Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I was late in returning to the debating chamber to take my call because the Hon Maggie Barry and I had a joint meeting with the clerk of the Justice Committee so it is very fitting for me to thank the clerk for his contributions. It's a very busy very effective committee and we did enjoy the work. Congratulations are in order for the Minister in the chair Andrew Little on making this bill one of the Government's priorities and also for the then Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams on putting up the bill in the first place last year.At the committee of the whole House stage it is very appropriate for me to touch upon some important issues raised by members at the second reading. Those issues included for instance eligibility illegality the real effect of an expungement and also as the Minister just touched upon the issues around compensation. Some of those issues were difficult ones and without the input of the submitters and people in the know and without the help of the officials we simply could not get to the point where we are now. For instance the original clause 13(2) could be interpreted as such that those job applicants could be seen as agreeing or consenting to the disclosure of the expunged convictions even if those convictions are not relevant to the job at all and this is not at all the intention or the purpose of this bill. Clause 13(2) is a difficult one simply because it is concerned with this bill's relationship with other pieces of legislation especially the Vulnerable Children Act. Having said that I should acknowledge our officials who have done a great job and the officials are in the debating chamber. I acknowledge their knowledge input and level of professionalism and also I'd like to acknowledge and thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office particularly Mr Ross Carter. They have always taken the optimal drafting approach which has been reflected a great deal in the shape of this bill.Back to some important points raised by members during the second reading debate the first one obviously is regarding the records. This is about the real effect of the expungement. When talking about the records there are generally two kinds of such records. One is a CMS a case management system and the other one is CaTCH criminal and traffic conviction history report. With regard to CMS—case management system—operationally the court record will be retained in the CMS which is the court's database. A court staff member with access to the CMS for the criminal jurisdiction will be able to view the records. All charges are recorded in CMS. This includes those that have been withdrawn by leave dismissed acquitted or quashed on appeal etc. It would be undesirable to remove expunged convictions from the case management system as this system is intended to provide a full record of all court activity. At the select committee session we did hear submissions from those concerned about their record and the real effect of the expungement and one or two submitters raised the point that given this is in the nature of expungement why not remove the entire thing from any such records at all. To reinforce that sort of view it would be undesirable to remove expunged convictions from the CMS simply because this system is intended to provide a full record of all court activity. However for the purpose of this bill that expunged conviction would not appear on the individual's criminal and traffic conviction history report.Some submitters raised their concerns or some proposals with regard to compensation. As the Minister just said there is no such principle to support such compensation because there is no general principle that a person who is convicted on a repealed offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of the offence. Yesterday when I made my contribution I did mention the Yogyakarta Principles because some submitters raised their concerns that without compensation or lack of such a policy initiative we could be seen as potentially in breach of the Yogyakarta Principles. The Yogyakarta Principles is a set of principles established in 2006 about human rights in the sexual orientation and gender identity space. The principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. There are 29 such principles together with additional recommendations and representatives from the UK US Australia Canada and New Zealand were among the signatories.We acknowledge the concerns raised by submitters. However compensation goes beyond the purpose of the scheme which is to prevent as the Minister just said further negative effects from the stigma of a conviction. Having said that clause 22 of this bill however does not limit other measures under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which protects the right to bring civil litigation against the Crown. Further clause 22 does not exclude other rights to compensation which may be pursued under existing legislation. For those who are concerned about lack of compensation or that there is no mechanism provided under this bill what we can confirm is that this particular clause or policy initiative aligns well with the approach in comparable overseas jurisdictions.Another matter the Minister in the chair just touched upon is about the 1908 cut-off because under this bill it is concerned with two pieces of Crimes Acts if you like. The first one is the Crimes Act 1961 and the other one is the Crimes Act 1908. What I could add on to the contributions made by the Minister and other members is that in practice the Secretary for Justice may receive few applications for offending over this time period because the convicted persons would be deceased and potential representatives of the convicted persons are unlikely to have knowledge of the convictions. Offences prior to the Crimes Act 1908 were not included as any convicted persons from this era would have been born in 1892 at the latest; namely at the age of 16. Having said that I'd like to take this opportunity to thank those people who are involved in not only this bill but also the petition in 2014 of Wiremu Demchick and 2111 other people who signed this petition which we considered along with this bill. Thank you Madam Chair.