no room for it
EITHER
(a) a jurisdiction believes that its punishment/treatment of criminals is sufficient and thus their names should remain private after said punishment/treatment has been served, since they are now safe to be released back into polite (such as it is) society;
XOR
(b) a jurisdiction needs to admit that their punishment/treatment of criminals is completely inadequate and revamp the system to MAKE it sufficient so that past offenders are in fact safe to be released in public;
XOR
(c) a jurisdiction needs to admit that they cannot adequately punish/treat criminals and therefore avoid releasing them. Ever. Admittedly, this didn't work in Australia's case, where the criminals are now the government.
In my books, there is no room (absolutely none) for a "name and shame" system being allowed in any jurisdiction. Nor (arguably) is there any room for "criminal records" for that matter. If the criminal is still criminal minded, they shouldn't have been released in the first place. If they are "better", then to forbid them from finding meaningful work by permanently marking them is to basically force them back to criminal ways in order to just be able to live. Might as well brand them with a big "C" for "Criminal" on the face if we continue to allow anyone to check "criminal records".