Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12566] 
Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is opposing this bill. We are opposing it for a number of reasons which we identified during the first reading and in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was fortunate to have sat on the select committee during the committee stage of this bill to hear the various arguments that came forward. 
Darren Hughes 
: It was a select committee not the committee stage. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member over there wants to interject and I know that he also sat on the select committee and he will be making a valuable contribution I am sure as this debate develops. But the point I want to make is that in the eyes of many who would support it they would say that because we have a clean slate provision any non-custodial conviction within a 7-year period will be wiped off and they will not have to account for it. What the bill does not do of course is expunge that conviction. That conviction will always be there. 
The point we make is that there is a perception that this bill will solve a lot of problems for people because they will be able if they have had a non-custodial conviction and after 7 years of a clean record to say that they have not had or have not got a criminal record. The argument is put up that many people have been affected because they have a criminal record. It has cost them in terms of opportunities for jobs being admitted to professions being able to obtain credit and being able to obtain visas for overseas travel and they believe that the passing ofthis bill will help them. 
Well unlike a number of other jurisdictions including the United Kingdom Canada some states of the United States and some states of Australia we do not have legislation for the removal or concealment—and that is what I like to call it—of a past wrong. So we see in the bill that the expectation will be that a number of people will think that they will be on a win and that this will not actually happen. 
That will be the effect of this legislation assuming it passes—and I hope it does not pass because when I look at the minority report from the select committee most of the parties are opposed to this bill and I would hope that as we progress through the Committee stage they will continue with their opposition to a bill that promotes lying. That is what it does. It promotes the opportunity for somebody to say when he or she has a conviction: “No I do not have a conviction. There is nothing untoward in my background that is going to exclude me from a job or being able to travel in whatever form I want.” 
During the select committee hearing there were certainly some very good submissions put up and I refer in particular to Clause 3. New subclause (2) states: “If an individual satisfies the relevant eligibility criteria—(a) he or she is deemed … ”. I think it is this word “deemed” that is a very important word because “deemed” in the eyes of many would seem to reflect that they would get an opportunity to get off a past sentence. 
I think if we look further at what “deemed” means for the purposes of having no convictions that is not strictly correct because individuals still have a conviction. It is the word “deemed” that I object to because people will still have convictions but will not need to disclose them and cannot be forced to do so. This is a very important part that I will be covering in Part 2. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes this legislation as it did during the Justice and Electoral Committee and during the report back. This bill is a classic example of this Labour Government being soft on law and order. If one commits the crime then one does the time. If one commits an offence one is penalised for it and one should continue to bear that penalty. This Labour minority Government in this particular part of the legislation and in the legislation generally—of course one can hardly avoid mixing the two—refers in subclause (2) of Clause 3 to the clean slate scheme limiting the effect of an individual’s convictions and is trying to conceal the fact of the matter. In many ways it is even deluding people to believe in something that is not the case. 
The preceding speaker Mr Tisch made a very good speech on the matter and set out many points. I would like to add that for example there are some people who might think that if they have a marijuana conviction and it comes within the provisions of this legislation and they want to go to the United States they do not have to reveal that marijuana conviction to the United States authorities. Of course they do have to reveal that marijuana conviction to the United States authorities. There might be some people who will commit yet another offence thinking that they do not have to reveal it to the United States authorities will conceal it from the United States authorities get into the United States and then discover—because they have made a false declaration—that they have committed an offence in the United States. This bill will lull some people into a false sense of understanding as regards their own legal situation. 
I take the view that one of the reasons for this legislation is to remove convictions from all those people who protested against the Springbok tour in 1981. This is something that has hung over people’s heads for years and years. One would have thought that those people who protested would have held their conviction with pride like a medal. But in fact— 
Sue Bradford 
: I do. 
DAIL JONES 
: Sue Bradford says that she does but that is not her only conviction so it hardly matters. She has many convictions of all kinds—sincerely held ones as well! I think she knows what I am saying but she put her hand up to say that she had a conviction for protesting at the Springbok tour and I obviously continued with the opportunity she gave me. But she holds that conviction with pride. But if there were someone now who had such a conviction from1981 under this legislation they could have it quashed. There are many people who would like to see this legislation go through especially within the Labour Party I suppose and then when they apply for a job in the public service or somewhere they would not reveal the fact that they had a conviction for disorderly behaviour and we would not like to think that our public servants or various other people for example might have been disorderly so this bill has many connotations to it. But essentially as far as New Zealand First is concerned it is the more criminal type of behaviour that we are concerned about. 
The Springbok tour connotation gets caught up but the more criminal aspect is what really matters. People will have committed offences of dishonesty. They will have gone along—like that lady did recently in the public service—and applied for a job in say the social welfare department and will have been put in a position of authority dealing with money. Then before we know it another $2 million will have gone down the gurgler. This minority Labour Government wants to allow that type of thing to happen again. 
Well New Zealand First does not support this type of “soft on law and order” approach being adopted by the minority Labour Government. If a person commits an offence then that person should know in advance what will happen to him or her and that person should be prepared to bear the consequences. We oppose this bill. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National does not support the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. In this part of the debate we are concerned with Part 1. There are only two parts—I am excluding the title clause which is yet to come. Clearly the substantive material is contained in Part 2. Part 2 sets out the application of the clean slate scheme its effect on an eligible individual certain offence-creating provisions and then of course the exceptions. I will confine my comments to Part 1 in the context of where we are in this debate. I pick up the obvious point that even in Part 1 the overview provision does not give a fair description of this particular set of clauses. Clause 3 “Overview” which has been amended in substantial measure states: “(1) This Act establishes a clean slate scheme to limit the effect of an individual’s convictions … if the individual satisfies the relevant eligibility criteria.” But this legislation does much more than that. That is of course why National has some concern about this legislation and would not wish that if it is enacted it continue on the statute book for any significant period of time. 
If there was to be an accurate statement of what this legislation was about it would certainly include the following elements as minima. First of all this legislation enables criminal convictions to be concealed rather than wiped or expunged so to talk about a clean slate is a complete misnomer. The concept of a clean slate is that one starts wholly afresh and the slate is completely cleansed. What we have here is a means for criminal convictions to be concealed provided of course they are criminal records that are eligible for concealment and for such records to be protected from unlawful disclosure. When we come to look at Part 2 we will see just how widely and loosely worded those protections are. The next thing about this legislation is that the clean slate scheme is automatic in the sense that it does not require individuals to make application to have their convictions clean-slated. So presumably significant numbers of the population who have the misfortune to be criminal offenders will never know whether in fact the process has been applied in that automatic sense. There is no plan to tell them they have been clean-slated. 
The third aspect of the legislation is that it is an all-or-nothing regime. That means that an individual must meet all the criteria in order to become eligible and that a record can become unconcealed in the event of a subsequent conviction. So much then for the concept of clean slating. Not only is the slate not wiped clean for all purposes but the slate may become again darkened just as the phoenix rises in the event of subsequent wrongdoing by a particular offender. The fourth point about the scheme is that it is question based and it requires those with access to criminal records to treat questions about an eligible individual’s records in a manner that is consistent with the scheme. The Justice and Electoral Committee spent a considerable amount of time looking at that issue in the context particularly of the employment relationship. Finally the scheme takes the phrase “criminal record” to mean an official criminal record only and it includes all material held about criminal records by Government agencies. 
