Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill

This is a most curious debate, for many reasons. First, not one Government member has spoken in favour of this legislation. The contribution to date from Government members has been limited to moving two closure motions. I suggest that is an absolute disgrace. Why do I say it is a disgrace? Because this particular legislation, which National opposes—the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill—is very much the centrepiece of the Government’s criminal rehabilitation strategy.

The Associate Minister, Mr Barker, is present in Parliament. He is sitting just in front of me; he is sitting silently, sullenly, and disinterestedly. He is simply not prepared to contribute to this debate. I say that is a pity, because if this is important legislation, it does deserve considered contribution from the Committee, and it does deserve careful comment from the Minister. But we are not to see that. He is not even prepared to speak in favour of his amendments; instead, they are put through by his ciphers. It is a shocking state of affairs.

One of the things we have said about this bill is that it is a mandate to lie. If members want to reflect on the fact that those perhaps seem harsh words, let me just refer them to clause 11(2). This is the “mandate to lie” clause that the Minister is apparently so proud of. Clause 11(2) states: “An eligible individual may answer a question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record by stating that he or she has no criminal record.” So if an offender, someone who has a criminal record, is asked: “Do you have a criminal record?”, the offender can give the answer: “No, I have no criminal record at all.” What can be the possible justification for that type of legislation? How can the Minister and his Government be proud of legislation that has as its purpose the concealment of the truth, and that allows, in effect, perjury, which represents the most gross abuse of the Oaths and Declarations Act of 1957?

National made very specific comment in its minority report in the commentary on the bill. I would just like to refer to some parts of that report. The legislation is based on mistaken political correctness, and is not, as I said in the debate on Part 1, in fact a clean slating; rather, it is a concealment of convictions in limited cases, for limited purposes, and where, if subsequent offending occurs, the convictions can be revealed again.

Of course, convictions may become disclosed in a number of ways. The legislation does not deal with the fact that entities may now set up private and media archives. It used to be the case that court reporters would follow quite closely what was going on in our criminal courts, and the newspapers would publish material on criminal convictions that had been entered. That does not now happen quite to the same extent, but this legislation will be able to be utterly subverted by the maintenance of private and media archives. I bet that a new business will spring up, maintained by the sorts of companies that are involved in debt collection and credit control. There will be a legitimate public interest, and the realistic expectation of commercial gain, if this valuable information on the criminal records of people in New Zealand is maintained.

That is the first way that these convictions may become disclosed. Another way may simply be by inadvertent disclosure, or the offender may consent to their release.

As the person who was honoured to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee that dealt with the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill, I would very much like to respond to some of the points made. I have to say, first of all, that reading the New Zealand First minority view on the bill does not take long, because it contains six words, and reading the National Party minority view does not take much longer. In fact, members have heard it stated at least a dozen times already in the brief time we have been discussing this bill.

The committee did a very good job on the bill. We made a number of changes to it. What we realised, as we approached the legislation, was that a clean-slate structure requires a number of choices to be made in a number of areas. One choice is the length of time. When we looked at the reoffending rates, we realised that to reduce the rehabilitation period from 10 years to 7 would not have a major effect, so we did that. Secondly, we addressed the choice whether there should be an automatic wiping of relevant convictions, or whether it should be done by application. The application process, which has been attacked this afternoon by National, is by far the best, most efficient, and cost-effective way to do it. Thirdly, should there be some exemptions? Clearly, there should be in some areas, and Government amendments will take that a bit further, because there are some sensitive jobs and processes in society, such as owning a weapon, that require some additional questioning. Therefore, the committee examined that. The issue of travel is really quite irrelevant, because that is about jurisdictions overseas. There is no way that we can willingly hide information that should properly be available to Governments overseas; that is really not an issue.

That leaves the one issue that has really been the only tangible point made by the Opposition, and that is the one about concealment or removal of the conviction. The reality is that if the conviction is removed and somebody then reoffends, the conviction cannot re-emerge. Therefore, if one is to advocate a removal process, as National effectively does at the end of its minority report, one is advocating that people who subsequently reoffend will not have that old conviction reappearing. That is a dangerous line, I think, for the public to consider tolerating. The approach that is being taken in the bill is the approach of concealment, which is the proper approach, because if somebody reoffends, then the offence can re-emerge.

