Connell Brian: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12783] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 What an outstanding speech from the member opposite! If only I meant that. What an amazing declaration of her past offending! The proposition that she was typical of people of her age and time—that they could engage in offending and it was OK—I simply do not accept. What does this PC nonsense called the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill set out to do? [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis just had an opportunity to take a call and we already know what she thinks so the less we hear from her the better. 
I looked at clause 3 “Overview”: “(1) This Act establishes a clean slate scheme to limit the effect of an individual’s convictions …”. Clause 3(2)(a) provides: “he or she is deemed to have no criminal record for the purposes of any question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record;”. In other words such people are being told and encouraged to lie. Clause 3(2)(b) provides: “he or she has the right to have his or her criminal record concealed by government departments and law enforcement agencies that hold or have access to his or her criminal record.” In other words this Parliament is being asked to engage in a giant deception so that people with criminal records can have their past offending covered up. It is a giant fraud being perpetrated on the people of this country by this Government. It is simply not true. We in the National Party simply do not accept it. Why should law-abiding citizens now be lumped into the same category as lawbreakers? 
What signals is the Government sending? Where is the incentive to go straight? This is the message: it is OK to break the law provided that one engages in only minor offending only little crimes. That is the message. No wonder the young kids of this country are confused about what is right and wrong: this Government continues to blur the lines. No wonder youth offending is now at record highs. Why? Because this Government is soft on crime and if ever one wanted a better example of it it is this legislation. This legislation says to our kids that it is OK to break the law. It is OK; there is no consequence for them from breaking the law. There is no consequence provided that it is only minor offending. 
Who asked the victims? Who asked the victims to categorise what minor offending is? Is it OK to burgle a house? Did anyone go and ask the victims that? I bet not. Mark my words this will lead to a flood of serious criminal offending and just because this Government had a feel-good moment. It is just like parenting: if one does not assert what is right and wrong children do not understand what is expected of them. The same will now happen with our young people whom this law is supposedly deemed to be assisting. I tell members of this House and the people of this country that they should strap themselves in for a flood of criminal offending of a proportion never before seen in this country before. 
Mr Worth my esteemed colleague talked about how this bill will apply to immigration. He used the example of an immigration officer overseas asking someone about his or her criminal record. That person is meant to tell the truth but that immigration officer can have absolutely no confidence that the person is doing so because the officer cannot get records from New Zealand that would satisfy him or her that what he or she has been told is correct. The officer will simply lose confidence in New Zealand citizens and in our judiciary. What will happen is that he or she will become risk-averse and law-abiding members of the New Zealand public will be held up unnecessarily when travelling. 
The next issue I want to raise is employers. Employers who hire employees on the basis of trust will have no available records to show whether a potential employee is an erstwhile law-abiding citizen or otherwise. I have a real live example—which Jill Pettis might be interested in hearing about. When I worked for the Westpac Banking Corporation one of the responsibilities I had was security. A former senior detective the head of security reported to me. He came to me one day with a sob story that I bought. A young Polynesian lad who had been taken on at one of the branches had been caught putting his hand in the till and taking $20. The head of security said to me: “Brian this guy has got to go because we have absolutely no trust that he won’t perpetrate a worse type of offence.” I said to him: “That’s too tough. That’s unreasonable. Give the guy a break. For goodness’ sake he only took $20.” As much as he tried to convince me I thought I knew better. I was a bit like Darren Hughes at the time—young green thought I knew it all and impressionable—and I just could not listen to those who knew better. I ruled that the guy could stay employed at Westpac and do members know what happened? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No. What happened? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Six months later the head of security came to me with the guy’s record. He did not say: “I told you so Brian.” but what he did say was that this guy—the same guy—had just taken the bank for $10000. If I had listened to him at the time I would not have been in the position of having to eat humble pie. If we listened to what Darren Hughes and Jill Pettis are saying we would agree to this bill because we would not be concerned about someone taking $20 out of a till. If it is in one’s blood it is in one’s blood. If one is going to be dishonest one is going to be dishonest. It does not make any difference whether the offending was 5 minutes 5 years 7 years or 10 years ago: if a pattern of dishonesty is established then it will continue. 
Why will the Government not let employers have all the facts at their disposal and make decisions according to the merits of each case? I believe that most employers are reasonable people. They would sit down and examine the situation and if someone could convince them that his or her offending was an aberration or that it was a Jill Pettis type of crime— 
Judith Collins 
: What was that? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: She admitted she had flogged a lipstick. OK it was an aberration—we can accept that. Most employers would say: “Yeah OK I will give you the benefit of the doubt.” But when employers do not know and when people sitting in front of them have been told that lying is State sanctioned that it is OK not to tell the truth employers will become risk-averse. 
Another example that bothers me is that of drink-drivers. Under this legislation 40 percent of drink-drivers will have their slates cleaned. I do not know the name of that scumbag on television last night—the guy who had killed three of his friends. He had driven drunk God knows how many times— 
Judith Collins 
: Ten times. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Ten times. He has ten convictions and he keeps doing it. Potentially this legislation would give that guy carte blanche. 
Darren Hughes 
: He wouldn’t be eligible. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I ask Mr Hughes how many people have to die before this Government stops putting in place legislation that the majority of people in this country simply do not want. 
What about drug abuse? The police say that those who engage in drug taking are involved in something like 80 percent of all crime in this country. Under this legislation it is being suggested that people who use drugs should not have to front up with that fact. Well I tell members that that is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage and the good people of this country simply will not stand for it. 
I say to members opposite that they have to toughen up. They think they are doing the right thing but I have told them and shown them by way of example that this law is inherently wrong. When people are disposed to dishonesty then no amount of law changing or bending will change that. The Government should let people in society have the facts put in front of them should let people sit down as adults and make coherent cogent decisions; then people can live with the consequences of their actions. But to suggest to the people of New Zealand that it is OK to lie is certainly not acceptable and the National Party just will not put up with it.