Mapp Wayne: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13093] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 A consistent theme that comes through from both the Minister of Justice and the promoter of the bill Nandor Tanczos is youthful crime—youthful indiscretion. I suspect the Clean Slate Bill and indeed the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act have been largely motivated by the proposition that a minor offence committed let us say under the age of 20 during one’s teenage years should not follow a person throughout his or her entire life. 
Both the Minister and Mr Tanczos particularly when he introduced the bill some time ago made extensive reference to youthful indiscretion and that is a reasonable point. I think most people can understand that youthful indiscretions at the lower end of the scale should not follow a person for the rest of his or her life. National recognised this in its minority report in relation to the Government bill when it referred to the greater use of diversion. We accept that those crimes particularly under the Summary Offences Act that can be dealt with by diversion ought to be dealt with by diversion. If diversion does occur then such offences do not appear on a person’s record. So we do understand that proposition and there are a variety of mechanisms to achieve that particular outcome. Had the Government or indeed Mr Tanczos introduced legislation to deal specifically with youthful indiscretion they may well have achieved not just a majority but a broad consensus in the Parliament. They did not and that was the problem. 
I wish to refer to clause 4 of the member’s Clean Slate Bill which provides: “The purpose of this Act is to limit the effects of a person’s conviction for a minor crime in situations where that person is unlikely to re-offend.” If only that had been true in the balance of the legislation because as soon as he included offences that were not just capable of imprisonment but where imprisonment was actually imposed for 6 months he took the legislation well beyond the category of minor crime. In New Zealand 6 months’ imprisonment is handed out for quite serious offences for example burglary assault robbery and fraud. Mr Tanczos mentioned careless use of a motor vehicle. Mere careless use of a motor vehicle cannot result in a 6-month jail sentence because it simply does not attract such a penalty. Of course careless use of a motor vehicle resulting in injury or death does so that is quite a different issue. That would take the offence well beyond being a minor indiscretion. One has to do something quite significant before one would be charged with such an offence and receive a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. Careless use of a motor vehicle without any further record would not result in imprisonment even if it resulted in injury. If on the other hand a person had a pattern of offending such as consistently speeding and things of that nature then a prison sentence would result. 
So one of our fundamental objections to Mr Tanczos’ bill was that it went way beyond what he had contemplated. It was a fair point that he noted I had made those observations at the time of the legislation. He also noted that perhaps the Government’s bill took those comments at the time into account. I also stressed at the time the issue of youthful indiscretion which of course Mr Tanczos did not mention. He knows that the two were linked together in my speeches and as I say that was the default in the Government’s legislation as well. 
This is an area where I believe all parties in Parliament understood there was a genuine issue: the youthful offender who was unlikely to reoffend where there was a truly minor offence. I acknowledge that the youthful offender extends beyond the jurisdiction of the Youth Court which stops at age 17. So it would include 18 and 19-year-olds who would be dealt with through the District Court in the full glare of publicity. I think all members would acknowledge that that is a particular age band where people ought to be able to move beyond their offending if they can show a pattern of doing so. National’s solution as indicated in the minority report to the Government’s legislation which is now an Act was greater use of diversion. So it is wrong for Mr Goff to get up in his usual lecturing way and take a platitudinous approach saying that certain members will regret statements they had made. There was a way of achieving legislation that I believe would have had pretty broad consent. It would have had to be limited however to the youthful offender. 
 I want to conclude on one final point. The Minister of course also made much play about being tough on crime. He tends to talk tough. But I want to remind him of this one simple fact before he becomes excessively boastful as he is wont to do. Under his legislation and this is for the benefit of the junior Government whip because it is quite clear he does not know this fact— 
Darren Hughes 
: I was on the select committee. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No. I tell the member he was not on the relevant select committee that considered that legislation. The fact is this: a rapist sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment is now eligible for parole at 3 years. That is the reality—the absolute reality. In the past that person could not have been released until 6 years had passed. I recognise there was a deficiency in the old legislation and that there would have been an automatic release at 6 years. Mr Goff used to point that out consistently and regularly. Everyone anticipated that the law as introduced would have at a minimum provided for eligibility instead of automatic release on serving two-thirds of the sentence. Mr Goff completely negated the force of his then tough words by the law he introduced—sentenced to 9 years eligible for parole at 3 years. Under no stretch of the imagination can that be considered tough legislation. It was not it is not and the public knows the truth of that. That is why whenever Mr Goff appears at any public meeting on the issue he is properly reprimanded by the public for having failed them. 
It is with regret that I say Government members did not properly understand the core issue in the clean slate area—that is the youthful offender. That is where they needed to concentrate their minds because if they had done so they might then have been able to get broad consensus. Mr Worth who is the ranking member of National on that select committee specifically referred to diversion for youthful offenders. He did so for a reason which was that we acknowledge there is a particular issue around that matter. Had it been the focus of the legislation there might well have been support for it. That issue was not the focus. The legislation is therefore deficient and that is why National did not support the Government’s bill and does not support Mr Tanczos’ bill.