Worth Richard: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10338] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a privilege on behalf of National to indicate the position of the National Party in respect of this iniquitous legislation the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. A very good starting point on which to make preliminary comment is the statement made by the previous speaker that this scheme is to help “ordinary New Zealanders”. I say to Government members opposite that ordinary New Zealanders are not criminals. Ordinary New Zealanders do not require the protective provisions of this bill which the Government seems determined to pass. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What hypocrisy. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Clearly the member’s position is that ordinary New Zealanders are criminals. That is just flying in the face of reality. 
This bill has been the subject of very detailed consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I would like to start off by highlighting what the impact of this legislation will be because it has some core elements that are central to the Government’s philosophies behind it. First of all the legislation enables criminal convictions to be concealed rather than wiped or expunged. A criminal record that is eligible for concealment must be protected from unlawful disclosure. Later I plan to develop the argument that it is wrong to call this bill a clean slate bill because the slate is not cleaned; the slate is temporarily concealed and it can re-emerge in the context of a range of circumstances discussed in the bill. 
Second the legislation is automatic in the sense that it does not require individuals to make an application to have their convictions clean-slated. If it were within the power of National we would be seeking to have a clean slate provision that did require application in individual cases. Third it is an all-or-nothing regime which means that an individual must meet all the criteria in order to become eligible—and a record of course can become unconcealed in the event of subsequent conviction. Next the legislation is question-based. 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. Finally it takes “criminal record” to mean official criminal record only which includes all material held about criminal records by Government agencies. 
The commentary on the bill includes National’s minority view—for National was a minority on this committee—and the starting point for our concern is that the legislation is based on mistaken political correctness. It is not in fact clean-slating as I have said; rather it is the concealment of convictions in limited cases. Such convictions may become disclosed in a number of circumstances. Not ruled out is the possibility of records maintained in private and media archives. I am certain this legislation will give impetus to a new business which will be the setting up of private records that will be accessible by those who have an interest in the criminal history of offenders and who can effectively subvert the purposes of this legislation by providing details from that archival material. Second convictions may become disclosed by the inadvertent disclosure or consent of the offender. There is no doubt that the legislation can be subverted in cases where for example in the context of an employment interview the interview is structured in a way that will lead to the offender believing he or she has no alternative but to disclose that prior criminal history. 
As the Minister has said the third aspect is that the bill does not deal with questions involving the laws of foreign countries—in particular customs and immigration questions. Those who seek to enter the United States as travellers for example will still have to answer correctly the question on the immigration documents that in the case of entrants to that country and to other countries asks: “Have you ever had a conviction for a criminal offence?”. So this bill sets up a regime whereby one can tell the truth and must tell the truth in the context of answering the questions of foreign agencies but has a warrant to lie in respect of questions asked in a New Zealand setting. Finally there are exceptions in relation to an offender seeking particular types of employment. Clearly the class of those employment opportunities has not been closed because tonight the Minister has indicated that a new exception will be created in respect of firearms licences and questions being asked under the Arms Act. 
I believe strongly there is a relevant public interest in knowing the criminal history of any person particularly in the context of employment. I take as an example my past occupation as a lawyer where there is a need to know when employing legal staff or staff who will be involved in aspects relating to the handling of money whether a person has convictions for dishonesty. Law is just one occupation where knowing that information is truly relevant to a decision to take a person into employment. This legislation could well create a situation whereby an offender may have multiple convictions of dishonesty and theft that have fallen short of a custodial sentence but does not have to disclose his or her criminal history. Most thinking New Zealanders would find that utterly unacceptable. 
The bill involves sanctioning a lie because an eligible individual may under clause 11(2) say that he or she has no criminal record. So the bill legitimises perjury and it legitimises breaches of the Oaths and Declarations Act. I am amazed that any Government that puts a premium on honesty and the need for transparency in process would contemplate legislation of this kind. 
Stephen Franks 
: They don’t. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: As an interjector has just commented that is not the hallmark of this Government at all. 
There is a case—and I would argue this strongly—for greater use to be made of the diversion scheme for minor offences so that young people facing criminal charges for minor offences do not carry what clearly is the stigma of a conviction. I would like to see the diversion scheme formalised in legislation in order to ensure consistency of application while preserving the necessary element of flexibility. It seems to me that the current diversion scheme tends to favour middle-class white youths. There is an unevenness in the application of the diversion scheme that could well do with codification and the establishing of more settled guidelines. There is also a case for legislation to contain provisions for true clean-slate applications to be made to the court in individual cases; so where an individual is having a particular problem and where the stigma of a conviction is truly working an injustice it may be possible in an individual case for that criminal conviction to be set aside. However it should not be on the basis on which this bill proceeds which is a blanket concealment of convictions. That is very much the essence of this bill. 
There are a number of issues of drafting and detail that need to await the Committee stage of the bill. I note as a point of interest that incorporated in the bill is a diagram that gives a general overview of eligibility under the clean slate scheme.