That is the first point that emerges from consideration of clause 3 and what I am highlighting in the points I am making now is really that the overview of the legislation is demonstrably short in terms of its accuracy. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill has preliminary provisions the general overview that Mr Worth has just been discussing and the definitions. In the general overview we see a complicated decision diagram that shows the essence of this bill. If one has convictions has not been convicted for the specified period—which the bill reduced from 10 years to 7 years—and has not been to prison then one’s convictions will be concealed. The net effect we were told at the Justice and Electoral Committee was that up to 700000 people though probably more likely 500000 people would become eligible for the benefit of having a concealed record. That concealment according to the statement about this bill—the select committee’s pious intent—is supposed to help people to rehabilitate. The committee had no evidence that the net effect of a concealment arrangement like that would be more rehabilitation or less. There is evidence that people with a criminal record find it harder than others to get jobs and there is evidence that criminal records do influence the way people react to those with such records. But we had no evidence that a scheme like that described in clause 3 “Overview” will actually change anything in New Zealand advantageously and there is every likelihood that it will change things disadvantageously. 
I say that because a criminal record is objective evidence of a propensity to commit further offences. It is true that if a person has not committed a further offence for a long time after he or she was first convicted the likelihood of reoffending is low. But that likelihood is not negligible and we had no evidence that it was lower than if one had no record. In other words it is rational for people to ask about convictions if they want to get an idea of someone’s character. In the absence of objective information the people trying to make a decision about a person—whether they are employers community groups wanting to leave someone in charge of the accounts or maybe even people in a social setting or officers during an election who simply want to know that the reputation of the person they are dealing with is beyond reproach—will not just say they will make a guess. People make other assumptions. They use stereotypes. They try to make assumptions about a propensity for criminality on the basis of things like the way people dress or their accents or in this country and more seriously their colour. When over 50 percent of the people in New Zealand prisons and a huge proportion of those who come before the courts are Maori or Polynesian if people cannot get accurate information about criminal records they will make assumptions that will be adverse to those who are likely to be in the groups with a higher rate of offending. 
The Maori MPs should think about that when they look at these clauses. They should think about the effect when objective information is not available of stereotyping. Stereotyping is simply a prudent reaction; it is what one does in the absence of better information. We all do it even if we do not want to do it. What this legislation will do—and we can be certain of it because it is the way that people react—is given that it will be illegal to be given information about a criminal record and given that the law will tell people to lie about their record make the community become more cautious and more risk adverse. The community will not take chances on people who it feels may be dishonest or who might have committed offences. It will not give them the benefit of the doubt. Instead the community will try to find a way to make sure that it does not have to run that risk. One way that people will not run the risk is by assuming that if they are dealing with a young Maori they should assume criminality. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I think that I am the fifth speaker on the bill and the fifth person to oppose it and that says a lot. So far nobody supports the bill or in fact has the wherewithal to stand up to support it. That is because this bill is all about telling lies. I have noted the comments of my colleague Mr Richard Worth and of the previous speaker Mr Franks and I concur with their views that the bill is one where the interpretation and overview of it is a disgrace. All we have to do is to look at the interpretation clause to see that there have been vast changes made to this bill. Unfortunately those changes are not always to the betterment of the bill. The changes are an indication that much concern was expressed to the Justice and Electoral Committee by members of the public and those who will have to work with this legislation. 
Speaking as someone who used to be an employer I am appalled that the Government is putting through a bill where the purpose is presumably not only to allow but to force people to tell lies. As Mr Worth said the bill does not state that the offence is deemed to have now been wiped clean and that a person can say he or she has done his or her time and that is it. This bill requires Government departments to tell lies and to conceal. Concealment in that circumstance is a lie and it is not for the betterment of the individual concerned. We all know many people who in their youth did something foolish and who were unfortunately picked up and ended up with a conviction and we all feel very sorry for them in that circumstance. Having said that the bill does not protect those people’s ability to travel overseas—not at all. Overseas Governments are not fooled by that concealment of convictions. For instance if such people fill out an application form or a visa form to go to a country and state that they have no criminal convictions they are lying. It is a big fat lie and unfortunately this Government is in fact encouraging them to do that. Those people may think that they can put that lie in their application but unfortunately they may be caught out. If they are caught out in that lie no doubt they will be deported from and not allowed back into that particular country. So we are setting up the very people we are trying to protect in the bill to end up with a further conviction in someone else’s country and that is just not OK. 
As I said we all know of many instances of people who in their youth did something foolish and were caught. No doubt those people who may now be in their fifties and sixties feel somewhat embarrassed about having to talk about an underage drinking conviction and that sort of thing. No doubt they do. However I would rather they had a moment’s embarrassment—and I think that any sensible person would understand and feel sympathy for them and think that that conviction should not necessarily stop them from getting a job—than have them tell lies about it. What about someone who is convicted of drink-driving? I see that is an offence that a person could end up being able to say did not happen. There may well be people in this House who feel that would be a good thing to be concealed. Unfortunately some people in the public will think that that is what this bill is all about—that is concealing those sorts of things. We should not be saying that. When someone who goes for a taxi driver’s licence happens to have a drink-driving conviction 8 or 9 years ago that is probably relevant. Certainly as a lawyer I would say that most people who end up with drink-driving convictions—and certainly with more than one conviction—have a very serious problem. To be able to hide that is not in the best interests of New Zealand and it is certainly not in the best interests of those people. 
I will not and I cannot support this sort of bill. It is all about interpretation—not deeming things to have never happened but to be now concealed. The thought that later on in the bill—and when we get to that stage no doubt we will talk about it further—people who tell the truth will be subject to being fined for telling the truth is dreadful. Any employer should be able to ask a person whether he or she has any criminal convictions and to be told truthfully and honestly yes or no. This bill will protect thieves. Many people who are thieves continue to steal time and time again whenever they get the opportunity. People who are thieves will do that because they are dishonest. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak against this bill. As we have heard many times already this bill is about lying. Unfortunately in this country we need to be more encouraging of those who would be truthful. When one is an employer and interviewing staff with all the responsibilities that employers have now it will be criminal that we can ask a straight question of a person standing before us applying for a job and that person will now be legally entitled to lie under the bill. 
What I have learnt about lying—and I am sure that we all would have lied over the years—is that the more one does it the easier it becomes. If we are going to encourage people to lie about a criminal conviction it will then be far easier for those people to lie about most other areas in their lives. Yet as a father with young children if I can teach my children to tell the truth and show them that by telling the truth they will be adequately rewarded we will build a far better society. 
As an employer I would have absolutely no problem at all with interviewing a person of about 25 or 30 years of age and asking that person whether he or she had any criminal convictions. If that person explained to me that 7 or 8 years ago in his or her teenage years he or she had committed a misdemeanour and had a criminal conviction I would be far more likely to employ that person because I could see he or she was telling me the truth and had regretted the incident. 
