Barnett Tim: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Barnett Tim: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12575] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As the person who was honoured to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee that dealt with the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill I would very much like to respond to some of the points made. I have to say first of all that reading the New Zealand First minority view on the bill does not take long because it contains six words and reading the National Party minority view does not take much longer. In fact members have heard it stated at least a dozen times already in the brief time we have been discussing this bill. 
The committee did a very good job on the bill. We made a number of changes to it. What we realised as we approached the legislation was that a clean-slate structure requires a number of choices to be made in a number of areas. One choice is the length of time. When we looked at the reoffending rates we realised that to reduce the rehabilitation period from 10 years to 7 would not have a major effect so we did that. Secondly we addressed the choice whether there should be an automatic wiping of relevant convictions or whether it should be done by application. The application process which has been attacked this afternoon by National is by far the best most efficient and cost-effective way to do it. Thirdly should there be some exemptions? Clearly there should be in some areas and Government amendments will take that a bit further because there are some sensitive jobs and processes in society such as owning a weapon that require some additional questioning. Therefore the committee examined that. The issue of travel is really quite irrelevant because that is about jurisdictions overseas. There is no way that we can willingly hide information that should properly be available to Governments overseas; that is really not an issue. 
That leaves the one issue that has really been the only tangible point made by the Opposition and that is the one about concealment or removal of the conviction. The reality is that if the conviction is removed and somebody then reoffends the conviction cannot re-emerge. Therefore if one is to advocate a removal process as National effectively does at the end of its minority report one is advocating that people who subsequently reoffend will not have that old conviction reappearing. That is a dangerous line I think for the public to consider tolerating. The approach that is being taken in the bill is the approach of concealment which is the proper approach because if somebody reoffends then the offence can re-emerge. 
That leaves the situation of what happens when somebody is asked about that offence. There is no way to do it other than the way the bill does it. The bill does not encourage lying—that is a typical spin from Opposition members and their ciphers. What the bill actually does is to authorise people with very specific categories of convictions—7 years old or more—to respond in a certain way to a question about their criminal record status from certain agencies in certain situations because otherwise the whole purpose of clean-slate legislation would fall down. National admits in the last paragraph of its minority comment the complete redundancy of its arguments because it does actually advocate a “true ‘clean slate’ ” system—without explaining what it means. The implication of that system is it will leave New Zealanders vulnerable to people who have their offences removed permanently from the system then reoffend.