That leaves the situation of what happens when somebody is asked about that offence. There is no way to do it other than the way the bill does it. The bill does not encourage lying—that is a typical spin from Opposition members and their ciphers. What the bill actually does is to authorise people with very specific categories of convictions—7 years old or more—to respond in a certain way to a question about their criminal record status from certain agencies in certain situations, because otherwise the whole purpose of clean-slate legislation would fall down. National admits, in the last paragraph of its minority comment, the complete redundancy of its arguments, because it does actually advocate a “true ‘clean slate’ ” system—without explaining what it means. The implication of that system is it will leave New Zealanders vulnerable to people who have their offences removed permanently from the system, then reoffend.

The previous speech highlights the importance of a short and succinct minority report that cannot possibly be distorted, because there was a clear distortion on that previous speaker’s part in so far as the National Party minority report was concerned. I will leave it to National Party members to take that issue up.

My concern is about clause 15 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill, and how originally in the clause there needed to be a police vetting under the Education Act 1989 where a position was required to be carried out through the New Zealand Teachers Council. That requirement has been removed by the Labour Party minority Government, supported by the Greens. The Labour Government and the Greens do not want police vetting for people who apply for registration by the New Zealand Teachers Council for jobs as teachers. Today, it is mandatory in, I think, every school in New Zealand for a teacher to be registered. Teacher registration is compulsory. As part of getting a teacher registration, there should be a police vetting as to one’s character. As I see it, that provision has been removed from the bill, and now anyone can become registered as a teacher without that vetting taking place. I think that is a weakness in this legislation.

I see that Mr Worth will move an amendment in that regard, and New Zealand First will support that amendment, because there is clearly a defect in the bill as reported back by the minority Labour Government and its supporters, the Greens. I am not too surprised at the Greens supporting something like that, but for the Labour Party, which has a lot of support from teaching groups, to allow an alteration to the bill that allows primary teachers, secondary teachers, and people who would normally be registered as teachers, not to be vetted for registration purposes, in this day and age, is absolutely appalling.

💬 Stephen Franks: They’re thinking of their caucus. They’re thinking of the future.

It does require the commission of an offence, and that is too much of a long bow for me. Broadly speaking, how can the Labour Party allow this to happen? How can the New Zealand Educational Institute, the Post Primary Teachers Association, and all those other bodies that want to maintain high professional standards, allow a situation to exist whereby people can say: “Yes, you registered as a teacher, but you were not properly vetted, were you?”.

Anyone can become a teacher these days. People may have committed all sorts of offences, and they can still become a teacher these days, as a result of the way in which the Labour Party does things. Under new clause 14A, it is an offence to require someone to disregard this scheme. One can be fined $10,000. I think that any school—not just private schools—wants to make sure of the character of people applying for jobs. If principals, chief executives, or employing officers of schools say they do not care what is in the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill, and that they want to know whether someone has a criminal record, they can be fined up to $10,000. I hope the various schools will make the point known to employing staff that now, in trying to make sure that the quality of staff is beyond dispute, they can end up with a fine of $10,000.

That is absolutely appalling, but it shows the standard of this minority Labour Government, and standard of the Greens. How low can they possibly go, in this day and age? The Labour Party and the Greens are showing just how low they can go.

The other issue I mentioned earlier was with regard to the trustworthiness of staff. Speaking as a lawyer, I know that lawyers have to deal a lot with trust account money, and we want to make sure that people’s money is safe. When lawyers are employing people they cannot now ask applicants whether they have committed an offence. We want to make sure that lawyers’ money is not stolen by either lawyers or their staff, and, in this case, staff involved with lawyers are not allowed to ask people who are coming for a job whether they have ever had a previous criminal conviction, especially for theft.

That affects lawyers’ insurance policies. When lawyers take out an insurance policy, they have to talk about the trustworthiness and honesty of their staff. Now the overseas companies that give insurance to law firms in New Zealand cannot rely on the information that is given to lawyers, and lawyers’ insurance premiums will go up as a result. No one can be certain, when dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars, whether staff are honest or dishonest.

I speak on behalf of United Future on Part 2, and I was just thinking as I was sitting here, as we are bringing this bill on line, that I would hope to be in a country where we actually lift the bar on achievement, and not lower the bar. I was thinking about our great All Blacks. What if we said to them that they did not need to come out to practice matches now, to just imagine that they were going to practice, and that it would be good enough to turn up on the day of the game and do their best? All this sort of legislation is lowering the bar. I have found, as a sportsman, that if we want to improve things, we have to lift the bar to achieve.

We all make mistakes, as we heard before, and I thought it was interesting that Tim Barnett was the only one from the Opposition parties speaking for this bill. Tim and I would come from—

💬 Richard Worth: He’s from the Government, not the Opposition.

From the Government, my apologies.

💬 Richard Worth: He’s going to be the Opposition.

He is going to be the Opposition. Tim and I would come from different viewpoints on many issues, and I find that when we lower the bar and lower the standards, we actually get a decrease in society. Society does not improve; it goes exactly the opposite way.

I am also concerned with what the situation is if people are convicted in New Zealand. They get caught, and it is only a minor offence, so they leave the country and go to another country. They continue to commit minor offences in that country, which leads to more major offences. If they choose to come back to New Zealand after 7 years, our police department has no record of the offences in another country. These people can come home, and if this legislation is passed, they can apply for work here as though nothing had ever happened.

I do not like that. I do not think that most fair-minded, straight-thinking New Zealanders would like that. I have found that New Zealanders are very fair, and very forgiving, but they do want to know the truth. When they see the Government setting up lies, they have major problems with that.

Let me give members a very real example. For those in the Chamber who have a heart full of compassion for people, I do not object to feeling sorry for those who have committed misdemeanours. I know of a person who had somebody working with him selling quite high-priced objects. This person was caught selling something for $100 cash and pocketing the cash. Whichever way we look at it, that is fraud. The person was confronted, and an agreement was reached that as long as that person handed in his resignation—so the employer did not have to go through all the employment hassles from the daft legislation we have in some of these areas—nothing would be said about that $100 fraud.

At the end of the day, did we help that person? No, because, unfortunately, he went on to another situation where his $100 fraud turned into a $20,000 or $30,000 fraud. The second employer had rung the first employer to ask whether there were any areas of concern to be aware of. Because of the agreement, the answer was no. Therefore, the second employer took on the person, not knowing that there was a sign of risk.

I ask members today, as we look at this Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill, what is the difference? What is the difference when a genuine employer is just trying to find out the facts? He wants to work on the truth. It is difficult enough to do that in today’s market as it is, and now he will be confronted with a situation whereby a straight answer to a straight question ends up in a legal lie. I ask where on earth we are coming from on that sort of thing.

As this type of legislation passes, I give warning to the Government that there is a groundswell of New Zealanders out there who are sick and tired of this politically correct type of legislation that is feeding lies to the country, that is trying to tell people that it is OK to lie and to cover things up, and that things that are wrong are allowed to be called right. But I tell members that good old New Zealanders have had enough, and are beginning to turn. United Future will not support this bill.

I am very glad to follow the member for United Future. I heard the passion in his voice when he said that people are sick of a Government that not only condones lying, and not only ignores offending, but, in this case, is getting Parliament to instruct Government departments to lie. This Government is a lying Government.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is a longstanding member of this Parliament, and he knows that that was totally out of order. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the provisions of this bill. This bill requires the Government to lie. I will not withdraw that statement.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member referred to the Government as “a lying Government”, and that is totally out of order. It is a reflection on all members of the Chamber, and therefore it is out of order. I ask the member to withdraw.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Government is not the legislature; the Government, in this case, is the executive. This bill requires the executive to lie. I was referring to what this bill does. I did not say “the members of this House”; I said “the Government”, and I meant the Government. I am quite happy to make it clear that in this case this bill requires the Government to lie to anyone who asks about these criminal records.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that referring to the Government is the same as referring to a member. There is a Speaker’s ruling on this situation. I now ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am very clear on what Mr Franks is trying to say, because we have been debating for the last hour what this bill actually does. This is a Government bill. This is being promoted by the Government and when he is referring to the Government he is referring to the way that this bill is being presented. It is not a slight on members of this Committee; it is a very clear statement that this bill, being a Government bill, falls into the category of a bill that promotes and allows for lying—that is what the essence of the bill is about. I believe that Mr Franks is correct in what he is asserting. There is no defamation and no slight on any member of this Committee. He is making a very clear statement and he should be able to proceed with his debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I understand exactly where the member is coming from, but implying that the Government was acting improperly, and using the terminology that Mr Franks did, is a reflection not only on the Government but also on every member in the Chamber, and that is far from the truth. I am asking Mr Franks to give serious consideration to that, because he is a longstanding member and I am sure he is aware of that. I now ask him to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. This bill requires the chief executives of Government departments that hold, or have access to, criminal records—in the cute words of the drafter of this bill—to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they conceal the “criminal records of eligible individuals when requests are made for their disclosure”, and to not use the criminal records. This bill would mean that Work and Income New Zealand would not even be able to use its own knowledge to prevent the woman who recently got away with several million dollars of the department’s money—who had previous convictions, which it turned out were known to the department—from being re-employed. The chief executive would have to take steps to make sure the department lied even to itself. Can members imagine anything more fatuous?

The Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Goff, knows that this bill requires lying. The drafting changed between the introduction copy of the bill and the draft that we are now looking at, but the effect is still the same. The effect is that when people are asked about their criminal record, this bill states that they should say they do not have one. There is a penalty of $20,000 for anyone who corrects that, and a penalty of $10,000 for somebody who tries to go behind that. This bill tells New Zealanders that the past never happened.

This bill is from a Government that pretends to be worried about harsh sentencing. What can a community do when all the informal sanctions against offending, such as reputation—the very first line of defence for most communities—are gone?

We want young people to know that truth will out, that honesty pays, that cheats do not prosper—all of those things that depend on reputation—but the Government is now saying: “Don’t worry about your reputation, we’ll hide it for you. Not only will we hide it for you, we will instruct you to hide it, and we will punish people who try to find out the truth.” This is not compassion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with compassion. Compassion is the act of people who say: “We know about your past and we forgive and forget.” This bill states that the Government will now decide people do not get that chance.

The Green Party is, of course, supporting this bill. I think the concerns of people who have spoken against it are misjudged in that it will actually help reduce offending—that is its actual consequence. It provides an incentive for people who have committed indiscretions in, usually, their youth—who have committed trespass, or shoplifting, or whatever. If, on being apprehended and convicted, they feel very upset about what that will mean for their future, and their families feel upset, after the passage of this law they will know that if they keep within the law for the next 7 years, they will be deemed not to have a criminal record, and that indiscretion will not chase them around for the rest of their lives. So the bill will help prevent reoffending.

I think employers will learn that this bill is actually a good provision. Sometimes when people are working out whom to hire—and other speakers have talked about this—they might hold a youthful indiscretion against someone who would otherwise be a very good candidate for the job. I am sure there will be many employers who, under this provision, employ people they would not otherwise employ because they had shoplifted in their youth, or whatever, and, because of some sort of prejudice, those employers have not really understood that that person was the best applicant for the job. Possibly, a few years later—and Wayne Mapp did point out that people might find out later in life, through some informal network, that a person was guilty of shoplifting in an earlier life—they might say to themselves: “Thank God for this law, because I have employed a really top person, and if I had followed my prejudice and not employed that person, I would not have got the same benefit that I know I have had.”

I think people will realise that this law is very good. The Greens think it should go a little bit further, and that 6-month custodial sentences should be removed as well, as is the case in some overseas jurisdictions. We are not at the forefront of the world with this bill, but we are setting a bit of a model for some other countries, and that is very good.

I think there is a little bit of precedent for it in our existing law with the provision to discharge without conviction. Some law students got that at a particular time in our history, because it enabled them to go on to practise law, and many of them have done very well. One could say that a discharge without conviction means that, technically, they were guilty but they have not been given a criminal record. This bill is in some ways an extension of that, so I do not think we need to get too hot and bothered about it. The Greens certainly support it as a way of being a bit more compassionate. It will help people grow, and it will stop the past from chasing them around unnecessarily. It will allow people to get ahead in society, to get to the forefront of society, and to contribute to society without being unnecessarily punished for their past.