Let us face it incidents have happened in all of our lives that we have regretted but we have learnt by our mistakes. I would not be one to punish those people for the mistakes they have made because there would not be any member here who has not made mistakes in life. However when we as a Government try to put in legislation that will encourage people to tell an untruth I really wonder where we as a nation are going and I will stand against it with everything we have. 
I see in the bill that no certificate will be issued confirming that a person’s old convictions are to be concealed. Therefore if a person who has had major convictions comes before me in a work situation and says: “No I have no criminal convictions.” as an employer my question to the House is what grounds would I have to check on whether that person was telling me the truth or a lie. Of course if that person is telling me a lie how different is he or she to the person who has a clean-slate record? Is that person not also telling me a lie? 
What is the problem? Will the big lie be the problem instead of the little lie? Get real! We are getting too far away from common sense here for me. The truth is the truth. If people tell the truth No. 1 they do not have to remember what they said because it is the truth. But if one tells a lie to a person who happens to know another person and one does not know that they know each other and that person tells the other person what he or she was told one starts as they say to smell a rat and ask: “What is going on here?” So I have major concerns with areas like that. 
Trust must be built back into society. Trust must be built between the people who are employing and those who are being employed even on a voluntary basis. Whether it is voluntary employment in a day-care centre or wherever employers must have trust that when they ask a straight question they will get a straight answer. So when we bring forth legislation that no longer allows that and employers interviewing people know that there is an element of society out there that has been given legal permission to lie I certainly have great concerns about that. United Future will not be supporting this bill. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that today we are debating a Government bill and the only contribution from Government members has been to stand and move a closure motion on what I would have considered from a Government’s point of view to be very important legislation. This is the first Committee stage debate today after the House has resumed following a 3-week adjournment and what do Government members do? They do not stand and debate the merits of the bill because they know in their own minds that this bill is flawed. Previous speakers have said that this bill is about lying. This bill encourages lying. It does not do away with the conviction. It does not expunge the conviction someone has. 
Judith Collins 
: Read the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If members read the bill as my colleague says they would realise that there is no expungement provision. All it does is wipe the slate clean hide the conviction under the carpet for a little while and then hope that everything will be OK. The important thing to remember is that New Zealanders are not as gullible as that. At the end of the day people who will be employing staff will want to know exactly what the position is. But with a clean-slate recipient as an employer can I ask that person whether he or she has any convictions? He or she will be able to say: “No” because under Part 2 when we get to it an employer cannot ask those sorts of questions. 
I will talk about that when we get to Part 2. The point is that clause 3(2) and this is the point where I finished in the previous debate states: “If an individual satisfies the relevant eligibility criteria—(a) he or she is deemed …”. One would expect that that meant that the individual was able to hide behind the clause and say “No” on the basis of clause 3(2) and that by saying that a conviction no longer existed. Of course in a legal sense that is absolute nonsense. We will be discussing that later on in Part 2. An employer asking the question: “Have you ever had a conviction?” is faced with a dilemma. After 7 years if a prospective employee has a clean slate he or she will be able to say: “No I haven’t.” 
When I employ people I am interested in honesty. I want to give an example of somebody I employed who took advantage of me. Because I was going away I wrote out a cheque that my employees would be able to use in an emergency and I signed it. I was probably wrong to do that but I trusted the people who worked for me. I should be able to do that. When I came back the cheque had gone. It was not until I got my bank statement that I saw a cheque had been written for $932. There was no account to justify a cheque for $932. When I went to the bank to find out who had presented the cheque I found it was one of my employees. What had the employee done with the money? That person had moved into a flat and paid a bond. The person had paid rent in advance and paid the current rent— 
Mark Peck 
: In your flat? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: In a flat that the person was renting. The situation here is that that person took advantage of me and of a privileged position. I had put the person in a position of trust and that person had lied about it to me. It was only through my going to my bank that I was able to discern it. Under this bill after 7 years that person will be able to hide the fact that he or she had his or her fingers in the till and was able to deceive somebody. That is why National is opposed to this bill. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Clean slate scheme 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 This is a most curious debate for many reasons. First not one Government member has spoken in favour of this legislation. The contribution to date from Government members has been limited to moving two closure motions. I suggest that is an absolute disgrace. Why do I say it is a disgrace? Because this particular legislation which National opposes—the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill—is very much the centrepiece of the Government’s criminal rehabilitation strategy. 
The Associate Minister Mr Barker is present in Parliament. He is sitting just in front of me; he is sitting silently sullenly and disinterestedly. He is simply not prepared to contribute to this debate. I say that is a pity because if this is important legislation it does deserve considered contribution from the Committee and it does deserve careful comment from the Minister. But we are not to see that. He is not even prepared to speak in favour of his amendments; instead they are put through by his ciphers. It is a shocking state of affairs. 
One of the things we have said about this bill is that it is a mandate to lie. If members want to reflect on the fact that those perhaps seem harsh words let me just refer them to clause 11(2). This is the “mandate to lie” clause that the Minister is apparently so proud of. Clause 11(2) states: “An eligible individual may answer a question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record by stating that he or she has no criminal record.” So if an offender someone who has a criminal record is asked: “Do you have a criminal record?” the offender can give the answer: “No I have no criminal record at all.” What can be the possible justification for that type of legislation? How can the Minister and his Government be proud of legislation that has as its purpose the concealment of the truth and that allows in effect perjury which represents the most gross abuse of the Oaths and Declarations Act of 1957? 
National made very specific comment in its minority report in the commentary on the bill. I would just like to refer to some parts of that report. The legislation is based on mistaken political correctness and is not as I said in the debate on Part 1 in fact a clean slating; rather it is a concealment of convictions in limited cases for limited purposes and where if subsequent offending occurs the convictions can be revealed again. 
Of course convictions may become disclosed in a number of ways. The legislation does not deal with the fact that entities may now set up private and media archives. It used to be the case that court reporters would follow quite closely what was going on in our criminal courts and the newspapers would publish material on criminal convictions that had been entered. That does not now happen quite to the same extent but this legislation will be able to be utterly subverted by the maintenance of private and media archives. I bet that a new business will spring up maintained by the sorts of companies that are involved in debt collection and credit control. There will be a legitimate public interest and the realistic expectation of commercial gain if this valuable information on the criminal records of people in New Zealand is maintained. 
That is the first way that these convictions may become disclosed. Another way may simply be by inadvertent disclosure or the offender may consent to their release. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As the person who was honoured to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee that dealt with the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill I would very much like to respond to some of the points made. I have to say first of all that reading the New Zealand First minority view on the bill does not take long because it contains six words and reading the National Party minority view does not take much longer. In fact members have heard it stated at least a dozen times already in the brief time we have been discussing this bill. 
