Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill

I move, That the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill be now read a second time.

This bill demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to right the wrongs of the past for those who were convicted of historical homosexual offences prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986. I’d like to particularly acknowledge the work of my predecessor as Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, who introduced this bill originally to Parliament and initially shepherded it through the House.

I want to also thank members of the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill. The committee received 37 submissions and has recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. Almost every submission expressed clear support for the intent of the bill. The committee heard 10 oral submissions, and I’d like to thank those submitters for sharing their stories. Many submitters commended the bill for introducing a novel scheme and were positive about the change that this bill will bring. The committee has recommended a small number of changes which will ensure that the bill will achieve its intended purpose.

The Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986 decriminalised sexual conduct between consenting males aged 16 years and over. The right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was later recognised in the Human Rights Act of 1993. Allowing historical convictions for homosexual offences to remain on a person’s criminal history perpetuates the stigma that those convictions carry, and it should never be beyond this House to recognise that laws passed in earlier generations, when different values and mores applied, can have consequences which it is in the power of this House to provide redress for.

The purpose of this bill is to address the ongoing stigma, prejudice, and other negative effects arising from a conviction for a historical homosexual offence by creating a statutory scheme for a convicted person, or a representative on their behalf if that person is deceased, to apply for the conviction to be expunged. If the application is successful, the conviction will not appear on a criminal history check and the person will not be required to disclose information about the expunged conviction for any purpose, and, indeed, anybody who then discloses that conviction when not authorised to do so commits an offence under the Act.

The scheme applies to Crimes Act 1961 offences that were repealed by the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 and their predecessor offences under the Crimes Act 1908. The bill provides for the Secretary of Justice to consider whether applications for expungement meet the statutory test. The test is that the behaviour would no longer constitute an offence under today’s law. That takes account of the possibility that some of those convictions related to genuinely criminal conduct in the nature of predatory offences or assaults that went beyond merely consensual conduct between men.

The committee recommended changes to improve offence provisions to better align with other legislation and to ensure that people are not put under pressure to disclose their expunged convictions. A further change is the inclusion of a provision which makes it explicit that expungement of a conviction doesn’t authorise or require the destruction of criminal records of expunged convictions. Other changes are relatively minor and technical. Some small amendments to wording have been recommended to align the bill with the language used in the Public Records Act 2005.

This bill’s purpose is to provide for an expungement scheme to reduce prejudice, stigma, and other negative effects arising from a conviction for a historical homosexual offence. The bill empowers those convicted and their representatives by providing a simple, low-cost, and effective way to right the wrongs of the past. With the committee’s recommended changes, I’m confident that the bill will more effectively achieve these objectives.

I conclude by addressing one other point that was commonly raised in the submissions, and that is the issue of compensation. The committee necessarily considered that issue of compensation and, in the end, concluded that it was not possible to consider or to recommend a scheme that would provide compensation that would be easy to apply or streamlined and would take account of the variety of different circumstances in which the original offences were committed and that would now be expunged. So the Government, at least, will not be providing, or will not be entertaining a compensation regime as a consequence of this bill. On that basis and with those comments, I commend this bill to the House.

I’m very proud to take a call on the second reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill, and I say I’m very proud because I do take an enormous sense of pride in that this piece of work came about under my tenure as Minister of Justice and under the National Party’s period of Government. I want to acknowledge the current Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, obviously, for continuing the work with the same degree of commitment and urgency, actually, to get it in place that we certainly had on this side of the House.

There aren’t that many opportunities in this House where you get the chance to do something that just simply feels, at a very innate level, right, and this bill feels like that to me. It’s always felt like that to me, and I also want to put on record that it’s one of those equally rare chances in this House to do something I hope will continue to be collectively—certainly, that’s been the experience to date—but that is absolutely above party politics. Now, those of us who have been members of this House for some time know that there are more occasions than the public probably see where we do work, actually, for what is simply the right thing to do and in the best interests of this country, irrespective of party lines. This piece of legislation has certainly been one of those, and it will certainly stand out in my memory for that reason.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee, as the Minister has done. I had the privilege of sitting on that select committee while it was considering this bill in most of its consideration. Again, on that select committee—and I acknowledge the chair, Mr Raymond Huo, who chaired the committee through that process. Again, it is incredibly heartening to see a group of committee members who actually hunted in a bit of a pack vis-à-vis the officials, really. There were the committee members sort of on one side, all lining up with a very similar view of what we wanted to see happen and on occasion running up against, perhaps, some drafters and some officials who hadn’t quite understood exactly how we wanted it to work.

