Goff Phil: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Goff Phil: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12581] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have just listened to some speeches from members of the Opposition that suggest that somehow this legislation is going to protect “serious offenders” “hardened offenders” “practised lags”—Mr Worth who is a lawyer says—and “serious criminals”. I think the best way of responding to those comments from people who have clearly led blameless lives who have never been in breach of the law and who are ready to cast the first stone is for me to read a letter I received 7 days ago in my office. It is a short letter. I will read it in full and then perhaps Mr Mapp and Mr Franks can tell me whether this is the sort of hardened criminal they intend should be deprived of the relief that this legislation would give. 
“Dear Mr Goff I am interested in your Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill which I understand is up for discussion again in May. The reason for this letter is a very personal one as 23 years ago I was convicted of a minor shoplifting charge and fined $100. This has been my one and only breaking of the law and one I regret on a daily basis. It does not go away. I understand that a first offender these days on minor charges does not get convicted. No one in my family has any knowledge of this record. My husband would be devastated if he knew and more than likely should he find out this would put my 31-year-old marriage at risk—he being the most honest person I know. Travel insurances and many other things including employment are affected by my conviction and I am so hopeful that your proposed bill will be passed into law. My reason for writing this letter—and it took a lot of soul-searching to do this—is to maybe express the view of many like me who have a similar story. Basically this is a heart-felt plea to you to endeavour to see that this much-needed law change is passed.” That is the sort of “hardened criminal” the Opposition is so determined should have so little protection against his or her past being discovered. 
I have received many many letters. No issue in the criminal justice area I think has attracted as many letters as this topic has. 
Richard Worth 
: Not a typical example. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: For the edification of Mr Worth who says it is not typical I say I believe that it is very much typical. We are introducing a conservative regime. It requires that the person has never served a custodial sentence. That by definition means that it affects those who have committed less serious offences. It requires that that person has not had another conviction for 7 years and the information given to the select committee suggests that a person who has not reoffended over that period of time is hardly more likely to reoffend than a person who has never had a conviction. 
I want to say to Mr Worth that the Ministry of Justice estimates there are some 500000 New Zealanders who fall into this category including members who sit in this Chamber. I am saying that those people were not sentenced to a life sentence for relatively minor offending. They have met the penalty that was imposed on them they have lived with that offending for a long time and for God’s sake let us show some compassion and give those people who have led blameless lives for at least 7 years the chance to put that past behind them. It is tempting in Opposition I know to try to make a political football out of this but let me tell and warn the Opposition that if there are 500000 New Zealanders who come into this category there are 500000 New Zealanders with family members who do understand that people convicted of minor offending—that is not the sort of offending the penalties for which we have increased massively in this House and rightly so—are people who made a mistake once in their lives and should be given a fair go to put that offending behind them.