The committee did a very good job on the bill. We made a number of changes to it. What we realised as we approached the legislation was that a clean-slate structure requires a number of choices to be made in a number of areas. One choice is the length of time. When we looked at the reoffending rates we realised that to reduce the rehabilitation period from 10 years to 7 would not have a major effect so we did that. Secondly we addressed the choice whether there should be an automatic wiping of relevant convictions or whether it should be done by application. The application process which has been attacked this afternoon by National is by far the best most efficient and cost-effective way to do it. Thirdly should there be some exemptions? Clearly there should be in some areas and Government amendments will take that a bit further because there are some sensitive jobs and processes in society such as owning a weapon that require some additional questioning. Therefore the committee examined that. The issue of travel is really quite irrelevant because that is about jurisdictions overseas. There is no way that we can willingly hide information that should properly be available to Governments overseas; that is really not an issue. 
That leaves the one issue that has really been the only tangible point made by the Opposition and that is the one about concealment or removal of the conviction. The reality is that if the conviction is removed and somebody then reoffends the conviction cannot re-emerge. Therefore if one is to advocate a removal process as National effectively does at the end of its minority report one is advocating that people who subsequently reoffend will not have that old conviction reappearing. That is a dangerous line I think for the public to consider tolerating. The approach that is being taken in the bill is the approach of concealment which is the proper approach because if somebody reoffends then the offence can re-emerge. 
That leaves the situation of what happens when somebody is asked about that offence. There is no way to do it other than the way the bill does it. The bill does not encourage lying—that is a typical spin from Opposition members and their ciphers. What the bill actually does is to authorise people with very specific categories of convictions—7 years old or more—to respond in a certain way to a question about their criminal record status from certain agencies in certain situations because otherwise the whole purpose of clean-slate legislation would fall down. National admits in the last paragraph of its minority comment the complete redundancy of its arguments because it does actually advocate a “true ‘clean slate’ ” system—without explaining what it means. The implication of that system is it will leave New Zealanders vulnerable to people who have their offences removed permanently from the system then reoffend. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous speech highlights the importance of a short and succinct minority report that cannot possibly be distorted because there was a clear distortion on that previous speaker’s part in so far as the National Party minority report was concerned. I will leave it to National Party members to take that issue up. 
My concern is about clause 15 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill and how originally in the clause there needed to be a police vetting under the Education Act 1989 where a position was required to be carried out through the New Zealand Teachers Council. That requirement has been removed by the Labour Party minority Government supported by the Greens. The Labour Government and the Greens do not want police vetting for people who apply for registration by the New Zealand Teachers Council for jobs as teachers. Today it is mandatory in I think every school in New Zealand for a teacher to be registered. Teacher registration is compulsory. As part of getting a teacher registration there should be a police vetting as to one’s character. As I see it that provision has been removed from the bill and now anyone can become registered as a teacher without that vetting taking place. I think that is a weakness in this legislation. 
 I see that Mr Worth will move an amendment in that regard and New Zealand First will support that amendment because there is clearly a defect in the bill as reported back by the minority Labour Government and its supporters the Greens. I am not too surprised at the Greens supporting something like that but for the Labour Party which has a lot of support from teaching groups to allow an alteration to the bill that allows primary teachers secondary teachers and people who would normally be registered as teachers not to be vetted for registration purposes in this day and age is absolutely appalling. 
Stephen Franks 
: They’re thinking of their caucus. They’re thinking of the future. 
DAIL JONES 
: It does require the commission of an offence and that is too much of a long bow for me. Broadly speaking how can the Labour Party allow this to happen? How can the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association and all those other bodies that want to maintain high professional standards allow a situation to exist whereby people can say: “Yes you registered as a teacher but you were not properly vetted were you?”. 
Anyone can become a teacher these days. People may have committed all sorts of offences and they can still become a teacher these days as a result of the way in which the Labour Party does things. Under new clause 14A it is an offence to require someone to disregard this scheme. One can be fined $10000. I think that any school—not just private schools—wants to make sure of the character of people applying for jobs. If principals chief executives or employing officers of schools say they do not care what is in the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill and that they want to know whether someone has a criminal record they can be fined up to $10000. I hope the various schools will make the point known to employing staff that now in trying to make sure that the quality of staff is beyond dispute they can end up with a fine of $10000. 
That is absolutely appalling but it shows the standard of this minority Labour Government and standard of the Greens. How low can they possibly go in this day and age? The Labour Party and the Greens are showing just how low they can go. 
The other issue I mentioned earlier was with regard to the trustworthiness of staff. Speaking as a lawyer I know that lawyers have to deal a lot with trust account money and we want to make sure that people’s money is safe. When lawyers are employing people they cannot now ask applicants whether they have committed an offence. We want to make sure that lawyers’ money is not stolen by either lawyers or their staff and in this case staff involved with lawyers are not allowed to ask people who are coming for a job whether they have ever had a previous criminal conviction especially for theft. 
That affects lawyers’ insurance policies. When lawyers take out an insurance policy they have to talk about the trustworthiness and honesty of their staff. Now the overseas companies that give insurance to law firms in New Zealand cannot rely on the information that is given to lawyers and lawyers’ insurance premiums will go up as a result. No one can be certain when dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars whether staff are honest or dishonest. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of United Future on Part 2 and I was just thinking as I was sitting here as we are bringing this bill on line that I would hope to be in a country where we actually lift the bar on achievement and not lower the bar. I was thinking about our great All Blacks. What if we said to them that they did not need to come out to practice matches now to just imagine that they were going to practice and that it would be good enough to turn up on the day of the game and do their best? All this sort of legislation is lowering the bar. I have found as a sportsman that if we want to improve things we have to lift the bar to achieve. 
We all make mistakes as we heard before and I thought it was interesting that Tim Barnett was the only one from the Opposition parties speaking for this bill. Tim and I would come from— 
Richard Worth 
: He’s from the Government not the Opposition. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: From the Government my apologies. 
Richard Worth 
: He’s going to be the Opposition. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: He is going to be the Opposition. Tim and I would come from different viewpoints on many issues and I find that when we lower the bar and lower the standards we actually get a decrease in society. Society does not improve; it goes exactly the opposite way. 
I am also concerned with what the situation is if people are convicted in New Zealand. They get caught and it is only a minor offence so they leave the country and go to another country. They continue to commit minor offences in that country which leads to more major offences. If they choose to come back to New Zealand after 7 years our police department has no record of the offences in another country. These people can come home and if this legislation is passed they can apply for work here as though nothing had ever happened. 
I do not like that. I do not think that most fair-minded straight-thinking New Zealanders would like that. I have found that New Zealanders are very fair and very forgiving but they do want to know the truth. When they see the Government setting up lies they have major problems with that. 
Let me give members a very real example. For those in the Chamber who have a heart full of compassion for people I do not object to feeling sorry for those who have committed misdemeanours. I know of a person who had somebody working with him selling quite high-priced objects. This person was caught selling something for $100 cash and pocketing the cash. Whichever way we look at it that is fraud. The person was confronted and an agreement was reached that as long as that person handed in his resignation—so the employer did not have to go through all the employment hassles from the daft legislation we have in some of these areas—nothing would be said about that $100 fraud. 
At the end of the day did we help that person? No because unfortunately he went on to another situation where his $100 fraud turned into a $20000 or $30000 fraud. The second employer had rung the first employer to ask whether there were any areas of concern to be aware of. Because of the agreement the answer was no. Therefore the second employer took on the person not knowing that there was a sign of risk. 
