NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I move, That the Clean Slate Bill be now read a second time. The Clean Slate Bill was first introduced into this House in March 2001. It was quite some time ago—during the last session of Parliament. I think it is fair to say that this bill has played an important role in spurring the Government into action. As a result, last week we saw the enactment of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. It is fair to say that I take some pride that an issue that has been under discussion in this country, and even in this Parliament, for a number of decades has finally been dealt with by this House and resolved, at least partly in response to this member’s bill.

When I turn to the first reading of the Clean Slate Bill, I recall that the bill was supported by the Green Party, of course, and by the Labour Party, the Alliance, and United Future, which at the time consisted of only Mr Dunne. I have here a media statement from the Hon Peter Dunne. At the time when the vote was taken, his proxy vote was cast by the National Party against the Clean Slate Bill. So Peter Dunne put out a press statement and moved a point of order to amend his vote, so as to be in favour of the bill. At the time he said: “While my vote alone does not affect the outcome of last evening’s bill, United Future has supported the quashing of convictions for certain minor offences, and it is an important plank of our law and order and justice policy. While I may propose some amendments at a later stage, United Future remains strongly committed to the intention and spirit of this bill, which will go some considerable way towards promoting meaningful rehabilitation and ensuring people do not have to carry the burden of past mistakes for the rest of their lives.” I think that is probably the last time that Peter Dunne has mentioned my name—I will not say it was mentioned with approval, because I do not think it was with that, exactly—without an effusion of toxic bile spewing either from his mouth or from his computer keyboard.

It is a shame that those sentiments—Peter Dunne’s strong commitment to the intention and spirit of the bill—somehow became translated in the hands of the United Future representative on the Justice and Electoral Committee, Murray Smith, into opposition both to my bill and to the Government’s weaker version. We can put that down to the principle that Mr Dunne seems now to have adopted: that if the Greens are for something, he is against it. I think that maxim must have prevailed. It is a shame. It is hard to find a description of that. I do not want to be personal or to fall into making personal attacks, but that seems to me to be a singularly childish way of deciding policy.

So what does this bill actually do? It differs from the Government bill in a number of ways. The general thrust is the same, but there are a number of differences. My bill states that all convictions of a person become spent convictions after the period specified in clause 7, whichis 7 years, except where the conviction attracted a prison sentence of more than 6 months or a fine exceeding $2,000, or was a conviction for sexual offences, or was a conviction imposed against a body corporate. So a clean slate was to have applied after 7 years. I also made a distinction in my bill between convictions attaching to adults and to young people, although I recognise that the status of convictions in the Youth Court is different from other convictions. There was also a difference in the way that I approached dealing with information. My bill stated that no person would be required to disclose any information relating to a spent conviction, and no person could ask questions concerning a spent conviction. It made it an offence to try to force someone to reveal a spent conviction, or to subject someone to unlawful discrimination. In the end, the exclusions were somewhat broader than those in the Government bill. I think that is right, because my bill applied to some convictions that had attracted a prison sentence, whereas the Government’s Act applies only to non-custodial sentences. So it is quite right that the exclusions in it should be somewhat narrower.

At the time of the first reading, I recognised that this bill was not perfect. I said that we would probably support amendments during the select committee process. But I am still convinced that, broadly, the bill is right. If we look at some of the convictions that have resulted in prison sentences of less than 6 months, we can see many of them are extremely minor offences and are the kinds of offences that should rightly be captured by the clean slate legislation. There are things like careless driving, offences under the tax legislation, trespassing, disorderly behaviour, and offensive or insulting language. It is amazing to me that those offences have actually incurred a prison sentence, but that is the fact. Other examples are breaches of community service, unlawful assembly, and, of course, possession or use of cannabis. Those are the kinds of things that this bill was very much intended to capture. As far as those kinds of offences are concerned, we would say that if people have not been reconvicted after 7 years, they should rightly be able to put their past behind them and be treated as though they do not have those convictions.

