Locke Keith: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Locke Keith: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12579] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is of course supporting this bill. I think the concerns of people who have spoken against it are misjudged in that it will actually help reduce offending—that is its actual consequence. It provides an incentive for people who have committed indiscretions in usually their youth—who have committed trespass or shoplifting or whatever. If on being apprehended and convicted they feel very upset about what that will mean for their future and their families feel upset after the passage of this law they will know that if they keep within the law for the next 7 years they will be deemed not to have a criminal record and that indiscretion will not chase them around for the rest of their lives. So the bill will help prevent reoffending. 
I think employers will learn that this bill is actually a good provision. Sometimes when people are working out whom to hire—and other speakers have talked about this—they might hold a youthful indiscretion against someone who would otherwise be a very good candidate for the job. I am sure there will be many employers who under this provision employ people they would not otherwise employ because they had shoplifted in their youth or whatever and because of some sort of prejudice those employers have not really understood that that person was the best applicant for the job. Possibly a few years later—and Wayne Mapp did point out that people might find out later in life through some informal network that a person was guilty of shoplifting in an earlier life—they might say to themselves: “Thank God for this law because I have employed a really top person and if I had followed my prejudice and not employed that person I would not have got the same benefit that I know I have had.” 
I think people will realise that this law is very good. The Greens think it should go a little bit further and that 6-month custodial sentences should be removed as well as is the case in some overseas jurisdictions. We are not at the forefront of the world with this bill but we are setting a bit of a model for some other countries and that is very good. 
I think there is a little bit of precedent for it in our existing law with the provision to discharge without conviction. Some law students got that at a particular time in our history because it enabled them to go on to practise law and many of them have done very well. One could say that a discharge without conviction means that technically they were guilty but they have not been given a criminal record. This bill is in some ways an extension of that so I do not think we need to get too hot and bothered about it. The Greens certainly support it as a way of being a bit more compassionate. It will help people grow and it will stop the past from chasing them around unnecessarily. It will allow people to get ahead in society to get to the forefront of society and to contribute to society without being unnecessarily punished for their past. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The previous speaker represents the delusions under which the Greens and the Government have laboured all along on this legislation. They keep talking about youthful indiscretions. They keep talking about the trivial and minor. Maybe there was a case for such legislation and National acknowledges that in our minority report where we talk about diversion. But it seems that the Government has not even read its own legislation. Certainly the Greens have not because this bill is sweeping. There is no age limitation. It does not apply to just youthful indiscretion; it applies to quite serious offences no matter when they were committed during a person’s life. That is the reality. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: At least 7 years ago. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: And quite serious offences I tell the Minister. For instance without doubt this bill will cover burglaries assaults and a whole range of offences of that character— 
Stephen Franks 
: Fraud. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —fraud—any offence in short that has not attracted a custodial sentence. Those of us who have practised in the courts know full well that those offences can be quite serious matters. So this bill is sweeping in its character. It allows all sorts of serious offending to be just swept under the carpet as if it had not happened. 
I have to remind Mr Locke that that was actually not the intention of his colleague Nandor Tanczos who himself referred to youthful indiscretions committed by people under 20 and the like when he introduced his own bill. Yet now the Greens are supporting a sweeping bill that as Mr Franks properly indicates sanctions lying by potentially quite hardened criminals—people who have had a whole pattern of offending. 
Richard Worth 
: Practised lags. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well I guess they would not be lags because lags would have been given custodial sentences. But certainly people who have had a pattern of offending will get the benefits of this bill and that is wrong. That is why National in its minority report referred to a principled approach. For instance the National members of the select committee made reference to making greater use of diversion for minor offences and noted that that scheme “should be formalised to ensure consistency of application while preserving the necessary element of flexibility.” Diversion is precisely targeted at the young offender who commits a minor offence and it is envisaged that in that kind of situation the record would not follow the individual. 
Judith Collins 
: And it works. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As my colleague Judith Collins has noted—she is a senior law practitioner in Auckland and a former president of the Auckland District Law Society—that scheme works. 
So there was a reasonable approach that the Government could have taken but no it has not done that. In I guess its desire to placate the Greens it has gone overboard completely. The Government has an irrational and unreasonable piece of legislation that allows serious criminals to lie and the honest people of this community will have no recourse. It is actually worse than that; not only will they have no recourse but they themselves will then be at risk of criminal sanctions. It is extraordinary is it not that the honest are penalised and the dishonest are advantaged? What does that say about this Government? If the Government wants to know why it is so far behind in the public’s esteem I tell its members that it is because people are sick of that approach. 
Mr Adams made great play of that of course but earlier today his party voted to keep this Government—a Government that would sanction lying by citizens—in power. His party would keep in power a Government that would pass this extreme form of legislation. It might be all very well for Mr Adams to say that United Future members are keeping their word but I have to ask that party: what about keeping faith with New Zealanders?