Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12776] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. I am particularly pleased to speak on the bill as I did not have the opportunity to do so during either the second reading or the Committee stage. I was unable to be in the House on those days. 
I take a certain amount of pride in fact that we are finally seeing some clean slate legislation pass through this Parliament after the issue being under discussion for not just years but decades and New Zealand lagging far behind many other countries in the world in dealing with this matter. I take some pride because this bill came about at least partly in response to my own member’s bill which was to address this very issue. That bill was the Clean Slate Bill and it was pulled from the ballot in early 2001. Government members said that it was such a good idea that they would think of it themselves. So my bill languished in the select committee for some time while the Government put together its own bill to deal with the issue. 
I take it as some vote of confidence that the general approach of this bill is very similar to the Clean Slate Bill which was introduced in my name. That bill was not to try to expunge the record in a way that would not practically be possible but to take a pragmatic and realistic approach and seek to conceal records while the conditions pertaining to the clean-slating were still in existence. It is good to see this bill finally reach the third reading stage. I am very happy to see it come through and I expect that it will pass through the House today. That will be most gratifying. 
After hearing the speech made by Mr Richard Worth speaking on behalf of the National Party and hearing his very strong opposition to this bill it is interesting to go back to the first reading of my own member’s bill and to when Dr Wayne Mapp was speaking on behalf of the National Party. In that speech in this House he said he supported the principle of the bill and that the National Party would have supported my bill if it had applied only to non-custodial sentences. Because my member’s bill applied to sentences for which a person received 6 months or less in prison the National Party could not support it. But if it had applied to non-custodial sentences only it would have got National Party support. 
If we compare that to the speech we heard today from Richard Worth and to the speech we are I am sure about to hear from the next National Party speaker it is a fantastic reminder of the blatant inconsistency in the position of the National Party members. One wonders what basis they are making their policy decisions on. Clearly their decisions are not based on principle or evidence; they are based on where they are seeking to position themselves in the great law and order debate. It is a shame that we see a party voting on that basis. 
I was very disappointed that the Government was not persuaded to extend the bill to include at least some minor custodial sentences. I think it is a shame because we see some real anomalies. If we look at sentencing history over the past few decades we see that the offences people received small custodial sentences some 20 years ago are the same kinds of offences that people might receive diversion for today—or we see things that in fact are not offences any more. It is a shame that the Government bill does not apply to some minor custodial sentences. But never mind—as I say the silver lining is that it highlights so well the inconsistency of the National Party position. 
Because of the refusal to accept at least some of the non-custodial sentences this is very very conservative legislation by international terms. The Minister Rick Barker pointed that out. This legislation is not radical world-shattering legislation. It is extremely conservative by international standards. Again I think it is a shame that the Government is so timid that it is unable to take more than baby steps really in the right direction. Nevertheless I commend the Government for taking those steps. We are finally seeing a Government grappling with this issue. The Minister of Justice Phil Goff has introduced the legislation it is being passed and that is a great thing. 
I hope that in future years Parliament will be able to look at the legislation see that it is working as it is intended and extend its coverage to include some of those other sentences as well. I was also pleased to see that although the Government bill originally applied after 10 years because of the work we did in the Justice and Electoral Committee—we looked at the evidence and at the reoffending rates after different periods of time—the Government has accepted that the bill should apply after 7 years. Again that is a good thing. That was one of the provisions in my member’s bill and I am pleased to see that it was taken up. We have a slightly less conservative bill as a result and that is good. However I am disappointed that it will not extend to minor custodial sentences. 
Mr Barker mentioned the Waikato study that showed with great statistical validity the discrimination that still extends to people with minor custodial sentences in the employment situation. That is at least one of the things it is intended this bill pick up. I am still getting emails even today from people who are affected by the minor convictions they received 20 or 30 years ago. I have with me a whole stack of letters from people who have written to me saying that they are desperate for this legislation to pass into law so they can finally get on with their lives without having to worry about the minor convictions they received decades and decades ago. Without wanting to break confidentiality I shall read a few words from a couple of those letters. One of them states: “I would like to thank you for introducing the Clean Slate Bill to the House. I hope that the end results of your work in this area produce a long overdue and much needed piece of legislation that promotes humanity and fair administration of justice in recognition of rehabilitation and promotes positive incentives to reduce reoffending in our society a major youth issue.” Another person’s letter states that they did not offend in the first place. They got caught up naively pleaded guilty when they were young and impressionable and they were sentenced while under age to adult prison for a simple disorderly behaviour charge. 
Those are just a couple of examples from the many many letters and emails I get from people who even today have to pay the penalty for some minor infringement or for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time all those decades ago. I think we can do no more when addressing the arguments made in opposition to this legislation by the National Party and New Zealand First and that will be coming from ACT United Future and the like than go back to a speech made in this House in the past which I think addressed those arguments very very succinctly and very accurately. The speaker said: “In New Zealand today a convicted offender bears an invisible version of the mark of Cain—his criminal record. Although he may be rehabilitated reformed or an exemplary citizen the offender cannot escape from his ‘record prison’. He finds that a criminal record substantially decreases his alternatives in every walk of life.” He went on to say: “Parliament did not intend convictions to be a lifetime sentence. The stigma of the criminal record has long impeded the rehabilitation process and contributed to the recidivism rate. The inefficiencies of the traditional manual record keeping gave individuals some opportunity at least to escape their past and start again … The information revolution and our success in being able to keep such records for ever makes parliamentary action a necessity now. Countries with enlightened legal systems have already passed their own legislation. Every country in the Council of Europe has some kind of rehabilitation law as have many states in America Canada and the United Kingdom.” He said: “An offender cannot live down his past until he can deny it. Nobody wants to encourage untruths. The Bill circumvents the problem by deeming that every question about a person’s past should not relate to any spent conviction.”—which is exactly the approach taken by this legislation and my own legislation and it is the very thing that is being criticised by National ACT and United Future. He goes on to say: “Following the passage of the Bill a person with a spent conviction will be able to say truthfully that he has no conviction just as we in Parliament sometimes take urgency and say truthfully that it is Thursday when the outside world knows that it is really Friday. That is the only workable solution.” 
Darren Hughes 
: Who said this? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It was the Hon Richard Prebble when discussing his own private member’s bill to address this very question in this House some time ago. I refer Mr Stephen Franks to that speech because if he considers the speech he is about to make he will find that all the arguments he puts up in this House have already been succinctly and forcefully dealt with by his own leader—sorry; his “former” leader— Richard Prebble.