When Mr Goff said he would be introducing a bill that applied to convictions that incurred a sentence of 3 months or less, I welcomed that. I thought it was a reasonable compromise. But in the end, the Government bill applied only to non-custodial sentences. I have to wonder where the change came from. I did not really see any substantial evidence presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee as to why the legislation should not apply to any custodial sentences, at all. That came about, I suspect, because at the time Mr Mapp indicated National might support the Clean Slate Bill if it applied to only non-custodial sentences. I have reminded him about that fact—[Interruption]—and I think he is quite hurt to be reminded about the speech he made at that time. But it seems to me that what may have happened is that Mr Goff introduced a bill that did not include any custodial sentences, perhaps in the hope that it might actually attract a consensus in the House and cross-party support. I think that was a good intention. If the bill had attracted cross-party support, that would have been a good thing. Unfortunately, the National Party’s final position was inconsistent with its original indication, and therefore, I think, the possibility opened that the Government could have included some custodial sentences. I regret that Mr Goff was never able to see his way clear to supporting that.

I think it is a shame that the Government did not support my bill, but chose to introduce its own bill in place of it. Mr Goff made the point that my bill was not very well drafted, but, of course, the resources available to a member go nowhere near to competing with the resources available to the Government. But I have sat on select committees, and I have seen them gut bills and rewrite them. I think it is quite feasible that the Justice and Electoral Committee could have done that in this case. I say that not so much for myself, because at the end of the day I am truly of the opinion that it does not matter whose name is on a bill, when the fact is that this Parliament is doing something worthwhile that has been needed for some time. But I do think that, in general, Governments of any persuasion should look at supporting a member’s bill when they support the bill’s intentions, rather than introducing almost identical legislation. I think it is good practice for members to be able to see their members’ bills through the House and passed into law.

This bill was welcomed all around the country when it was introduced. I have already pointed out that I received a stack of emails and letters. The folder I am holding now contains letters relating to the Clean Slate Bill, so members can see I received a substantial number of them. I think people welcome the fact that something like this bill has actually been passed into legislation. The intentions of my bill live on in what is now the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. Although I accept that my bill will now be lost to history, I do take pride in my role in getting clean slate legislation finally passed into law in this country.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) : The Clean Slate Bill in the name of Nandor Tanczos will not, as he has indicated, be progressing today. That fact does not reflect on the good idea behind the bill but reflects the fact that this Government has moved already to enact legislation that finally, in this country, allows a person who may have committed a less serious offence—normally as part of a youthful indiscretion—finally to put the past behind them.

I welcome the work that Nandor Tanczos has done on his bill, and his motivation and compassion behind it. He said he spurred the Government into action. I am not quite sure that that is exactly correct. The Labour Party manifesto in 2002 contained a provision whereby we would have clean slating of minor criminal records. We put that before the people of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand returned this Government for a second term and with a record level of voter support in the MMP environment.

There is a mandate for this type of legislation, in part because some 500,000 New Zealanders, according to the Ministry of Justice, will be affected by it. As Nandor Tanczos has said, a lot of those people have lived for many, many years with something that has preyed on their minds and caused them anguish and the fear of discovery. During the Committee stage of my own bill, I read a letter from a lady who 23 years ago had been convicted of a shoplifting charge. This is what she wrote, in brief: “This has been my one and only breaking of the law and one I regret on a daily basis. It does not go away. No one in my family has any knowledge of this record. My husband would be devastated if he knew, and more than likely should he find out this would put my 31-year marriage at risk.”

Like Nandor Tanczos, I have received literally scores of letters along a similar line from people in that situation. I deeply regret that there has been a lack of compassion with regard to this issue in some sections of the House. People have thought that there may be some political points to be scored by showing how tough they are and saying that people who committed an offence many, many years ago of a less serious nature should not be able to put their past behind them. I think of all the legislation I have passed in the justice area. Much has been tough, and much has resulted in people going to prison for much longer.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Oh!

Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Mapp can scoff, but now people are being sentenced to 30 years, non-parole, for serious murders. To be fair to the Green Party members, I note that they supported that legislation. The worst offenders in this country should be treated in a tough and uncompromising way. But there are a lot of other people who have made mistakes in their lives. Some of the self-righteous members who have opposed clean slate legislation may well say that they have led blameless lives. Well, I do not think any one of us has led a blameless life. We have all made mistakes. Some people who have made mistakes have paid a price for that.

