Mark Ron: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12589] 
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.