Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. First of all I'd like to thank the Minister of Justice the Hon Andrew Little for making this bill one of the Government's priorities. The purpose of this bill is to reduce stigma prejudice and other negative effects arising from a conviction for a historical homosexual offence. The bill is the first of its type in New Zealand law which indicates the extraordinary nature of historical homosexual offences. These offences were targeted at a specific group in the community and criminalised sexual activity between homosexual men. This bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to right the wrongs of the past for those who were convicted of offences prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. As the Hon Grant Robertson stated earlier it is important to acknowledge that the illegality of homosexuality prior to the 1986 legislation ruined lives. The shame the stigma and the hurt caused was unbearable for many. On that note I should congratulate the then Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams for putting up the bill last year and I acknowledge her contribution at the select committee. We have worked very closely at the Justice Committee and I enjoyed her knowledge and commitment to help make the bill what it is now. It is very fitting in my capacity as the chair of the Justice Committee to thank the Hon Amy Adams for her contributions at the committee and to wish her good luck and to enjoy her new role as finance spokesperson for the Opposition. I'd like also to thank Matt King and Andrew Falloon who have also moved on to take up other roles in other select committees following the leadership change of the National Party and the subsequent reshuffle. This is the second reading of this bill. I should acknowledge the submitters. We have received submissions from 37 submitters. Those submissions were very helpful especially concerning the bill's relationship with other pieces of legislation such as the Vulnerable Children Act and I'll come to those issues at the committee of the whole House stage. It is important to acknowledge that the illegality of homosexuality prior to the 1986 legislation ruined lives. That not only happened in New Zealand; that's kind of a worldwide issue. Many would remember the gay purge campaign in Canada. The gay purge was a campaign in Canada to remove homosexuals from military and public service from the 1960s to 1996. This was a systematic Government policy and a device was developed to detect homosexuality known as the fruit machine". The device was supposed to be able to identify gay men who were derogatorily referred to as fruits. The Canadian police collected files on over 9000 suspected gay men and as a result a significant number of workers did lose their jobs. Discrimination aside the test was faulty and had no scientific merits. Now I cited the Canadian experience to show it is not easy for us to come to the point where we are now. So I should acknowledge all those people who were involved in making the 1986 New Zealand legislation a possibility. Thanks to that piece of legislation no longer—no longer—would men having consensual sex with each other be liable to prosecution and to a term of imprisonment. The campaign to reform the law moved beyond the gay community to wider issues of human rights and discrimination. Back to this bill. The bill provides for a statutory scheme that allows a convicted person or a representative on behalf of the convicted person if they are deceased to apply to have a conviction expunged. The Secretary for Justice decides whether the application meets the test for expungement which is that the conduct would not constitute an offence under today's law. Clause 8 sets out the test for expungement. The test again is that the conduct constituting the offence then would no longer constitute an offence now under the laws of New Zealand. The test was framed in such a way to ensure that any conduct which is considered still to be criminal would not be expunged. The bill entitles the convicted person to declare that they have no such conviction for any purpose under New Zealand law. The conviction would not appear on a criminal history check or record if the application for expungement is granted. In terms of the criminal records or checks there are two types of such kinds of records. One is a case management system. The other one is a criminal and traffic conviction history (CaTCH) report. For the purpose of this bill what I can say is that for those whose conviction has been successfully expunged the conviction will not appear on the individual's CaTCH report. The bill identifies those who are eligible to have their convictions expunged. To be eligible to apply a person must have been convicted of one of the specific offences under the Crimes Act 1961 or equivalent offences under the Crimes Act 1908. The New Zealand Law Society and Rainbow Wellington do not support excluding offences prior to 1908. They claim that not extending the scope of the scheme to offences prior to the Crimes Act 1908 seems to be arbitrary and that there is no clear rationale behind such a kind of policy initiative. The committee did consider whether the scope of the scheme should be extended to predecessor offences contained in legislation prior to 1908. This would eventually include pieces of legislation from the 1800s and the relevant UK legislation in so far as it was part of the law of New Zealand. In practice the secretary may receive few applications for offending of this time period because the convicted persons will be deceased and potential representatives of the convicted persons are unlikely to have knowledge of the convictions. Several submitters raised the lack of compensation as an issue. Some submitters also claim the lack of compensation could be seen as a potential breach of the Yogyakarta principle. Yogyakarta is the name of the city in Indonesia I believe where the principle was established. I'll come to that point at the committee of the whole House stage but in terms of some issues raised by the Hon Grant Robertson and other speakers who spoke earlier we do acknowledge the importance of compensation. However compensation goes beyond the purpose of this scheme which is to prevent further negative effects from the stigma of conviction. There is no general principle that a person who is convicted of a repealed offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of that offence. But I do note the contribution from the previous speakers and I do believe we should keep the conversation open. I look forward to further debates at the committee of the whole House. Thank you. Bill read a second time."