John Carter: Speak for yourself!

Hon PHIL GOFF: There is “St John”, or rather “St Hone” over there, who claims he should be exempted from that description. But it is human to err, and most of us have done it. Many New Zealanders—half a million—have paid the price and have been convicted, and at a certain point we have to say that when one commits a minor offence, it is not a life sentence. But many of these people have been serving a life sentence. A man rang my office a couple of weeks ago. He had just come back from Australia. Australia has had clean slate legislation for many years. He came back to this country, with a minor conviction from a couple of decades ago. He rang my office to say how much of an obstacle that minor conviction had been in his securing employment in our country.

I have heard members in this House oppose this legislation as though it is some radical and new measure that will undermine law and order in this country. Can I say how much that is nonsense. The United Kingdom has had clean slate legislation for 30 years. Has it caused chaos in England? No, it is regarded as common sense. This legislation is a measure that I think will have wide support around New Zealand.

Nandor Tanczos has raised the question of the threshold. I puzzled for quite a long time over the sort of threshold that I thought might be most appropriate. I am aware that, as the member has said, there are some people who have received prison sentences of up to 3 months—and again, that is sometimes a reflection of the past—for less serious offences, but in the end I decided that the least arbitrary threshold we could set for clean slating was a non-custodial sentence. A non-custodial sentence, by definition, is regarded as something that is imposed when the person is not a serious or recidivist offender. So in terms of having a clear and the least arbitrary threshold, I think that threshold is appropriate.

The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act originally had a 10-year period for non-reoffending, but I listened to what the select committee had heard in submissions, and the clear evidence was that after 7 years of non-conviction, one is no more likely than anyone else to be a repeat offender. The science suggested that 7 years is an appropriate time when one can say: “I have turned my life around. I am no longer an offender. I have had no more convictions. Please give me the chance to live down my past. Please give me an incentive, and recognition for the fact that I am now a law-abiding citizen.” I think the 7-year period is quite appropriate.

The legislation that has been passed is not about expunging the record. One cannot expunge something that has happened. It is about concealing a record, after the time has passed, when there is a need for transparency of that record. Of course, if a person reoffends, then the whole record will be exposed again, and appropriately so. But what we have also done is to look at particular exclusions. I think we have erred on the side of caution with the legislation we have passed. I have done that deliberately because we are—in this country, at least—entering new ground, to that extent.

What we have done is to exclude sexual offences, and certain very sensitive forms of employment are also excluded. But if we had made exclusions for everything the Opposition wanted, the legislation that has gone through would have had no impact at all. That was just a back-door way of trying to undermine the legislation.

I think we have the balance right, and I think history will demonstrate that. I think there are members in this House who have opposed this legislation who in times to come will look back at their words with a sense of shame, and wonder why they could not have put partisanship and politicking behind them. They will wonder why they could not have done something to show an ounce of compassion and decency, and a belief that it is quite possible for people who have broken the law in the past, often in their youth, to turn their lives around and become decent citizens, and say: “I have paid my price. I have met the sanction. I can now get on with my life.”, as people have written so movingly to me in recounting their own personal circumstances.

Finally, this bill has played an important part in the debate over clean slating. Once again I thank Nandor Tanczos for his initiative in bringing the bill through. Now that the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act has been passed, we are moving on to a new era in the New Zealand justice system. I think that is positive for New Zealand. I thank the member for his contribution, and I look forward to the law that has been enacted making a big change in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : A consistent theme that comes through from both the Minister of Justice and the promoter of the bill, Nandor Tanczos, is youthful crime—youthful indiscretion. I suspect the Clean Slate Bill, and indeed the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, have been largely motivated by the proposition that a minor offence committed, let us say, under the age of 20, during one’s teenage years, should not follow a person throughout his or her entire life.