The previous speaker represents the delusions under which the Greens and the Government have laboured all along on this legislation. They keep talking about youthful indiscretions. They keep talking about the trivial and minor. Maybe there was a case for such legislation, and National acknowledges that in our minority report, where we talk about diversion. But it seems that the Government has not even read its own legislation. Certainly, the Greens have not, because this bill is sweeping. There is no age limitation. It does not apply to just youthful indiscretion; it applies to quite serious offences, no matter when they were committed during a person’s life. That is the reality.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: At least 7 years ago.

And quite serious offences, I tell the Minister. For instance, without doubt this bill will cover burglaries, assaults, and a whole range of offences of that character—

💬 Stephen Franks: Fraud.

—fraud—any offence, in short, that has not attracted a custodial sentence. Those of us who have practised in the courts know full well that those offences can be quite serious matters. So this bill is sweeping in its character. It allows all sorts of serious offending to be just swept under the carpet as if it had not happened.

I have to remind Mr Locke that that was actually not the intention of his colleague Nandor Tanczos, who himself referred to youthful indiscretions committed by people under 20, and the like, when he introduced his own bill. Yet now the Greens are supporting a sweeping bill that, as Mr Franks properly indicates, sanctions lying by potentially quite hardened criminals—people who have had a whole pattern of offending.

💬 Richard Worth: Practised lags.

Well, I guess they would not be lags, because lags would have been given custodial sentences. But, certainly, people who have had a pattern of offending will get the benefits of this bill, and that is wrong. That is why National, in its minority report, referred to a principled approach. For instance, the National members of the select committee made reference to making greater use of diversion for minor offences, and noted that that scheme “should be formalised to ensure consistency of application while preserving the necessary element of flexibility.” Diversion is precisely targeted at the young offender who commits a minor offence, and it is envisaged that in that kind of situation the record would not follow the individual.

💬 Judith Collins: And it works.

As my colleague Judith Collins has noted—she is a senior law practitioner in Auckland and a former president of the Auckland District Law Society—that scheme works.

So there was a reasonable approach that the Government could have taken, but, no, it has not done that. In, I guess, its desire to placate the Greens, it has gone overboard completely. The Government has an irrational and unreasonable piece of legislation that allows serious criminals to lie, and the honest people of this community will have no recourse. It is actually worse than that; not only will they have no recourse but they themselves will then be at risk of criminal sanctions. It is extraordinary, is it not, that the honest are penalised and the dishonest are advantaged? What does that say about this Government? If the Government wants to know why it is so far behind in the public’s esteem, I tell its members that it is because people are sick of that approach.

Mr Adams made great play of that, of course, but earlier today his party voted to keep this Government—a Government that would sanction lying by citizens—in power. His party would keep in power a Government that would pass this extreme form of legislation. It might be all very well for Mr Adams to say that United Future members are keeping their word, but I have to ask that party: what about keeping faith with New Zealanders?

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.

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 500,000 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 500,000 New Zealanders who come into this category, there are 500,000 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.

Quite clearly, the Minister of Justice has not had the benefit of hearing my previous speech on this matter; otherwise, he would have had a look at the National Party minority view on the bill, including the sentence that Mr Tim Barnett was so nasty about, which states: “There is a case for legislation to contain provision for true ‘clean slate’ applications to be made to the Court in individual cases and not on the blanket basis of concealment of convictions which is the essence of the present bill.”

I say to the Minister and to the Committee that there is, of course, a case for compassion. The very instance that he spoke of seems to be such a case. But this bill is about lying. It is about the concealment of offences. It is not about looking at youthful indiscretions; it is about allowing someone who commits an offence at the age of 50 to say at the age of 58, very, very truthfully in accordance with this bill: “No, I have no conviction.” It does not make any allowance for age. It does not make any allowance for circumstance. National’s idea that people apply to the court would allow judges to use discretion and look at the individual circumstances of a case.

I have made the point before that the diversion scheme works in most cases. One of the reasons it works is that the people who commit a first offence have to admit to it. They have to go in front of a police sergeant and admit to that offence, and then they are given a job to do. Sometimes that job is to make a donation to a charity, and sometimes it is to do something for a particular charity. But it is the admission and acceptance of having done wrong that is absolutely vital in stopping people from continuing to do what we hopefully call youthful indiscretions but actually can be crimes. It is really important that we do not make it easier for people to hide convictions, but, in fact, ensure they are truthful about what has happened. National members are very happy, as I have said before—and we have stated it in writing, in our minority view—to look at individual cases. We are not happy to have this blanket approval of lying.