I ask members today as we look at this Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill what is the difference? What is the difference when a genuine employer is just trying to find out the facts? He wants to work on the truth. It is difficult enough to do that in today’s market as it is and now he will be confronted with a situation whereby a straight answer to a straight question ends up in a legal lie. I ask where on earth we are coming from on that sort of thing. 
As this type of legislation passes I give warning to the Government that there is a groundswell of New Zealanders out there who are sick and tired of this politically correct type of legislation that is feeding lies to the country that is trying to tell people that it is OK to lie and to cover things up and that things that are wrong are allowed to be called right. But I tell members that good old New Zealanders have had enough and are beginning to turn. United Future will not support this bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am very glad to follow the member for United Future. I heard the passion in his voice when he said that people are sick of a Government that not only condones lying and not only ignores offending but in this case is getting Parliament to instruct Government departments to lie. This Government is a lying Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is a longstanding member of this Parliament and he knows that that was totally out of order. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Chairman I draw your attention to the provisions of this bill. This bill requires the Government to lie. I will not withdraw that statement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member referred to the Government as “a lying Government” and that is totally out of order. It is a reflection on all members of the Chamber and therefore it is out of order. I ask the member to withdraw. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Government is not the legislature; the Government in this case is the executive. This bill requires the executive to lie. I was referring to what this bill does. I did not say “the members of this House”; I said “the Government” and I meant the Government. I am quite happy to make it clear that in this case this bill requires the Government to lie to anyone who asks about these criminal records. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that referring to the Government is the same as referring to a member. There is a Speaker’s ruling on this situation. I now ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am very clear on what Mr Franks is trying to say because we have been debating for the last hour what this bill actually does. This is a Government bill. This is being promoted by the Government and when he is referring to the Government he is referring to the way that this bill is being presented. It is not a slight on members of this Committee; it is a very clear statement that this bill being a Government bill falls into the category of a bill that promotes and allows for lying—that is what the essence of the bill is about. I believe that Mr Franks is correct in what he is asserting. There is no defamation and no slight on any member of this Committee. He is making a very clear statement and he should be able to proceed with his debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I understand exactly where the member is coming from but implying that the Government was acting improperly and using the terminology that Mr Franks did is a reflection not only on the Government but also on every member in the Chamber and that is far from the truth. I am asking Mr Franks to give serious consideration to that because he is a longstanding member and I am sure he is aware of that. I now ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I withdraw and apologise. This bill requires the chief executives of Government departments that hold or have access to criminal records—in the cute words of the drafter of this bill—to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they conceal the “criminal records of eligible individuals when requests are made for their disclosure” and to not use the criminal records. This bill would mean that Work and Income New Zealand would not even be able to use its own knowledge to prevent the woman who recently got away with several million dollars of the department’s money—who had previous convictions which it turned out were known to the department—from being re-employed. The chief executive would have to take steps to make sure the department lied even to itself. Can members imagine anything more fatuous? 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff knows that this bill requires lying. The drafting changed between the introduction copy of the bill and the draft that we are now looking at but the effect is still the same. The effect is that when people are asked about their criminal record this bill states that they should say they do not have one. There is a penalty of $20000 for anyone who corrects that and a penalty of $10000 for somebody who tries to go behind that. This bill tells New Zealanders that the past never happened. 
This bill is from a Government that pretends to be worried about harsh sentencing. What can a community do when all the informal sanctions against offending such as reputation—the very first line of defence for most communities—are gone? 
We want young people to know that truth will out that honesty pays that cheats do not prosper—all of those things that depend on reputation—but the Government is now saying: “Don’t worry about your reputation we’ll hide it for you. Not only will we hide it for you we will instruct you to hide it and we will punish people who try to find out the truth.” This is not compassion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with compassion. Compassion is the act of people who say: “We know about your past and we forgive and forget.” This bill states that the Government will now decide people do not get that chance. 
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? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have just listened to some speeches from members of the Opposition that suggest that somehow this legislation is going to protect “serious offenders” “hardened offenders” “practised lags”—Mr Worth who is a lawyer says—and “serious criminals”. I think the best way of responding to those comments from people who have clearly led blameless lives who have never been in breach of the law and who are ready to cast the first stone is for me to read a letter I received 7 days ago in my office. It is a short letter. I will read it in full and then perhaps Mr Mapp and Mr Franks can tell me whether this is the sort of hardened criminal they intend should be deprived of the relief that this legislation would give. 
“Dear Mr Goff I am interested in your Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill which I understand is up for discussion again in May. The reason for this letter is a very personal one as 23 years ago I was convicted of a minor shoplifting charge and fined $100. This has been my one and only breaking of the law and one I regret on a daily basis. It does not go away. I understand that a first offender these days on minor charges does not get convicted. No one in my family has any knowledge of this record. My husband would be devastated if he knew and more than likely should he find out this would put my 31-year-old marriage at risk—he being the most honest person I know. Travel insurances and many other things including employment are affected by my conviction and I am so hopeful that your proposed bill will be passed into law. My reason for writing this letter—and it took a lot of soul-searching to do this—is to maybe express the view of many like me who have a similar story. Basically this is a heart-felt plea to you to endeavour to see that this much-needed law change is passed.” That is the sort of “hardened criminal” the Opposition is so determined should have so little protection against his or her past being discovered. 
I have received many many letters. No issue in the criminal justice area I think has attracted as many letters as this topic has. 
Richard Worth 
: Not a typical example. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: For the edification of Mr Worth who says it is not typical I say I believe that it is very much typical. We are introducing a conservative regime. It requires that the person has never served a custodial sentence. That by definition means that it affects those who have committed less serious offences. It requires that that person has not had another conviction for 7 years and the information given to the select committee suggests that a person who has not reoffended over that period of time is hardly more likely to reoffend than a person who has never had a conviction. 
I want to say to Mr Worth that the Ministry of Justice estimates there are some 500000 New Zealanders who fall into this category including members who sit in this Chamber. I am saying that those people were not sentenced to a life sentence for relatively minor offending. They have met the penalty that was imposed on them they have lived with that offending for a long time and for God’s sake let us show some compassion and give those people who have led blameless lives for at least 7 years the chance to put that past behind them. It is tempting in Opposition I know to try to make a political football out of this but let me tell and warn the Opposition that if there are 500000 New Zealanders who come into this category there are 500000 New Zealanders with family members who do understand that people convicted of minor offending—that is not the sort of offending the penalties for which we have increased massively in this House and rightly so—are people who made a mistake once in their lives and should be given a fair go to put that offending behind them. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Quite clearly the Minister of Justice has not had the benefit of hearing my previous speech on this matter; otherwise he would have had a look at the National Party minority view on the bill including the sentence that Mr Tim Barnett was so nasty about which states: “There is a case for legislation to contain provision for true ‘clean slate’ applications to be made to the Court in individual cases and not on the blanket basis of concealment of convictions which is the essence of the present bill.” 
