Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12584] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take up a couple of points made in the Minister’s speech a few moments ago about the lady who wrote to him. During the course of her letter she told him she was concerned about her opportunity to travel. This bill does nothing— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That aspect of it is not correct. I read the letter— 
DAIL JONES 
: I thank the Minister for saying that was not correct but he should have pointed that out. Once again the Minister is being caught out. Now he tells us he was not going to put too much emphasis on it but as soon as that matter is put to him he says he was going to clarify it. He should have clarified it at the time. A Labour Minister has been caught out again immediately—as though he thought he could get away with something like that! 
This bill raises an interesting issue with regard to a matter I have been bringing up during the last few days. What happens to say a Vietnamese immigrant who comes to New Zealand and commits a crime and the Minister of Immigration decides that that person should be deported? What happens if the matter goes to a Deportation Review Tribunal hearing and the tribunal says that the person can stay in New Zealand? The person might for example have been the subject only of a fine and the fine might have been a substantial one—[ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. If one has a custodial offence then that is a different matter. But I am talking about a person who has been only fined—not sent to prison; just fined—for a forgery offence and who has been the subject of a deportation review by the Minister of Immigration who says that the individual should be deported. Then the Deportation Review Tribunal steps in and says it will quash the deportation order. So not only can that person get off the deportation order but the penalty imposed by the court will be expunged by this legislation because it was only a fine. It might have been a $500 fine or a $10000 fine but the recent immigrant to New Zealand— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: See if you can make your hypothetical example any less likely than you have. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is not hypothetical. It is the case that came up this week. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s very hypothetical. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is not hypothetical; it is a fact. A person comes to New Zealand as an immigrant on not much of a residence application commits a criminal offence is fined and then is allowed by the Deportation Review Tribunal to stay here and because of this legislation the fine is not even noted on the person’s record after 7 years. What a soft touch we are in New Zealand! 
If one reads the facts of that case as I have one finds it very doubtful whether that person should have been allowed into New Zealand in the first place and I will table material on that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
DAIL JONES 
: The Minister can laugh but those are the facts of the case. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt Mr Jones but he is being subjected to a constant stream of interjection from the Minister. That in itself would not be objectionable except that the Minister is seated alongside you and has the microphone on and although most of the interjections coming from other members are being lost the Minister’s constant stream of interjections are being picked up by the radio. I suggest that that is unsatisfactory. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. It is the convention of the House that in the Committee of the whole House the member who is in charge of legislation should not take an unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to do so. I add that courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I should point out what is already obvious to you which is that the mute button was pushed during my interjections. They were not interrupting the member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say by way of clarification that it was not always possible to do that. 
DAIL JONES 
: Clearly the Minister is embarrassed. He was caught out once by saying that a person could travel overseas. We caught him out on that. Now this Government has been caught out on the fact that a Vietnamese person who came to New Zealand and committed a forgery offence has been let off by the Deportation Review Tribunal and this Government is not appealing against that decision. It is not doing what we saw done in the Zaoui case where the legal aid people—those acting for Zaoui—went to the next stage and appealed. This Government is giving way on that particular issue. In this case so far as the fine itself is concerned the record of that fine will be expunged after 7 years. What sort of a country do we have if a person can come to New Zealand on grounds that if one reads the case are really spurious commit a crime not be deported because of a deportation review that this Government will not appeal and then the minority Labour Government says that after 7 years it will even forget the offence? After 7 years it will be deemed that that person has not even committed an offence. This Government is saying it will expunge the offence and the person need not worry about it. It is saying people should come to New Zealand commit offences where fines are involved and after 7 years all is forgiven. What sort of Labour Government—a minority Labour Government—do we have today? The Greens also support that sort of behaviour with regard to this legislation. 
Those are the facts of one of the cases I raised during the course of this week and that particular person is to get off scot-free. The offence is to be absolutely forgotten as a result of this Labour Government’s activities. The situation is absolutely deplorable. How can any self-respecting Government ever support this legislation?