Both the Minister and Mr Tanczos, particularly when he introduced the bill some time ago, made extensive reference to youthful indiscretion, and that is a reasonable point. I think most people can understand that youthful indiscretions at the lower end of the scale should not follow a person for the rest of his or her life. National recognised this in its minority report in relation to the Government bill, when it referred to the greater use of diversion. We accept that those crimes, particularly under the Summary Offences Act, that can be dealt with by diversion ought to be dealt with by diversion. If diversion does occur, then such offences do not appear on a person’s record. So we do understand that proposition, and there are a variety of mechanisms to achieve that particular outcome. Had the Government, or indeed Mr Tanczos, introduced legislation to deal specifically with youthful indiscretion, they may well have achieved not just a majority, but a broad consensus in the Parliament. They did not, and that was the problem.

I wish to refer to clause 4 of the member’s Clean Slate Bill, which provides: “The purpose of this Act is to limit the effects of a person’s conviction for a minor crime in situations where that person is unlikely to re-offend.” If only that had been true in the balance of the legislation, because as soon as he included offences that were not just capable of imprisonment, but where imprisonment was actually imposed for 6 months, he took the legislation well beyond the category of minor crime. In New Zealand, 6 months’ imprisonment is handed out for quite serious offences, for example, burglary, assault, robbery, and fraud. Mr Tanczos mentioned careless use of a motor vehicle. Mere careless use of a motor vehicle cannot result in a 6-month jail sentence, because it simply does not attract such a penalty. Of course, careless use of a motor vehicle resulting in injury or death does, so that is quite a different issue. That would take the offence well beyond being a minor indiscretion. One has to do something quite significant before one would be charged with such an offence and receive a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. Careless use of a motor vehicle, without any further record, would not result in imprisonment, even if it resulted in injury. If, on the other hand, a person had a pattern of offending, such as consistently speeding and things of that nature, then a prison sentence would result.

So one of our fundamental objections to Mr Tanczos’ bill was that it went way beyond what he had contemplated. It was a fair point that he noted I had made those observations at the time of the legislation. He also noted that perhaps the Government’s bill took those comments at the time into account. I also stressed at the time the issue of youthful indiscretion, which of course Mr Tanczos did not mention. He knows that the two were linked together in my speeches and, as I say, that was the default in the Government’s legislation, as well.

This is an area where I believe all parties in Parliament understood there was a genuine issue: the youthful offender who was unlikely to reoffend, where there was a truly minor offence. I acknowledge that the youthful offender extends beyond the jurisdiction of the Youth Court, which stops at age 17. So it would include 18 and 19-year-olds, who would be dealt with through the District Court, in the full glare of publicity. I think all members would acknowledge that that is a particular age band where people ought to be able to move beyond their offending, if they can show a pattern of doing so. National’s solution, as indicated in the minority report to the Government’s legislation, which is now an Act, was greater use of diversion. So it is wrong for Mr Goff to get up, in his usual lecturing way, and take a platitudinous approach, saying that certain members will regret statements they had made. There was a way of achieving legislation that, I believe, would have had pretty broad consent. It would have had to be limited, however, to the youthful offender.

I want to conclude on one final point. The Minister, of course, also made much play about being tough on crime. He tends to talk tough. But I want to remind him of this one simple fact before he becomes excessively boastful, as he is wont to do. Under his legislation, and this is for the benefit of the junior Government whip, because it is quite clear he does not know this fact—

Darren Hughes: I was on the select committee.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: No. I tell the member he was not on the relevant select committee that considered that legislation. The fact is this: a rapist sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment is now eligible for parole at 3 years. That is the reality—the absolute reality. In the past, that person could not have been released until 6 years had passed. I recognise there was a deficiency in the old legislation, and that there would have been an automatic release at 6 years. Mr Goff used to point that out consistently and regularly. Everyone anticipated that the law as introduced would have, at a minimum, provided for eligibility instead of automatic release on serving two-thirds of the sentence. Mr Goff completely negated the force of his then tough words by the law he introduced—sentenced to 9 years, eligible for parole at 3 years. Under no stretch of the imagination can that be considered tough legislation. It was not, it is not, and the public knows the truth of that. That is why, whenever Mr Goff appears at any public meeting on the issue, he is properly reprimanded by the public for having failed them.