I say to the Minister and to the Committee that there is of course a case for compassion. The very instance that he spoke of seems to be such a case. But this bill is about lying. It is about the concealment of offences. It is not about looking at youthful indiscretions; it is about allowing someone who commits an offence at the age of 50 to say at the age of 58 very very truthfully in accordance with this bill: “No I have no conviction.” It does not make any allowance for age. It does not make any allowance for circumstance. National’s idea that people apply to the court would allow judges to use discretion and look at the individual circumstances of a case. 
I have made the point before that the diversion scheme works in most cases. One of the reasons it works is that the people who commit a first offence have to admit to it. They have to go in front of a police sergeant and admit to that offence and then they are given a job to do. Sometimes that job is to make a donation to a charity and sometimes it is to do something for a particular charity. But it is the admission and acceptance of having done wrong that is absolutely vital in stopping people from continuing to do what we hopefully call youthful indiscretions but actually can be crimes. It is really important that we do not make it easier for people to hide convictions but in fact ensure they are truthful about what has happened. National members are very happy as I have said before—and we have stated it in writing in our minority view—to look at individual cases. We are not happy to have this blanket approval of lying. 
I will now deal with some of the I have to say slightly hysterical rhetoric from the Minister; there seemed to be an awful lot of personal input there. 
Clause 11 states quite clearly: “(2) An eligible individual may answer a question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record by stating that he or she has no criminal record.” Why is that not lying? People have a criminal record and all of a sudden they can say they do not have one. If they were able to say: “ I had one and it was taken away by the courts.”—that it was an effective conviction and discharge—people would understand. But this bill is about lying. 
It will not help people who travel overseas. It will not help a lot of people applying for jobs within certain Government departments. But what about people applying for jobs in banks? People who run banks should be honest people. They are dealing with other people’s money. People who work in lawyers’ firms dealing with other people’s money should be honest people. I can tell this Committee from my experience in the Law Society that a number of the thefts done by law firms are done by staff not by the lawyers. The lawyers are the people who pay for the thefts and they do not want to lose their careers and end up in jail. A lot of the those conversions are done by staff and under this bill staff will be able to say: “Oh well no I don’t have a criminal conviction.” when actually 8 years ago the last time they were working—guess what—they stole money from a trust account but they got off without having to go to jail because they told some bleeding heart story that somebody believed. 
Unfortunately that basic dishonesty goes all the way through. Leopards do not change their spots. Someone who is dishonest today is likely to be dishonest tomorrow. That is what happens. Dishonesty is not something that just goes away and it certainly does not go away unless people acknowledge that they have done wrong ask for forgiveness and move on in that way. They will not be able to do so in this case. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting in this debate to be on this side of the Committee where we have some very eminent lawyers. All parties on this side— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Name names! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I do not need to name names because they stand on their own merits. They are people who have been at the coalface and understand what the law is about. Here on this side we have such people within our team in Dr Wayne Mapp Richard Worth and Judith Collins three very experienced lawyers who have had to deal with these issues over a number of years. 
As a lay person I want to focus on these issues from the point of view of an employer. If we look at clause 14A in particular we can see that an employer will face a very onerous dilemma. Most employers when employing people really want to know about their background. That is fair. If I am prepared to give someone a job that person needs to be open and frank about his or her past positions skills and experience and the sorts of attributes that will be important in my business. But the dilemma happens in that we see in this bill that it will be unlawful to ask people about their past. Clause 14A is headed: “Offence to require or request that individual disregard scheme”. Although we may have some doubts about somebody we cannot put pressure on that person to give us the sort of background information we require. 
I find that totally unacceptable and certainly National has argued this point right through. Creating an environment where people can lie about their past does not lead to good relationships. Honesty is the best policy and if someone is prepared to front up and say: “Look in my youth 20 years ago I did something I feel shameful about. I should never have done it I regret it and I feel remorseful about it.” a prospective employer is likely to say to that person: “I’m prepared to give you a go because you are being upfront.” That is the sort of open approach the sort of openness and honesty that I would expect as a prospective employer. I have employed people who have a past that is not that great but I have been prepared to give them a go because I have had the opportunity to appraise them; they can prove themselves or otherwise and that is something I am prepared to allow them to do. 
But when we look at clause 14A we can see that it states that we cannot put pressure on people we cannot deviate from what the bill intends because if we do that then we will be fined. In fact the fine is $10000. The Minister quoted a letter he had received from somebody about a past misdemeanour that had happened 20-odd years ago and the fine for which was $100. This bill will not say to that person: “Ah we’re going to expunge that offence; it never happened; you’ve got a clean slate and you can walk away.” The bill does not do that. It does not expunge past convictions. All that it does is say to the person: “You can lie about it. You have a licence to lie to say that you have never had a conviction. You can hide it.” 
That is the sort of nonsense we do not agree with. We do not agree with this bill because it encourages an environment in which people can hide their past. As I said right at the beginning I look for honesty. I look for a straight-up approach. If someone has done something wrong then let him or her lay it on the table so that we can deal with it as it comes up. We see in this bill that a prospective employer who breaches this law could be penalised $10000 and that is a nonsense. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take up a couple of points made in the Minister’s speech a few moments ago about the lady who wrote to him. During the course of her letter she told him she was concerned about her opportunity to travel. This bill does nothing— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That aspect of it is not correct. I read the letter— 
DAIL JONES 
: I thank the Minister for saying that was not correct but he should have pointed that out. Once again the Minister is being caught out. Now he tells us he was not going to put too much emphasis on it but as soon as that matter is put to him he says he was going to clarify it. He should have clarified it at the time. A Labour Minister has been caught out again immediately—as though he thought he could get away with something like that! 
This bill raises an interesting issue with regard to a matter I have been bringing up during the last few days. What happens to say a Vietnamese immigrant who comes to New Zealand and commits a crime and the Minister of Immigration decides that that person should be deported? What happens if the matter goes to a Deportation Review Tribunal hearing and the tribunal says that the person can stay in New Zealand? The person might for example have been the subject only of a fine and the fine might have been a substantial one—[ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. If one has a custodial offence then that is a different matter. But I am talking about a person who has been only fined—not sent to prison; just fined—for a forgery offence and who has been the subject of a deportation review by the Minister of Immigration who says that the individual should be deported. Then the Deportation Review Tribunal steps in and says it will quash the deportation order. So not only can that person get off the deportation order but the penalty imposed by the court will be expunged by this legislation because it was only a fine. It might have been a $500 fine or a $10000 fine but the recent immigrant to New Zealand— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: See if you can make your hypothetical example any less likely than you have. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is not hypothetical. It is the case that came up this week. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s very hypothetical. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is not hypothetical; it is a fact. A person comes to New Zealand as an immigrant on not much of a residence application commits a criminal offence is fined and then is allowed by the Deportation Review Tribunal to stay here and because of this legislation the fine is not even noted on the person’s record after 7 years. What a soft touch we are in New Zealand! 
