Peck Mark: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12789] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 First of all the National Party should sack its research unit. The member faithfully read the research unit’s notes— 
Darren Hughes 
: Word for word. 
MARK PECK 
: It was word for word and she did a good job of that so let us thank the research unit for at least giving her something to say. 
The one point she made was the effect this legislation would have on our relationship with Australia. She should have done her homework but she did not. What she would know if she had done her homework is that this scheme has been in Australia for some time and in Canada and in the United Kingdom and in some of the states in the United States. We have lagged behind and it is about time we did something about it. 
In one of the speeches made by an Opposition member earlier—I think his name was Mr Connell—he said something like: “If people have offended once it is in their blood and they will always offend.” When I was in Australia recently I popped into the prison in Melbourne where they hanged Ned Kelly. There they have death masks because people used to believe that if a person’s eyes were a little close together he or she had certain criminal traits. They took the death masks to prove the theory. Under that particular regime Mr Tisch and I would have been in serious trouble and targeted as likely recidivist offenders. What a load of poppycock that is! 
Perhaps Murray McCully wrote the letter. We know that when he writes the lines the mouths open and the words come out. Sometimes as we have found people then run a mile from what they have said—as Simon Power had to do over his “anywhere anytime” speech. 
Darren Hughes 
: He wants a clean slate. 
MARK PECK 
: He does want a clean slate and he wants one right now because he is totally embarrassed about that. For one so young who has progressed so quickly he has come down with an incredible thud. 
The other thing I have noticed about this legislation is that people have not let the facts get in the way of the debate. That is OK—I used to be in Opposition and know how Opposition parties work. I know the rhetoric they wish to perpetrate and that sometimes they start to believe it. One of the first things we should learn in this place is not to believe the rhetoric. I do not know how many members in this House—and the Hon Ken Shirley would probably know if he were to research  
Hansard 
—have had their speeches quoted back to them some time later and asked: “Does the member remember making this particular statement?”. The question normally refers back 15 years when something occurred for which they were responsible in a former life perhaps as a Minister. I say to people that we should not for a moment believe the rhetoric expounded by Opposition research notes Murray McCully’s notes or anybody’s notes. 
This legislation applies only to those persons convicted of offences for which there is no custodial sentence and who have not reoffended. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear people chirping in the background: “Or who have not been caught or convicted.” But one of the things we know about people who have records is that if they offend again by and large they get caught because the police are well aware of those who are likely to reoffend and they watch them. 
Members on the opposite side of the House should take an opportunity to go out with the local constabulary from time to time. In the times that I have been out with the raid squad at night when it was doing the pubs the clubs and the rounds dealing with some of these youngsters who get a little liquored up from time to time I have found that the police go out of their way to ensure that people do not actually have to be arrested. It is only those who are incredibly silly who end up getting arrested and convicted. 
There could be as many as 500000 New Zealanders who will benefit from this particular law—all of those who have offended once in their lifetimes perhaps and who sincerely regret it to this day. This is a good bill and it should be passed. The ACT people could give Richard Prebble a going-away present by voting for this legislation because he was the first member to raise the issue in the House so many years ago now—in fact in 1983. It would be a very good departure present for him. I say to the deputy leader of the ACT party who is a little bit behind in the poll at the moment that to support Richard Prebble on this legislation at this point would be a good thing to do.