It is with regret that I say Government members did not properly understand the core issue in the clean slate area—that is, the youthful offender. That is where they needed to concentrate their minds, because if they had done so they might then have been able to get broad consensus. Mr Worth, who is the ranking member of National on that select committee, specifically referred to diversion for youthful offenders. He did so for a reason, which was that we acknowledge there is a particular issue around that matter. Had it been the focus of the legislation, there might well have been support for it. That issue was not the focus. The legislation is therefore deficient, and that is why National did not support the Government’s bill and does not support Mr Tanczos’ bill.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which reviewed the earlier select committee’s consideration of this legislation when Parliament resumed in September 2002 after the July election. We looked at this member’s bill, the Clean Slate Bill, introduced by the Greens member Nandor Tanczos in conjunction with the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. Concerning the member’s bill we are discussing today, the select committee came to the conclusion that Nandor Tanczos’ bill should not be passed, and that is the conclusion the House is now considering. Strangely enough, there is no minority report on this bill, so it seems that even Nandor Tanczos at the select committee agreed that this bill should not be passed. The report states: “We recommend that the bill not be passed.”, and Nandor Tanczos was a member of the committee. So I really cannot understand why we are spending so much time on a bill that the select committee, including the member who introduced the bill, unanimously agreed should not be passed.

I note, just briefly, to add to what other members have said, that the bill states that if there is a crime of dishonesty, one’s employer will not be able to find out whether one is dishonest, as a result of this bill. If a person wants to travel overseas, and that person has committed a crime in New Zealand—this is regardless of what is in the Government’s bill, I should say—he or she still has to disclose that crime to an overseas country. If the crime is not disclosed, the person will be in trouble in that overseas country, as well. That provision applies particularly to travel to the United States and to drug offences, because that country is particularly strong in that area.

Members have taken quite some time on a bill that we have unanimously agreed we should not continue. It is almost a good example of why we should not have 120 members in this House. We should have New Zealand First’s policy of 99 members, because time seems to expand with the numbers of members available to fill it. New Zealand First does not support this bill. We will not be supporting it when it comes to the vote, and I do not intend to say any more. I have said enough in previous debates.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) : I rise to speak to a member’s bill from the Green MP Nandor Tanczos, who has produced a bill called the Clean Slate Bill. The idea behind the bill is to limit the effect of a person’s conviction for a minor crime in a situation, he says, where the person is likely not to reoffend. The member in his introductory speech made a great play of the fact that I, myself, had introduced a private member’s bill to have the same effect—I think, 1983, so that is more than 20 years ago. I have to say that that is true, so I am sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve. It did appear to me in 1983 that a conviction is the mark of Cain—that, in effect, one has it forever. What motivated me in 1983—and members might not think of these things—was that when I first started practising law and I would ask a person: “Do you have a previous conviction?”, the person would say that, yes, they had been convicted a decade ago for something fairly minor. I would say: “We are under no obligation to give that information to the court, and when the police come in and read out the police records, the records are so bad, because they are manual, that the chances are, they won’t have it.” But, of course, the Wanganui computer changed all that.

Once that computer was introduced, convictions were never forgotten. The State could actually remember things in a way that prior to computerisation it could not. It occurred to me in 1983 that that was seriously changing the situation, and that it would be unfair if people who had committed relatively minor offences had those held against them forever. I made a visit to Britain for some other things, and saw that such legislation had been introduced. I think it was called the Offenders Rehabilitation Bill, or some similar name. I borrowed parts of that bill, and I introduced it. I remember that there was a great deal of media coverage of it.