If one reads the facts of that case as I have one finds it very doubtful whether that person should have been allowed into New Zealand in the first place and I will table material on that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
DAIL JONES 
: The Minister can laugh but those are the facts of the case. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt Mr Jones but he is being subjected to a constant stream of interjection from the Minister. That in itself would not be objectionable except that the Minister is seated alongside you and has the microphone on and although most of the interjections coming from other members are being lost the Minister’s constant stream of interjections are being picked up by the radio. I suggest that that is unsatisfactory. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. It is the convention of the House that in the Committee of the whole House the member who is in charge of legislation should not take an unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to do so. I add that courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I should point out what is already obvious to you which is that the mute button was pushed during my interjections. They were not interrupting the member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say by way of clarification that it was not always possible to do that. 
DAIL JONES 
: Clearly the Minister is embarrassed. He was caught out once by saying that a person could travel overseas. We caught him out on that. Now this Government has been caught out on the fact that a Vietnamese person who came to New Zealand and committed a forgery offence has been let off by the Deportation Review Tribunal and this Government is not appealing against that decision. It is not doing what we saw done in the Zaoui case where the legal aid people—those acting for Zaoui—went to the next stage and appealed. This Government is giving way on that particular issue. In this case so far as the fine itself is concerned the record of that fine will be expunged after 7 years. What sort of a country do we have if a person can come to New Zealand on grounds that if one reads the case are really spurious commit a crime not be deported because of a deportation review that this Government will not appeal and then the minority Labour Government says that after 7 years it will even forget the offence? After 7 years it will be deemed that that person has not even committed an offence. This Government is saying it will expunge the offence and the person need not worry about it. It is saying people should come to New Zealand commit offences where fines are involved and after 7 years all is forgiven. What sort of Labour Government—a minority Labour Government—do we have today? The Greens also support that sort of behaviour with regard to this legislation. 
Those are the facts of one of the cases I raised during the course of this week and that particular person is to get off scot-free. The offence is to be absolutely forgotten as a result of this Labour Government’s activities. The situation is absolutely deplorable. How can any self-respecting Government ever support this legislation? 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 175 in the name of Murray Smith to insert new clause 14B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 103 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment is to clause 15(3) and it is in the name of Richard Worth. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 166 172 and 191 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
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. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This bill now involves Parliament in lying. I use that word knowingly and carefully. There is no clean slate. The commentary from the Justice and Electoral Committee says there is no clean slate. The provisions do not provide for a clean slate yet the title of this bill says “Clean Slate”. This bill should not proceed under this title. Nothing of a clean slate is created; there is simply concealment of a record. 
The Minister may not have realised it. By reading the letter he received the Minister in his tear-jerking way misled this Committee in three different respects. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Just before we broke for dinner at 6 o’clock I was referring to the address that the Minister in the chair Mr Phil Goff gave on this Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. I was referring to the mis-description—to put it as its most kind—the inaccuracy and the untruthfulness of this title. This bill does not create a clean slate. It instructs people to lie about their records. The records remain intact. The bill instructs Government departments to lie about the records and then it provides penalties for people who ask about criminal records. 
Mr Goff read us a tear-jerking letter from a person who many many years ago had shoplifted. Mr Goff asked why we should not have compassion for someone who offended once but has since led a blameless life. Why not indeed? Most of us do have compassion. Almost every New Zealander would tell that poor woman: “Don’t worry. You have led a blameless life. We don’t hold it against you.” And they do not. I have employed people. I have become a partner in my businesses with people who have committed offences in their youth but who have since led a blameless life. I believe that most New Zealanders do that. That is true compassion. 
But this bill I say to Mr Goff does not conceal the records of people who have offended once and since led a blameless life. This bill conceals the records of people who have offended any number of times. The average New Zealand prisoner goes to prison for the first time after committing nine offences. I tell the Minister that this bill conceals all the previous eight offences. It ceases to conceal only when people have reached their ninth offence or at least reached the point of being sent to prison. To get an average of nine offences there are probably some offenders who might have 10 or 20 offences before they go to prison. So it is not about offending once and then leading a blameless life. 
Let us look at the “blameless life” claim. This bill will conceal the record of someone who has committed any number of offences gone to Australia spent time in prison gone anywhere else in the world committed any number of offences come back and led anything but a blameless life. But if they have managed to avoid being convicted—and it does not matter how many times they have been charged—then the record gets concealed. I ask Mr Goff: where is the blameless life in that? 
Mr Goff invited the House to comment on the letter. I am commenting on the letter. I hope he will take a call and explain why it is that he is supporting a bill that claims to provide a clean slate when it does not. The Minister has claimed that the bill provides for people who have led a blameless life after one offence when it does not. There is no maximum number of offences that would disqualify a person from claiming the benefit of this bill. That provision was proposed in the Justice and Electoral Committee but the Minister’s officials I assume on instruction discouraged any of those kinds of amendments that would have made this less offensive legislation. In fact the Government has just voted against amendments that would have made this less offensive legislation. 
This bill is utterly unnecessary. There is no evidence that the people who have written to the Minister asking to have their records concealed have had what the Minister called a life sentence. How offensive that is to people in this country who are asking that a life sentence actually mean something! The Minister compares a genuine life sentence which connotes seriousness of offending and proper punishment with the fact that someone is embarrassed about a past offence. How can there be any comparison? That speaks volumes about the Labour Government’s attitude to crime and punishment and criminal justice. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that I had not intended speaking on this bill because I thought the work done by my colleague Dail Jones was sterling work and we needed to add no further comment. But having sat in my office and listened to the heartrending bleating speech made by the Minister on behalf of some correspondent I was moved to get down here and put a few things on record. 
In Mr Goff’s speech he implied that there were many members of this House who themselves might have committed childhood or youthful indiscretions who would take advantage of this bill. In saying so he threw a slur across the House that implied various members of this House had criminal convictions and needed this bill. Well I am one member who does have a criminal conviction. Many people whom I have been honest and upfront with have stated that my conviction is one of youthful indiscretion—that is of having carnal knowledge when I was a 17 to 18-year-old soldier. But is it not ironic that when I look at the Minister’s “Dishonesty Bill”—that is what I would name it; I would call it the “Right to Lie Bill”—and at what is meant by “specified offence” I see that my youthful indiscretion is not one that is covered by this Minister’s bill. 
So I dare say he speaks out both sides of his mouth. He says that youthful indiscretions committed when one is a young person are not things that should be brought up later in life to hound a person and impede that person’s progress through life—the person having led a crime-free life since then. He says that out of one side of his mouth while out of the other side he fails to point out that the very offence I was convicted of as a young man would not be concealed. 
I would love for the Minister to talk to me now about what he considers to be a youthful indiscretion. Is a youthful indiscretion a 15-year-old boy having sex with a 15-year-old girl? I ask the Minister: is that not a youthful indiscretion? Is that a heinous crime that is forever to be hung around that young boy’s neck for the rest of his life— 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the member wear it as a badge of honour? 
RON MARK 
: —because the puritans over there and Jill Pettis is one of them in the Labour caucus cannot forgive the youthful indiscretion of a 15-year-old boy who is in love with a 15-year-old girl? Oh no! We love to have a dollar each way. 
Stephen Franks 
: She’s normal! 
RON MARK 
: But she is normal. So I do not accept the Minister’s explanation. I think it is playing with words. This bill should be titled the “Right to Lie Bill”. 