I will now deal with some of the, I have to say, slightly hysterical rhetoric from the Minister; there seemed to be an awful lot of personal input there.

Clause 11 states quite clearly: “(2) An eligible individual may answer a question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record by stating that he or she has no criminal record.” Why is that not lying? People have a criminal record, and all of a sudden they can say they do not have one. If they were able to say: “ I had one, and it was taken away by the courts.”—that it was an effective conviction and discharge—people would understand. But this bill is about lying.

It will not help people who travel overseas. It will not help a lot of people applying for jobs within certain Government departments. But what about people applying for jobs in banks? People who run banks should be honest people. They are dealing with other people’s money. People who work in lawyers’ firms, dealing with other people’s money, should be honest people. I can tell this Committee, from my experience in the Law Society, that a number of the thefts done by law firms are done by staff, not by the lawyers. The lawyers are the people who pay for the thefts, and they do not want to lose their careers and end up in jail. A lot of the those conversions are done by staff, and under this bill staff will be able to say: “Oh well, no, I don’t have a criminal conviction.”, when actually 8 years ago, the last time they were working—guess what—they stole money from a trust account, but they got off without having to go to jail because they told some bleeding heart story that somebody believed.

Unfortunately, that basic dishonesty goes all the way through. Leopards do not change their spots. Someone who is dishonest today is likely to be dishonest tomorrow. That is what happens. Dishonesty is not something that just goes away, and it certainly does not go away unless people acknowledge that they have done wrong, ask for forgiveness, and move on in that way. They will not be able to do so in this case.

It is interesting in this debate to be on this side of the Committee, where we have some very eminent lawyers. All parties on this side—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Name names!

I do not need to name names because they stand on their own merits. They are people who have been at the coalface and understand what the law is about. Here on this side we have such people within our team in Dr Wayne Mapp, Richard Worth, and Judith Collins, three very experienced lawyers who have had to deal with these issues over a number of years.

As a lay person, I want to focus on these issues from the point of view of an employer. If we look at clause 14A in particular, we can see that an employer will face a very onerous dilemma. Most employers, when employing people, really want to know about their background. That is fair. If I am prepared to give someone a job, that person needs to be open and frank about his or her past positions, skills and experience, and the sorts of attributes that will be important in my business. But the dilemma happens in that we see in this bill that it will be unlawful to ask people about their past. Clause 14A is headed: “Offence to require or request that individual disregard scheme”. Although we may have some doubts about somebody, we cannot put pressure on that person to give us the sort of background information we require.

I find that totally unacceptable, and, certainly, National has argued this point right through. Creating an environment where people can lie about their past does not lead to good relationships. Honesty is the best policy, and if someone is prepared to front up and say: “Look, in my youth 20 years ago I did something I feel shameful about. I should never have done it, I regret it, and I feel remorseful about it.”, a prospective employer is likely to say to that person: “I’m prepared to give you a go because you are being upfront.” That is the sort of open approach, the sort of openness and honesty, that I would expect as a prospective employer. I have employed people who have a past that is not that great, but I have been prepared to give them a go because I have had the opportunity to appraise them; they can prove themselves or otherwise, and that is something I am prepared to allow them to do.

But when we look at clause 14A we can see that it states that we cannot put pressure on people, we cannot deviate from what the bill intends, because if we do that, then we will be fined. In fact, the fine is $10,000. The Minister quoted a letter he had received from somebody about a past misdemeanour that had happened 20-odd years ago and the fine for which was $100. This bill will not say to that person: “Ah, we’re going to expunge that offence; it never happened; you’ve got a clean slate, and you can walk away.” The bill does not do that. It does not expunge past convictions. All that it does is say to the person: “You can lie about it. You have a licence to lie, to say that you have never had a conviction. You can hide it.”