What I found very interesting was that, contrary to Mr Goff’s experience, I did not receive very many letters. I looked carefully at the letters I received, and I found they fell into a number of categories. The first and biggest was of people who, having committed drug offences, wanted such a bill so that they could travel overseas. Well, there is nothing a New Zealand law can do—or Mr Tandor’s bill, or the law the Government has passed—to enable a person to lie when he or she fills out an application, and I guess that is one thing we have to keep on saying to young people in New Zealand who think it might be a good thing to smoke a bit of marijuana. We need to keep telling them that if they are convicted, it will prevent them from travelling in many places around the world, and a bill like Mr Tandor’s will not help. People should realise that. That was the biggest category of letters I received.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech. I let it go the first time—and I realise that was a mistake—but my name is Mr Tanczos, or Nandor.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I apologise to the member for mis-stating his name. Let me go to the next point. The next group of applications I received were from people who said they had suffered convictions but that those convictions were terrible misunderstandings, that the young boys had misunderstood their intentions, and that they thought it was terrible that the Boy Scouts would not allow them to be scoutmasters. They wanted to support my bill because it would enable them to do that.

Well, I was not sympathetic to that group of people, either. I then heard from people who said there had been misunderstandings about money, that they had not really taken it, or that people had misunderstood their intentions, and they thought it was wrong that they had to declare their honesty. I did not find any letter that seemed to set out a case where someone had been discriminated against.

I then looked at some other aspects. I have been an employer. Employers are entitled to ask these sorts of questions. The reality is that New Zealanders, on the whole, are pretty broad-minded. They realise that offences committed at the age of 18 should not be held against people when they are 28, especially if they can show that in the last 10 years they have not committed any offences. It is the case in many places that one is entitled to know about people’s records—not just employers, but also, for example, people in social organisations. I make the point also that although it may be hard, the reality is that our reputations are with us for life. They are things that people create for themselves. If people have made mistakes, they should be able to live them down. I am not attacking any MP when I say this, but we have members of Parliament who have strings of convictions.

Richard Worth: Who?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Well, OK.

Sue Bradford: I’m one of them.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Sue Bradford has put her name up. I was not naming her, but she has put it up. Her record has not held her back from being a member of Parliament. Indeed, I think she regards her record as a list of honour.

Sue Bradford: That’s right, I do.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: She does, and the point I am making is that that makes a nonsense of the need for this bill. As a result of the information I have received, I have reached the conclusion that this is something Parliament should not do. We ought to have more faith in our fellow citizens, and we ought to have faith in the basic good intentions of the average New Zealander. We also ought to uphold the general principle that it is not a good idea—and certainly not a good idea for the State—to pass a law that enables somebody to tell a lie. That is what this bill does. It enables people, when asked the question: “Have you ever had a conviction?”, to legally lie and say that they have not, when they have.

The more I have thought about it in the last 20 years—even though I am sympathetic to the sorts of arguments put forward—the more I have thought it is not a good idea. I do not think it is something this House should do. I believe that Parliament should say to people that the State cannot rewrite history. We can understand history, but we cannot rewrite it. For that reason, I am opposed to this bill and was opposed to the bill introduced by the Minister. I think, on balance, that passing laws of this sort will cause more harm than good.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : United Future will vote against the Clean Slate Bill, because the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill that was passed recently has clearly superseded and overtaken it. I commend Nandor Tanczos for bringing this bill to the House. I have understood from members who have spoken that there is clearly some sympathy among parties generally for people who have picked up some convictions in earlier years and have to live with them for the rest of their lives. As the Justice and Electoral Committee report states, the Clean Slate Bill and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill were considered together by the select committee. Because the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill was a Government bill, the committee concentrated basically on that, with the idea that the Clean Slate Bill would be discharged, as looks likely to happen. United Future did not support the Government bill—for reasons that are set out in the select committee report on that bill—and that was so because of key matters of principle, some of which are shared with this bill. There are some aspects of this bill that are preferable to the Government legislation, and which United Future leant towards.

Primarily, the principle behind both pieces of legislation is that people with minor convictions should not be plagued by them for the rest of their lives. When people are convicted of an offence, whatever it is, they suffer three penalties. They suffer the criminal penalty—in these cases, largely fines for minor offences, but maybe also community service. Then they are subject to civil remedies—they can be sued for compensation. They also have social penalties—in particular, the stigma that they carry with them, and the threat of publication of prior convictions—that haunt them for the rest of their lives.

