Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10341] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. It is a classic example of the minority Labour Government being soft on law and order. We set up a judicial system and a police system whereby we apprehend people who are caught convicted and have a conviction against their names. This Labour Government wants to forgive them after 7 years as opposed to those people who have never had a conviction and have always had a good life and who apply for the same job as someone who has had a conviction. The person who has had a conviction—perhaps for theft—will stand just as good a chance of getting the job under this Labour Party scheme as someone who has had no conviction for theft. After 7 years the applicant would have his or her conviction concealed and would stand as good a chance as someone who had led a blameless life of getting that job say in an accountancy or a law firm. 
What is the point of not committing offences when under this Labour Party legislation—which is supported by other parties—a person could after 7 years have a conviction forgiven. There is no point. One might as well say to people when they are 18: “Have a grand old time commit any number of minor offences of a particular nature and after 7 years have gone by no worries they’re all forgiven.” That is the soft-on-law-and-order Labour Party - type of situation. 
Of course that is the sort of thing that a middle-class European white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male would do but the young Maori lad who does not understand these things would keep on committing offences. He would always be caught by the system and would never have a clean slate. That is what the Labour Party does not understand. Its members have never been in a criminal court and seen those young Maori lads time and time again getting caught up because their mates have done something and they just cannot help themselves and go along with it. They can never ever get a clean slate. But the classic European-type bloke who has a binge when he is 18 or 19 can get away from it and about the age of 26 or 27 he will have a clean slate. 
The Labour Party does not support Maori in this country. We will not see Labour doing anything on behalf of Maori. It is exactly the same in this type of legislation. Anyone who has done court work can see how this bill will disadvantage the poorer members and the young Maori lads in our society who will be gripped by this for a much longer time than any young white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male—or female for that matter. 
I say this legislation is soft on law and order. It is of course part of the deal between the Labour Party and the Greens on the Supreme Court Bill. What does this bill do? It wipes out cannabis convictions. That is why Nandor Tanczos will be so pleased by it. That is the deal between the Labour Party and the Greens. The Labour Party said to United Future that it would not introduce any legislation that would be soft on cannabis charges. But that is what this bill does. This bill with United Future’s help—I suspect; I am not sure—will wipe out cannabis convictions. We will have to wait and see what happens because that party has a sort of minority report on the bill. This legislation which I think goes to the heart of the agreement between United Future and the Labour Party will wipe out cannabis convictions for many people. We can see why Nandor Tanczos would support it. 
I would have thought that in spite of the United Future – Labour Party agreement this type of legislation could not possibly go through the House but here we have it going through. There has been a breakdown immediately so what will United Future do about it? Will its members just be lapdogs or withdraw their support for and confidence in the Labour Government? I doubt that very much indeed. They will continue on their way with another broken promise to their supporters. 
Of course there is another group that lingers in the background—the Springbok tour group—all those trendy people who had their convictions from the time of the Springbok tour. I would not be surprised if they were even represented in the House. If they have kept their noses clean all those convictions for disorderly behaviour and suchlike will be wiped clean too. If there is anybody in this House who has such a conviction I presume he or she will disclose that interest to the House before voting on this bill. I believe such members would have a vested interest in how this bill proceeds so I will be looking forward to hearing whether there is anyone—like those people perhaps who led Springbok tour marches. 
I remember the day in 1981 when members of Parliament had to have police protection because Springbok tour protesters were going to break into this Parliament. We had police surrounding Parliament to prevent a break-in by Springbok tour protesters. I well remember standing next to a massive very attractive female constable who was a well-known discus thrower. I was very pleased she was here because this place was surrounded by protesters who intended to break in. I raise that issue because if those people come within the general category referred to in this legislation they will have their convictions quashed. So we have cannabis users and Springbok tour protesters—trendy people who have perhaps had those convictions on their records and who might not have been able to get as much promotion as they wanted in various areas because of their pasts. It is no wonder that this Labour Party with its view towards the breaking of law supports this type of legislation but we in New Zealand First oppose it. 
There is also a trap in this legislation. There will be many people out there who will say:“Oh well they have passed this bill now and I want to go to the United States. I haven’t been able to go to the United States because I have had this conviction behind me but Parliament has now passed this legislation.” They will fall into the trap of thinking that they are now clean and do not have a conviction any more. Of course they still have a drug conviction so far as the United States Britain or anywhere else is concerned. If they have a cannabis conviction of a minor nature which is concealed by this legislation for New Zealand purposes they will still have to fill out the form when entering the United States and be asked whether they have a criminal conviction on a drugs charge. The answer still has to be “Yes”. 
Many of them inadvertently will say “No” because they do not fully appreciate the issue. They will be in a sort of double-jeopardy situation—doubly at risk—because first they will have a conviction in New Zealand and second they will have breached United States law by filling out a form saying they do not have a conviction when they actually do. That will be a breach of United States law and the law of anywhere else. We are setting a trap for New Zealanders who do not fully appreciate the way this legislation works. In any education programme that might apply to it there must be clear notice to people that when they are travelling overseas they do not have any protection from the clean-slate legislation. 
It is unfortunate when people commit crimes but all I can say is that when someone is young and manages to avoid committing crimes by making a positive move not to get involved in something why should that person be then treated just the same as someone who went out there and committed an offence willy-nilly? Where are the standards in our society today? There are no standards as far as this Labour Party is concerned. If one is sitting in the pub and having a drink it is all a question of whether one gets caught or not. But when one is drinking under age under the old law—or even under the new law—one has to be doing it in a public place or on licensed premises. Having a drink at home is not a criminal offence and Mr Hughes does not seem to be able to grasp the distinction that if one is under the age of 20 years it is the place where one drinks that matters—not the fact that one is drinking. 
The police were very reticent in their view on this legislation and I am very concerned that New Zealanders will be placed in very difficult situations if this bill goes through the House. We in New Zealand First oppose this legislation. It is soft on law and order. If one commits a crime one does the time and the conviction stays there—that is the oldest one in the book. Committing an early crime is a step towards committing the next one and that is what this minority Labour Government does not recognise. This bill will encourage people to commit their first crime because they will say to themselves that after 7 years they will be clean-slated— 
Darren Hughes 
: Where’s the evidence? 
DAIL JONES 
: Darren Hughes has no experience whatsoever. If he appeared as I have done for many people under the age of 16—I have appeared for someone under the age of 16 who had 120 convictions for breaking and entering including breaking into a bank— 
Darren Hughes 
: With a 7-year break in between? 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr Hughes just does not understand that someone will be encouraged to commit that first offence because they will think they will be clean-slated. Having committed their first offence they will then be encouraged to commit their second third and fourth offences and it will be all due to the fact that they found committing their first offences so easy that those offences led on to the others. Mr Hughes has absolutely no idea and this Labour Party has no regard for law and order. This bill should be opposed.