Worth Richard: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12587] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National opposes the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill and in part but only in small part it is because the title is so inappropriate and improper. Of course this legislation as earlier speakers have said is a mandate to lie. It does not on any basis expunge convictions because as other members have said the convictions are only concealed and can spring up again either through inadvertent disclosure or because a person seeks a particular type of employment or because a person reoffends. 
I am glad and I am sure that National is glad that Minister Goff was prepared to make a contribution to this debate. In that regard he stood in stark contrast to the Minister in charge of the bill Mr Barker who sat silently and sullenly not prepared to contribute to this so-called centrepiece of the Government’s criminal rehabilitation strategy. I am glad Mr Goff did speak because it gave members a really good opportunity to assess how little he knew about this legislation. 
One of the things he spoke about briefly was the rehabilitation period. He said that the 7-year period of rehabilitation fixed in the legislation was a period of non-offending. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No I did not. I said non-conviction. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: That is right. The Minister is intervening now to make a further correction and one he should have made at the outset. It is a period of non-conviction. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will not be directly misrepresented by that member. I make it clear for the  
Hansard 
 that I said “not convicted”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has an opportunity at the end of Mr Worth’s contribution to take a call on misrepresentation. He cannot do so now. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I think if the Minister looks back at his  
Hansard 
 he will find that he did make the slip to which I have drawn his attention. But then of course he went on to plop into another trap because he read to us a letter from an unidentified correspondent—an atypical letter I would say for reasons I will come to—and failed to draw to the attention of members that persons who travel have an obligation to disclose any criminal convictions at the foreign border. It is very much I would suggest the low point of this Government when legislation of this type is passed through Parliament simply by dint of numbers. 
This bill does create some exceptions and I think it is a great pity that they are so limited. I suggest for example that when a teacher is applying for a job it is a relevant piece of information that he or she should disclose any criminal convictions. I believe that there is a legitimate public interest in a prospective teacher—or an established teacher—seeking a position being required to disclose through the New Zealand Teachers Council the existence of those convictions. As a result the system might decide to disregard those convictions but at least the system should know of them. 
It is similarly the case that where a person applies for a post that involves handling money or some other position of trust he or she should be required to disclose his or her convictions—particularly if those convictions relate to a matter of honesty. Yet the Government has decided that it is acceptable for people to take employment in both the public and private sectors who may have a string of convictions for dishonesty and that they need not disclose those convictions. That is why when Government members assert that this bill is all about youthful indiscretions they run a very clear risk of misleading us all. The reality is that the threshold for non-disclosure is reached only in respect of custodial sentences.