on our client groups, is the confusion in many people's minds about what a spent conviction is, and the problems this raises when seeking to be a visitor to a correctional centre. In all Queensland prisons, entry is granted on the provision of a criminal history clearance. Numbers of visitors are under the impression that if the conviction is spent then they do not have to declare this information (on the visits booking request forms). A number of visitors have been refused entry, banned from visiting their family member in prison for a minimum of three months as well as being threatened with fraud charges for fraudulently completing the application form. The stressful nature of a prison visiting environment after your family member has been incarcerated, often means people are reluctant to disclose old criminal histories for fear of being refused contact with their loved one.

Whilst this does not impact on a person's employment opportunities, the issue of spent convictions and the non uniformity of spent convictions continue to cause great distress for many people with a criminal record.

Information that is kept as part of a "criminal record"

The collection and recording of offences' data varies widely from state to state. Police records from computer databases are sometimes used in criminal hearings as the document the lawyers and the adjudicator rely upon when sentencing offenders. Sometimes these documents contain extensive material about juvenile infractions, charges, failures to appear on bail, traffic offences and other infringements including non-payment of fines. It is also not uncommon for the entries to contain gross errors. These documents are rather too generally available and we recommend that procedures be implemented to ensure that the utmost care and control is exercised about the release of this highly prejudicial material.

Whilst most jurisdictions have more 'formal' records that do not contain any information other than convictions, there is no standardisation for the form of these documents or what they contain. It is absolutely imperative that rules be established, preferably across all states, regarding the form and content of those criminal history sheets that can and are being made available on request. Even where the offender is required to give consent to the release of their record they often do not get a copy themselves and they do not always know what information it holds.

It is submitted that information that is kept as part of a criminal record should not include such matters as charges, court appearances, findings of guilt with no conviction recorded, matters awaiting hearing, matters under investigation, police intelligence and traffic infringements.

It is suggested that traffic infringements should be kept as part of a traffic record and not form part of a criminal record. Nor should reference to other fines and infringements, such as failure to buy train tickets, failure to vote or on the spot offences such as littering be included.

It is most important that juvenile offences are not disclosed in any circumstances.

It is also vital that, in cases where charges have been found proven but no conviction is recorded that references to these matters are excluded from the record.

Prison Labour

Prisoners have already experienced discriminatory employment practices while they were in prison. The fact that they continue to be discriminated against on release adds insult to injury. Prison labour is almost always of the most menial and pointless kind (for example one "commercial" job available in prison is packing plastic forks in bags of ten). People leaving prison have rarely picked up much useful job training on the inside contributing to them experiencing great difficulty securing employment after release.^[11] The further burden of having to deal with disclosure of their criminal record to potential employers mitigates against former prisoners being able to find reasonable paid employment.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that legislation be introduced to prevent the media from publishing the identity of convicted offenders.

Recommendation 2 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that legislation be introduced to prevent the recording of an offender’s identity on the public record.

Recommendation 3 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that legislation be introduced to prevent private providers from trading in information that identifies an individual’s criminal history.

Recommendation 4 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that legislation be introduced to establish an independent agency with the power to assess applications by employers and licensing bodies seeking criminal history information about applicants/employees.

The agency must provide procedural fairness to the employee/applicant. The employer/licensing body must provide procedural fairness to the employee/applicant.

Recommendation 5 - Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that legislation be introduced to prevent employers from seeking details of an applicant/employee’s criminal history other than through the independent agency.

Recommendation 6 – Recommend to the Federal Attorney General’s office an amendment to the HREOC Act to permit HREOC to provide remedies of reinstatement and/or compensation in respect of discrimination against persons with criminal histories.

Recommendation 7 – Recommend to all State jurisdictions (except NT and Tasmania) that anti-discrimination legislation should be amended to include the outlawing of discrimination against persons with criminal histories. All jurisdictions should also have the power to order reinstatement, compensation and make costs orders (where appropriate).

Recommendation 8 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that industrial relations laws be amended to include discrimination against a person with a criminal history as a ground of unlawful dismissal.

Recommendation 9 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that spent convictions legislation should be amended to permit a discretionary waiting period. Further amendments should be made to ensure that the legislation covers all previous offenders regardless of the length of their sentence.

Recommendation 10 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that criminal histories should not include charges, court appearances, findings of guilt with no conviction recorded, matters awaiting hearing, matters under investigation, police intelligence and traffic infringements.

Recommendation 11 - Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that traffic infringements should form part of a traffic history only.

Recommendation 12 - Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that child protection legislation (such as the Blue Card system in Queensland) be amended so that it effects only those convicted of offences against children and so that actual rehabilitation, particularly among Indigenous people, is taken into account.