I will tell the Minister why I am voting against this bill. I have been an employer. I have been responsible for vetting CVs of people I was going to take into my employ to handle money handle customers deal with children and look after mothers. I absolutely believe I had a right to know the background of each individual who applied for a job. If I then made a value judgment that the crime that person fessed up to was not one worthy of consideration given his or her record since then or the work he or she was going to be doing then it was a decision I would make. I would decide whether that person would be employed. But I would not like to have the person stand in front of me and lie barefaced to me with the protection of this legislation and then find out later on that in actual fact he or she had been employed somewhere else and had been caught with a hand in the till there—and I had just suffered the same consequences. That is not good for this country. 
My foster parents often told me a simple little saying. They used to say: “Honesty is the best policy.” That is what I would leave for this Government to consider. Should we disclose these facts to people today or should we not? I believe that honesty is the best policy. Look at what happened to me. My personal information was disclosed to the media far and wide throughout this land. It was used to try to discredit me. I could have lied to Mr Peters when I became a candidate; I could have lied to the president of my party; I could have lied to everybody. Under this bill I could—if my offence was covered; in actual fact it is not—have had criminal offences I did not disclose. At the end of the day when they are disclosed—because the public information is out there in the newspapers—who loses? Whose credibility is then destroyed? Actually it is the credibility of two: one would be myself and the other would be the actual system and the process. I do not believe in any way shape or form that this bill should be passed and that is why I will be voting against it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity finally to put the case for National that this bill is a complete and an utter nonsense. I say that because during other speeches in the Committee stage it was stated that this bill allows somebody to lie about his or her past. As the previous speaker said honesty is the best policy. The Law Society’s submission stated this: “The bill does not purport to expunge a conviction but rather to provide a framework whereby the existence of a conviction is suppressed. The bill doesn’t purport to remove the fact of a conviction from someone’s record but rather enables the convicted individual not to disclose a conviction and/or precludes particular individuals or entities from requiring or obtaining such disclosure.” To me “clean slate” means exactly that: the record is wiped clean. If the bill were to state that a conviction is wiped clean and is struck from the record as if nothing had ever happened then that would be a different story. But this bill does not do that. It does not expunge the conviction; the conviction is still there. 
The bill allows somebody with a conviction to say lawfully that he or she does not have a conviction and prospective employers will not be able to ask questions in order to ascertain the background of a person they may take on. In fact the bill legalises perjury. That is one thing that the Opposition and National in particular has great difficulty with. We believe that for people to take an honest approach to business is far better than for them to be able to say they do not have a conviction. Let us be open and let us lay the cards on the table. The bill legalises perjury and that is something we find to be offensive. Somebody will be able to hide his or her conviction for a minor dishonesty offence that may have occurred—but remembering that even major offences may have occurred that did not require a custodial sentence. There could be a conviction for assault. It could be that someone had his or her fingers in the till and I gave an example earlier on of an employee I had who wrote out a cheque and tried to embezzle money from me. It could be that a person has committed an assault or a minor theft or whatever the offence is. But at the end of the day a prospective employer should be able to ask about that and to lay on the table exactly what the requirements are. 
Does the employer not have any rights in this business? The Minister may like to answer that question. What about the rights of the employer? This bill states that the employer has absolutely no rights and that all the rights belong to the employee as we see in so many other pieces of legislation. If it is to be the case that an employee can hide his or her past convictions what would occur if someone was to say he or she had a qualification that he or she did not have? If that qualification got the person the job because it made the person’s CV look better than it was if that position were to be found out the person could well get the sack. Contrary to that if a person has a conviction then he or she is able to hide it and as we have said we find that that is completely unacceptable. When we look at the prospects of someone who wants to travel especially to countries like the United States we see there is absolutely no way such countries will let people in who have committed offences. That is an issue for anybody who wishes to travel overseas. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you for the Committee’s indulgence. I do appreciate this call as I was not able to get a call on earlier parts in the debate. I want to continue on with a couple of observations I have made. This bill and we are discussing the title could truly be called the “Lying in Unison Bill” the “Right to Perjure Oneself Bill” or the “Great Green Con Job Bill”. 
The reason the bill is here is that Labour is allowing itself to be forced into a situation promoted by the Greens. When I say that this legislation could be called the “Great Green Con Job Bill” I ask: is it not interesting that today the Green MPs were out on the forecourt of Parliament telling students that the most important thing out there to them was getting students an allowance? Yet the only thing they have really pursued to fruition in this House is this sort of stuff: the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill advocacy for legalising marijuana and cycleways and footpaths from one end of the country to the other which probably will not be used by anyone except Mrs Brown’s cat and two or three kiddies on their bikes maybe. It is like the cycleway that will go between Rangiora and Kaiapoi. I do not know who the heck rides a bike down there; nobody is stupid enough to. But it will be a very expensive unusable not used road when the very things the Greens could have been concentrating on were student allowances as they told everybody today they were but have not been. That is why I say that this bill could be called the “Great Green Con Job Bill”. 
I point out to the Minister that when we talk about people who will be able to conceal their convictions and consider the comments made previously about the insignificant nature of those convictions we should get it firmly in our heads. Mr Franks said that the average inmate who gets his first jail term has committed nine previous offences. He said that to get an average of nine offences they might well have committed 11 15 or 16. The Minister should take on board that many youth offenders we are dealing with in cities today—the recidivist offenders—who finally get a conviction have between 40 and 80 contacts with the police for breaking the law. They have had between 40 and 80 contacts with various youth agencies for criminal behaviour before they ever get charged let alone get convicted let alone get a jail term. 
So what I will be faced with and what every other small businessman out there will be faced with is not only having to deal with the vagaries of the youth justice system that already conceals through the Privacy Act and through the Youth Court— 
Stephen Franks 
: Suppression. 
RON MARK 
: The laws of suppression already conceal their 40 to 80 conflicts with the law for breaking the law but now this legislation will conceal the convictions they had subsequent to that—unless of course they have finally clocked up so many they have to go to jail. I say God help any small employer who runs foul of this because he will have no recompense. The Minister will not be there saying: “We’re really sorry. We know you’ve had embezzlement and we know your garage has been ripped off and half a dozen cars stolen. Yes we know this person had a track record.” He will not be there to help the businessman pay his new increased insurance levies. He will not be there to help that business recover loss. He will not be there to counsel staff who will lose their jobs because the business has suffered embezzlement. He will be sitting back here congratulating himself for passing this “Lying in Unison Bill”. 
That is what the bill is. It is touchy feel good fluffy legislation that does only one thing. It promotes lying legalises lying and dissuades people from the simple policy that most educated people are brought up to accept—that is that honesty is the best policy. 
Every day in this House and in select committees we are dealing with youth crime. We know the problems we are facing there. Any legislation passed through this House that enables people to conceal crimes that I believe that an employer trust or social welfare agency has a right to know about and make a valued judgment on is wrong. Further I ask what it is about the social welfare system the public service and businessmen that the Minister does not trust. Why can he not let them make that valued decision as they rightly should be allowed to do? 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 175 in the name of Murray Smith to clause 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 16 
ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 103 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Procedure 
The bill was reported with amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Report adopted.