Goff Phil: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13091] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Clean Slate Bill in the name of Nandor Tanczos will not as he has indicated be progressing today. That fact does not reflect on the good idea behind the bill but reflects the fact that this Government has moved already to enact legislation that finally in this country allows a person who may have committed a less serious offence—normally as part of a youthful indiscretion—finally to put the past behind them. 
I welcome the work that Nandor Tanczos has done on his bill and his motivation and compassion behind it. He said he spurred the Government into action. I am not quite sure that that is exactly correct. The Labour Party manifesto in 2002 contained a provision whereby we would have clean slating of minor criminal records. We put that before the people of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand returned this Government for a second term and with a record level of voter support in the MMP environment. 
There is a mandate for this type of legislation in part because some 500000 New Zealanders according to the Ministry of Justice will be affected by it. As Nandor Tanczos has said a lot of those people have lived for many many years with something that has preyed on their minds and caused them anguish and the fear of discovery. During the Committee stage of my own bill I read a letter from a lady who 23 years ago had been convicted of a shoplifting charge. This is what she wrote in brief: “This has been my one and only breaking of the law and one I regret on a daily basis. It does not go away. 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 marriage at risk.” 
Like Nandor Tanczos I have received literally scores of letters along a similar line from people in that situation. I deeply regret that there has been a lack of compassion with regard to this issue in some sections of the House. People have thought that there may be some political points to be scored by showing how tough they are and saying that people who committed an offence many many years ago of a less serious nature should not be able to put their past behind them. I think of all the legislation I have passed in the justice area. Much has been tough and much has resulted in people going to prison for much longer. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Mapp can scoff but now people are being sentenced to 30 years non-parole for serious murders. To be fair to the Green Party members I note that they supported that legislation. The worst offenders in this country should be treated in a tough and uncompromising way. But there are a lot of other people who have made mistakes in their lives. Some of the self-righteous members who have opposed clean slate legislation may well say that they have led blameless lives. Well I do not think any one of us has led a blameless life. We have all made mistakes. Some people who have made mistakes have paid a price for that. 
John Carter 
: Speak for yourself! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is “St John” or rather “St Hone” over there who claims he should be exempted from that description. But it is human to err and most of us have done it. Many New Zealanders—half a million—have paid the price and have been convicted and at a certain point we have to say that when one commits a minor offence it is not a life sentence. But many of these people have been serving a life sentence. A man rang my office a couple of weeks ago. He had just come back from Australia. Australia has had clean slate legislation for many years. He came back to this country with a minor conviction from a couple of decades ago. He rang my office to say how much of an obstacle that minor conviction had been in his securing employment in our country. 
I have heard members in this House oppose this legislation as though it is some radical and new measure that will undermine law and order in this country. Can I say how much that is nonsense. The United Kingdom has had clean slate legislation for 30 years. Has it caused chaos in England? No it is regarded as common sense. This legislation is a measure that I think will have wide support around New Zealand. 
Nandor Tanczos has raised the question of the threshold. I puzzled for quite a long time over the sort of threshold that I thought might be most appropriate. I am aware that as the member has said there are some people who have received prison sentences of up to 3 months—and again that is sometimes a reflection of the past—for less serious offences but in the end I decided that the least arbitrary threshold we could set for clean slating was a non-custodial sentence. A non-custodial sentence by definition is regarded as something that is imposed when the person is not a serious or recidivist offender. So in terms of having a clear and the least arbitrary threshold I think that threshold is appropriate. 
 The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act originally had a 10-year period for non-reoffending but I listened to what the select committee had heard in submissions and the clear evidence was that after 7 years of non-conviction one is no more likely than anyone else to be a repeat offender. The science suggested that 7 years is an appropriate time when one can say: “I have turned my life around. I am no longer an offender. I have had no more convictions. Please give me the chance to live down my past. Please give me an incentive and recognition for the fact that I am now a law-abiding citizen.” I think the 7-year period is quite appropriate. 
The legislation that has been passed is not about expunging the record. One cannot expunge something that has happened. It is about concealing a record after the time has passed when there is a need for transparency of that record. Of course if a person reoffends then the whole record will be exposed again and appropriately so. But what we have also done is to look at particular exclusions. I think we have erred on the side of caution with the legislation we have passed. I have done that deliberately because we are—in this country at least—entering new ground to that extent. 
What we have done is to exclude sexual offences and certain very sensitive forms of employment are also excluded. But if we had made exclusions for everything the Opposition wanted the legislation that has gone through would have had no impact at all. That was just a back-door way of trying to undermine the legislation. 
I think we have the balance right and I think history will demonstrate that. I think there are members in this House who have opposed this legislation who in times to come will look back at their words with a sense of shame and wonder why they could not have put partisanship and politicking behind them. They will wonder why they could not have done something to show an ounce of compassion and decency and a belief that it is quite possible for people who have broken the law in the past often in their youth to turn their lives around and become decent citizens and say: “I have paid my price. I have met the sanction. I can now get on with my life.” as people have written so movingly to me in recounting their own personal circumstances. 
Finally this bill has played an important part in the debate over clean slating. Once again I thank Nandor Tanczos for his initiative in bringing the bill through. Now that the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act has been passed we are moving on to a new era in the New Zealand justice system. I think that is positive for New Zealand. I thank the member for his contribution and I look forward to the law that has been enacted making a big change in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders.