Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12567] 
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.