Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12567] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is opposing this bill. We are opposing it for a number of reasons which we identified during the first reading and in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was fortunate to have sat on the select committee during the committee stage of this bill to hear the various arguments that came forward. 
Darren Hughes 
: It was a select committee not the committee stage. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member over there wants to interject and I know that he also sat on the select committee and he will be making a valuable contribution I am sure as this debate develops. But the point I want to make is that in the eyes of many who would support it they would say that because we have a clean slate provision any non-custodial conviction within a 7-year period will be wiped off and they will not have to account for it. What the bill does not do of course is expunge that conviction. That conviction will always be there. 
The point we make is that there is a perception that this bill will solve a lot of problems for people because they will be able if they have had a non-custodial conviction and after 7 years of a clean record to say that they have not had or have not got a criminal record. The argument is put up that many people have been affected because they have a criminal record. It has cost them in terms of opportunities for jobs being admitted to professions being able to obtain credit and being able to obtain visas for overseas travel and they believe that the passing ofthis bill will help them. 
Well unlike a number of other jurisdictions including the United Kingdom Canada some states of the United States and some states of Australia we do not have legislation for the removal or concealment—and that is what I like to call it—of a past wrong. So we see in the bill that the expectation will be that a number of people will think that they will be on a win and that this will not actually happen. 
That will be the effect of this legislation assuming it passes—and I hope it does not pass because when I look at the minority report from the select committee most of the parties are opposed to this bill and I would hope that as we progress through the Committee stage they will continue with their opposition to a bill that promotes lying. That is what it does. It promotes the opportunity for somebody to say when he or she has a conviction: “No I do not have a conviction. There is nothing untoward in my background that is going to exclude me from a job or being able to travel in whatever form I want.” 
During the select committee hearing there were certainly some very good submissions put up and I refer in particular to Clause 3. New subclause (2) states: “If an individual satisfies the relevant eligibility criteria—(a) he or she is deemed … ”. I think it is this word “deemed” that is a very important word because “deemed” in the eyes of many would seem to reflect that they would get an opportunity to get off a past sentence. 
I think if we look further at what “deemed” means for the purposes of having no convictions that is not strictly correct because individuals still have a conviction. It is the word “deemed” that I object to because people will still have convictions but will not need to disclose them and cannot be forced to do so. This is a very important part that I will be covering in Part 2.