That is the sort of nonsense we do not agree with. We do not agree with this bill because it encourages an environment in which people can hide their past. As I said right at the beginning, I look for honesty. I look for a straight-up approach. If someone has done something wrong, then let him or her lay it on the table so that we can deal with it as it comes up. We see in this bill that a prospective employer who breaches this law could be penalised $10,000, and that is a nonsense.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take up a couple of points made in the Minister’s speech a few moments ago, about the lady who wrote to him. During the course of her letter she told him she was concerned about her opportunity to travel. This bill does nothing—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That aspect of it is not correct. I read the letter—

I thank the Minister for saying that was not correct, but he should have pointed that out. Once again the Minister is being caught out. Now he tells us he was not going to put too much emphasis on it, but as soon as that matter is put to him he says he was going to clarify it. He should have clarified it at the time. A Labour Minister has been caught out again, immediately—as though he thought he could get away with something like that!

This bill raises an interesting issue with regard to a matter I have been bringing up during the last few days. What happens to, say, a Vietnamese immigrant who comes to New Zealand and commits a crime, and the Minister of Immigration decides that that person should be deported? What happens if the matter goes to a Deportation Review Tribunal hearing, and the tribunal says that the person can stay in New Zealand? The person might, for example, have been the subject only of a fine, and the fine might have been a substantial one—[Interruption] Exactly. If one has a custodial offence, then that is a different matter. But I am talking about a person who has been only fined—not sent to prison; just fined—for a forgery offence and who has been the subject of a deportation review by the Minister of Immigration, who says that the individual should be deported. Then the Deportation Review Tribunal steps in and says it will quash the deportation order. So not only can that person get off the deportation order but the penalty imposed by the court will be expunged by this legislation, because it was only a fine. It might have been a $500 fine or a $10,000 fine, but the recent immigrant to New Zealand—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: See if you can make your hypothetical example any less likely than you have.

It is not hypothetical. It is the case that came up this week.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: It’s very hypothetical.

It is not hypothetical; it is a fact. A person comes to New Zealand as an immigrant on not much of a residence application, commits a criminal offence, is fined, and then is allowed by the Deportation Review Tribunal to stay here, and because of this legislation the fine is not even noted on the person’s record after 7 years. What a soft touch we are in New Zealand!

If one reads the facts of that case, as I have, one finds it very doubtful whether that person should have been allowed into New Zealand in the first place, and I will table material on that.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Ha, ha!

The Minister can laugh, but those are the facts of the case.

💬 Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt Mr Jones, but he is being subjected to a constant stream of interjection from the Minister. That in itself would not be objectionable, except that the Minister is seated alongside you and has the microphone on, and although most of the interjections coming from other members are being lost, the Minister’s constant stream of interjections are being picked up by the radio. I suggest that that is unsatisfactory.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. It is the convention of the House that in the Committee of the whole House the member who is in charge of legislation should not take an unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to do so. I add that courtesy is contagious, and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I should point out what is already obvious to you, which is that the mute button was pushed during my interjections. They were not interrupting the member.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say by way of clarification that it was not always possible to do that.

Clearly the Minister is embarrassed. He was caught out once by saying that a person could travel overseas. We caught him out on that. Now this Government has been caught out on the fact that a Vietnamese person who came to New Zealand and committed a forgery offence has been let off by the Deportation Review Tribunal, and this Government is not appealing against that decision. It is not doing what we saw done in the Zaoui case, where the legal aid people—those acting for Zaoui—went to the next stage and appealed. This Government is giving way on that particular issue. In this case, so far as the fine itself is concerned, the record of that fine will be expunged after 7 years. What sort of a country do we have if a person can come to New Zealand on grounds that, if one reads the case, are really spurious, commit a crime, not be deported because of a deportation review that this Government will not appeal, and then the minority Labour Government says that after 7 years it will even forget the offence? After 7 years it will be deemed that that person has not even committed an offence. This Government is saying it will expunge the offence, and the person need not worry about it. It is saying people should come to New Zealand, commit offences where fines are involved, and after 7 years all is forgiven. What sort of Labour Government—a minority Labour Government—do we have today? The Greens also support that sort of behaviour with regard to this legislation.

Those are the facts of one of the cases I raised during the course of this week, and that particular person is to get off scot-free. The offence is to be absolutely forgotten as a result of this Labour Government’s activities. The situation is absolutely deplorable. How can any self-respecting Government ever support this legislation?

I move, That the question be now put.