Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Tonight is one of those moments when all parties come to support a bill that is intended to provide a humble but meaningful measure of restorative justice. Advocates have long called for convictions for historical homosexual offences to be expunged and tonight we will see that an old wrong is finally to be righted.I regard it as kind of a privilege to be able to not only witness the parliamentary debates but also be part of the process. As chair of the Justice Committee I can report that this bill was the very first bill that the committee reported back to the House. On that note I think it is fitting for me to thank all the members past and present for their contributions. I thank in particular the Minister of Justice the Hon Andrew Little for making this bill one of the Government's priorities. I thank the then Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams for initiating this process and this bill in 2017. I thank also our officials and all the submitters who helped make some necessary but important amendments to better reflect the intent of this bill.The purpose of this bill is to remove the stigma prejudice and other negative effects arising from the conviction of historical homosexual offences. This bill is the first of this type in New Zealand law which indicates the extraordinary nature of these kinds of historical offences which were decriminalised by the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. No longer would men having consensual sex with each other be liable to prosecution and a term of imprisonment. No longer would a man in that situation be subject to the specific offences under the Crimes Act 1961 or the Crimes Act 1908. I acknowledge all those people behind the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. The campaign to reform the law moved beyond the gay community to wider issues of human rights and discrimination. In that regard I believe it is fitting if I may to extend the apology to all the LGBT community.Members of all parties have made moving speeches acknowledging the wrongs that have been done to the affected parties and their families. Those prosecuted have faced unjust travel restrictions and difficulty gaining employment for decades. In terms of employment and the likely impact under this bill I particularly thank Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley and all other submitters with regard to the detailed analysis and the eventual removal of clause 13(2) to ensure employment opportunities for those affected parties would not be jeopardised.On the bill's third reading it is important for us to reflect on some important issues. Like other members who spoke before me have acknowledged the first of such a kind of issue is compensation. Some submitters raised concerns that this bill has not gone far enough and claimed that lack of compensation could be seen as a potential breach of the Yogyakarta Principles. Some submitters also raised the possibility that the establishment of a charitable trust similar to the poll tax charitable trust would go some way to help address the issue. Now the poll tax was a kind of tax imposed on the early Chinese immigrants between 1881 and 1944. Only the Chinese people were forced to pay as much as £100 the then equivalent of about 10 years' work to come to New Zealand. In 2002 the Prime Minister Helen Clark apologised on behalf of the Parliament to the Chinese community over the racially discriminatory legislation and the Chinese Poll Tax Heritage Trust has subsequently been established. This year during the Chinese New Year celebration at Parliament the trust launched a new book entitled The Fruits of Our Labours which uncovered the forgotten world of that part of the Chinese history in New Zealand.Now back to this bill—I acknowledge contributions from submitters and all members who spoke earlier and I agree and note that in terms of compensation we should keep the conversation open. As far as this bill is concerned compensation goes beyond the scope of this bill. There is no general principle that a person who is convicted of a repealed offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of that particular offence. Clause 22 of the bill does not limit other measures under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which protects the individual's right to issue civil proceedings against the Crown and further clause 22 does not exclude other rights to compensation which may be pursued under the existing legislation.So this policy initiative aligns with the approach in comparable overseas jurisdictions. It also makes a clear distinction between convictions that were wrong at law and convictions for offences that have been repealed. In the case of the convictions for historical homosexual offences there is no suggestion that these convictions were wrongfully imposed as it was the law at that time. Clause 9 confirms the effect of the expungement: the person with the expunged conviction is entitled to declare that they have no such conviction and the conviction will be removed from their criminal check for any purpose in New Zealand. In response to a question from an overseas jurisdiction it will depend on the actual wording of that question. For instance if an official or an individual is asked whether an individual has ever been convicted of an offence in New Zealand they would declare that they have; but if the question is whether the individual has any convictions they would answer no because any criminal records arising from the convictions have been expunged and no longer have any effect in New Zealand for any purpose.Lastly I'd like to touch upon this bill's relationship with other laws notably the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. That clean slate Act is designed to allow individuals with less serious convictions and who have been conviction-free for a long time to conceal their convictions in most circumstances but there are exceptions. The key difference is that while clean slate is temporary and concealed offences can be revealed again—for instance under the Vulnerable Children Act—the expungement bill does not permit disclosure for any purpose in New Zealand.So this bill is intended to provide a humble but meaningful measure of restorative justice. I commend this bill to the House.