It may well be, as Mr Prebble said, that the stigma, as far as employment is concerned, is more perception than reality. Certainly, New Zealanders are reasonably forgiving as far as old offences are concerned. But in a lot of cases, people bear within themselves the weight of the convictions they have, and cannot get on with their lives, because they know that it is something they incurred, and which haunts them. It may be that the matter of self-confidence and self-respect on the part of people who have become law-abiding citizens is more the cause for concern.

For some, the social penalties far outweigh the crime that was committed. They have become upstanding citizens. Some find they are impeded in employment because of those convictions, even a long time afterwards. Certainly, overseas travel is a problem. Prior convictions sometimes come back to haunt people on issues of social standing, such as running for public office, as the media get hold of some juicy titbit about something that happened 20 years ago.

United Future has considerable sympathy for such people, and certainly would like to see past convictions wiped, once people have proved themselves to be good, law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, the Government legislation does not do that. This bill would do that, but the Government legislation does not wipe convictions, despite having the “clean slate” name. That legislation simply hides the convictions, so there is quite a difference between the two pieces of legislation.

The question is how the exoneration of convictions should be carried out. This bill has some positive and negative suggestions with regard to how that could happen, particularly in comparison with the Government legislation. On the positive side, the convictions were to be spent. Contrary to what Mr Prebble said, Mr Tanczos’ bill does not require or sanction lying. Under clause 8, the conviction would be spent. People would not be required to disclose their convictions, and under clause 8(1)(b), no person or organisation could ask questions concerning, or requiring a person to disclose, convictions. That is certainly a more honest approach. It allows non-disclosure and requires a person not to enforce disclosure, as opposed to the Government legislation, in which people are sanctioned to lie about the existence of their convictions.

The bill is also positive in so far as spent convictions do not revive on further convictions. So the issue of dredging up the past is less of an issue. However, there are also a number of negative aspects in the bill. Firstly, as alluded to earlier, 6 months’ imprisonment is too high a threshold. Secondly, individual convictions are to be wiped at the time they expire, so that people with a string of convictions would have them drop off the end, no doubt notwithstanding the fact that they continue to incur convictions. Receiving further convictions is not evidence that people are upstanding citizens who have reformed their ways and who deserve the consideration of having their convictions wiped. That would be a major impediment were this bill to proceed further. No application to wipe convictions is required, and I will allude to that when I allude to United Future’s alternative.

This bill lacks certainty, would be confusing, and its provisions would be difficult for the police to monitor. It restricts the power of the police to disclose full information to the courts, and it also lacks detail. Although select committees do improve bills, it seems to me that it would have been beyond the committee’s capability to entertain the work needed on this bill. It is too much of a skeleton, but that is not unusual when it comes to members’ bills, simply because members do not have the resources the Government has to put energy into drafting lengthy legislation.

So, in some ways, the policy direction of this bill is preferable to what the Government did. It wipes convictions rather than merely hiding them, and a person would have been able to honestly say, if that procedure had been adopted, that he or she had no convictions, whereas under the Government’s legislation, that person has to lie.

United Future, however, proposed a model that would have been far preferable, and would have met, in my view, all the objections of the other parties. Under the United Future proposal, the law would recognise that the clean slate scheme was a privilege, which was being given to eligible people because they had maintained a good character record. In order to convey that, a person would apply to have his or her convictions expunged. Following that, a certificate would be issued—which would avoid any doubt about the matter—to confirm that “in recognition of their good behaviour, the person’s convictions had now been expunged.” Any application for expungement would be sent to the police, who would have an opportunity to oppose the application for reasons such as the fact that the person had offended overseas during the interim period—now 7 years—or that the person was well known to the police, who therefore had good reasons for opposing any expungement of convictions. That would help to ensure that only people who truly deserved the expungement of their convictions achieved that.

Such a scheme would give people who did not want their convictions expunged, control over whether that occurred. I remember that one of my colleagues in the select committee, who is sitting in the Chamber, said she was proud of her convictions and would not want them expunged. Under the Government’s measure, she gets them hidden whether she wants that or not. The exemptions contained in the Government’s legislation could still be provided for by creating a historical record of convictions, which would be accessible by the exempt authorities, in the same way that legislation shows the historical provisions of Acts prior to their amendment. The record would simply be a historical record of previous convictions that the person had had but that had now been expunged.