Recommendation 13 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that in the process of standardising spent convictions legislation, plain English drafting be used so that all interested parties will be able to understand and assess which previous convictions will remain unspent and that the bases for retaining convictions on a person's record will be structured to take account of that person's special circumstances.

Recommendation 14 – Recommend to all State and Federal jurisdictions that services be provided to support former prisoners seeking employment and employers offering employment to former prisoners.

Appendix 1

Key statistics

National and Queensland statistics for women and crime reveal the following features:

a. In 2004, women constitute approximately 7% of the total prisoner population in Australia; ^[12]

b. In 2004 Indigenous women constitute approximately 18% of the total female prisoner population in Australia; ^[13]

c. Between 1999 and 2000,women were found guilty of approximately 21% of the total offences committed by adults in Queensland; ^[14]

d. Between 1999 and 2000, girls were found guilty of approximately 18% of the total offences committed by juveniles in Queensland; ^[15]

e. Between 2002 and 2003, 85% of women sentenced to imprisonment in Queensland were sentenced to serve less than two years; ^[16]

f. Between 2002 and 2003, 17% of women sentenced to imprisonment in Queensland were convicted of drug offences; ^[17]

g. Between 2002 and 2003, 38% of women sentenced to imprisonment in Queensland were convicted of violent offences; ^[18]

h. Between 1999 and 2000, 14 women and 1 girl were convicted of homicide in Queensland (compared to 70 men and 1 boy). ^[19]

Appendix 2

Statistics for women and crime in Queensland

According to the Office of Economic and Statistical Research, ^[20] between 1999 and 2000 a total of 176 779 adult males were found guilty of an offence in Queensland. By comparison, only 49 491 adult females were similarly convicted (21%).

According to the same table of statistics 5658 male juveniles were found guilty of an offence, compared to only 1270 female juveniles (18%).

Out of a total of 49 491 recorded offences committed by adult women in Queensland;

35 032 were for driving, traffic and related offences,
9 545 were for "other offences",
2 455 were for theft, breaking and entering etc,
1 476 were for assaults (including sexual offences etc),
985 were for fraud and misappropriation,
396 were for property damage,
34 for robbery and extortion and
14 for homicide etc.

Out of a total of 1 270 recorded offences committed by juvenile women in Queensland;

519 were for theft, breaking and entering etc,
302 were for other offences,
212 were for assaults (including sexual offences etc),
79 were for property damage,
69 were for driving, traffic and other related offences,
65 were for fraud and misappropriation,
23 were for robbery and extortion and
1 was for homicide etc.

The proportion of Indigenous women and girls contained within the above statistics are unavailable

1. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookupMF/9B3F80C43A73AF6CCA2568B7001B4595
2. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookupMF/9B3F80C43A73AF6CCA2568B7001B4595
3. Department of Corrective Services Queensland, (2003) Addressing the needs of female offenders Policy and Action plan 2003 - 2008
4. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2002 - 2003 Table 1 p.85
5. Department of Corrective Services Queensland, (2002), Profile of female offenders under community and custodial supervision in Queensland
6. Department of Corrective Services Queensland, (2002), Profile of female offenders under community and custodial supervision in Queensland
7. Kilroy, D., "When Will You See the Real Us? Women in Prison," Women in Prison Journal ,October 2001
8. Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT); Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 (Tas)
9. Halsbury's Laws of Australia, 105-95 Proceedings heard in open court
10. Halsbury's Laws of Australia, 105-95 Proceedings heard in open court
11. Walsh, T, Inncorrections -Investigating prison release practice and policy in Queensland and it's impact on community safety, QUT, Brisbane 2004, P 61 - 64
12. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookupMF/9B3F80C43A73AF6CCA2568B7001B4595
13. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookupMF/9B3F80C43A73AF6CCA2568B7001B4595
14. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2002 - 2003 2.5.1 at www.oesr.qld.gov.au/data/tables/cjsq2000/table_2_5_1.htm
15. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2002 - 2003 2.5.1 at www.oesr.qld.gov.au/data/tables/cjsq2000/table_2_5_1.htm
16. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2002 - 2003 Table 1 p.85
17. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2002 - 2003 Table 1 p.85
18. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2002 - 2003 2.5.1 at www.oesr.qld.gov.au/data/tables/cjsq2000/table_2_5_1.htm
19. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2002 - 2003 2.5.1 at www.oesr.qld.gov.au/data/tables/cjsq2000/table_2_5_1.htm
20. Table 2.5.1 at www.oesr.qld.gov.au/data/tables/cjsq2000/table_2_5_1.htm