Prebble Richard: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13095] 
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.