The fact that the convictions were historical would also serve to encourage exempt employers to treat them more lightly. It would mean that once a person had completed the 7-year rehabilitation period, his or her previous history would be expunged, and even if the person reoffended, he or she would be truly starting with a clean slate. Under the exceptions in the Government’s legislation, the police and courts would know the full history for investigation and sentencing purposes, which would apply also in United Future’s legislation. It would be an easy scheme to administer, because although there might be a rush of applications at the early stage, we consider that they would then settle down to a regular trickle, and simply require the Ministry of Justice, when applications were received and approved, to transfer convictions shown on a person’s record into a history file.

In order to avoid mandating lying about the absence of convictions, we, along with Nandor Tanczos’ proposal, would have constrained the employer as to the questions that could be asked. In particular, any question would need to be framed in a way that specified that it excluded convictions that had been expunged under the clean slate scheme. Such a provision would be a simple matter to incorporate into standard employment application forms. That would have been a far preferable way of handling the matter, instead of what the Government has proposed, but we will oppose the bill because of the passage of the Government’s legislation.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I am taking the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate tonight because I am aware, as several speakers have already pointed out, that I am one of a select number of MPs who are personally affected by the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which resulted from my colleague Nandor Tanczos’ member’s bill. I have had to bite my tongue a few times during this debate, as, in fact, I am one of an even more select few in the House who has no desire to wipe any of my convictions from the public record. My criminal record started when I had just left school and was taking part in anti - Vietnam War demonstrations in Auckland, and there is no question that it hampered my career options earlier on, and later adversely affected applications for bail and sentencing outcomes in court. However, and at the same time, I have never resiled from what my convictions stood for in my personal and political life, whether they arose from the anti-war demos in the 1960s, the 1981 Springbok tour mobilisation, nuclear-free and women’s liberation campaigns, or later on from actions taken with the unemployed workers movement. I have no desire to be clean-slated, and I am just as proud of my convictions as I am of the other parts of my CV, like university degrees or job histories.

However, I am all too aware that for the vast majority of people with even minor criminal convictions, even one conviction can have a destructive and devastating effect on the rest of one’s life. Having worked in the unemployed and beneficiaries movement for 16 years, I am acutely conscious that people’s job prospects are instantly and negatively impacted, in most cases, if they do tell the truth or if their employer finds out about their past. Things like broken relationships, addictions and other mental health problems, and a general lack of self-confidence can also be a consequence in a long negative spiral.

So while I am grateful that the Government Act resulting from Nandor Tanczos’ bill will allow me to leave my convictions on the record and to release them to friends, the media, the courts, or employers if I so choose, at the same time I am even more delighted that many thousands of other people will, in the future, be able to lead happier and more fulfilling lives as a result of clean-slating.

To finish, I congratulate my colleague Nandor Tanczos on the outcome of all the work he put in on his original bill, and on achieving a significant change to the law with the help of the Government. I believe his member’s bill basically forced the Government into following up on an issue that various Governments have ducked for years. It is a fantastic achievement. The only pity was that the Minister was not prepared to work to improve Nandor Tanczos’ bill, rather than starting from scratch with a new one. Be that as it may, the main thing is that the objective of clean slate legislation has been realised, although many, many years later than it should have been.

It is also a highlight that this is the fourth Green Party member’s bill that has been passed into law or that has led to the Government adopting the same or similar provisions within its own legislation. Previously, Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act was passed in its own right, Rod Donald’s Local Elections (Single Transferable Vote Option) Bill was incorporated into the Government’s recent local government legislation, and Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Road Traffic Reduction Bill became part of the Land Transport Management Act. It is just a pity that a few other bills, like my own universal child benefit bill, which is coming up very shortly, and Ian Ewen-Street’s bill to reinstate a moratorium on genetically modified organisms, do not appear likely to meet with quite the same success. But I must not detract from what has been accomplished here. Once again, I congratulate both Nandor Tanczos and the Labour Government on their commitment to ensuring that many people who have minor criminal convictions in their past will now get a second chance at life.