O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It gives me pleasure to rise on the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. One of my colleagues across the Chamber described me as a dinosaur some minutes ago in relation to my time in the police. It did cause me to reflect that I did spend some time as a police officer in the New Zealand Police and I was indeed in the police at a time when police were actively policing these Acts: section 141 indecency between males; section 142 sodomy; section 146 keeping place of resort for homosexual acts; section 153 unnatural offence; section 154 attempt to commit unnatural offences. As I sat on the Justice Committee and considered the submitters considered the bill it did cause me to give thought to just what it was like in those days—those days in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s even—for those who were brought into the criminal justice system because it wasn't just a conviction; it was everything that went with that. In a lot of the latter years a lot of the policing of the Act in Wellington was around Marion Street where a lot of transsexual men and a lot of homosexual men would nightly be brought into the Wellington Central Police Station and charged with associated offences. So as I considered that—I looked at the different parts of the bill—I couldn't help but have context for what it was that we were actually doing and achieving with this bill and that complemented by the submitters who brought their own stories their own experiences to the select committee really did give me a sense that this is a very right thing to be doing.Saying that I think we should remember that we are in another time now and we shouldn't be too hard on those who were responsible for the legislation and the enforcement of same in that period because quite frankly that was another time. But we are now in a time when we I think take a much broader view of the effect that some relatively narrow views placed into the criminal justice system can have on the lives of people particularly those who are part of this. I look at what the bill was attempting to actually achieve at its outset and one of the main parts of that of course was that it was essentially to reduce prejudice stigma and all other negative effects". I go to clause 3 "Purpose of this Act" which is to "reduce prejudice stigma and all other negative effects arising from a conviction for a historical homosexual offence". In doing that it allows upon application by the convicted person or a representative on their behalf if they are deceased the expungement of a historical heterosexual offence if it meets the test for expungement.I refer to that part of the Act where it lists the classes of people who are able to apply on behalf of a deceased person. They are the executor the administrator or the trustee of their estate; or their spouse civil union partner de facto partner parent sibling or child. The definition of "representative" also includes anyone who has requested to be a representative and the Secretary for Justice has granted that request. There was some discussion at the select committee as to the extent that it should be applied to those who had passed on but certainly the agreement was that the pain was often so great for those individuals that it did actually carry on well beyond the grave and in fact to family representatives. I commend this bill."