I want to just record in this contribution that, actually, the members of the committee representing members across the House were really clear when this bill talked about being an expungement scheme that we wanted it to be an expungement scheme—i.e., that the conviction was as if it had never happened; not a scheme whereby the convictions still remained on the record but everyone was just directed to disregard it. To us on the committee that was a really important distinction, and we believed that to the submitters and those affected by this legislation that was an incredibly important distinction to make.

This was always to be more than simply the “Clean Slate Act 2.0”. This is the first time this Parliament will have ever created an expungement scheme like this. Now, in one sense, that didn’t help us because there was a lack of simple precedent, but, actually, it reflected the seriousness with which we took this issue and the depth of feeling about the fact that these laws, the laws that these men were convicted under, are now seen as absolutely wrong—fundamentally wrong—and that those men should not have borne the scar of that criminal conviction.

Now, for this Parliament to do what it can do to redress that, it is important that the expungement goes far beyond simply a “You’re not allowed to discriminate on the basis of this conviction.”—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, certainly not you—that society is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of these convictions and becomes as close as we can physically and practically get it to a situation where it is as if these convictions had never existed, for the purposes of New Zealand law.

In the first reading of this bill, we didn’t just move the first reading of the bill and send it off to select committee in the way in which we normally do. This House also passed a motion that I moved that this Parliament apologises to those homosexual New Zealanders who were convicted for consensual adult activity and recognises the tremendous hurt and suffering those men and their families have gone through and the continued effects that those convictions have had on them. We put on the record that this House deeply regretted the hurt and stigma suffered by the many hundreds of New Zealand men who were turned into criminals by a law that was profoundly wrong. And for that, this House, this Parliament, put on record that it was sorry. We acknowledged that those men should never have been burdened with conviction and we wanted to recognise the continued effects that the convictions had had on their lives and the lives of their families.

When we, as the Government at that time, decided to move that motion—and it was supported by the parties in the House—and passed that motion, it was a very deliberate decision that it was this Parliament as an institution that would apologise and express in its most sincere form the sense of regret, the understanding of the hurt, and the desire to put it right. Again, that is, in my experience and my understanding, quite unique, and I do hope that this bill, that that apology, and that the action of the House to move—with some pace actually; it might not always seem like it from the outside looking in, but with some pace given all of the other work that’s going on—to put this bill into law does reflect our real desire to bring this awful period to a close as far as we can ever rewrite history. That was certainly a theme in the select committee. We can’t change history, and, actually, nor should we want to, because sometimes remembering the wrongs of the past is incredibly important. So we weren’t trying to rewrite history and blank it from history, but we were absolutely setting out to ensure that the impact of these criminal convictions, the tag of criminality, and the stigma that settled on these men and their families should be removed as far as this House could physically make that possible.

I think the bill now is in a better state than when I introduced it to the House, and I’m certainly happy to acknowledge that. I think we’ve got it far more to the place that we as a Government introducing it in this House had wanted it to be at first reading. I think it does go as far as it practically can to make those acknowledgments and to right those wrongs. It is a bill that I’m incredibly proud of, it is a bill that I do hope and believe will help to heal those wounds, and it is a bill that I’m very pleased to support.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. As we’ve heard from the Minister and other contributions so far, this bill seeks to reduce the prejudice, stigma, and all other negative affects arising from a conviction for historical homosexual offences. It also entitles the convicted person to declare that they have no such conviction under New Zealand law and that the conviction would no longer appear on a criminal history check.

It’s actually not that often that you get to stand up in the House and speak on a bill that has 100 percent full support from every member of this House. But I think also that the most important part from my perspective is that there is no politics involved with this. I think that we have all recognised as a country and as the representatives here of that country that there were some terrible wrongs that occurred, and we have the responsibility in this House to not only recognise those wrongs but also apologise for our role as a Government and the leaders of that country for that unnecessary hurt on those individuals.

New Zealand First obviously fully supports this piece of legislation and backs the apology and the movement of this legislation through the House. It also supports the recommendation of the Justice Committee for the slight changes—the amendments. This bill actually does highlight a sort of double-edged sword. It highlights somewhat of a stain on our country’s history and the effect that we had on some individuals because of their personal orientation, but also it shows, I think, the other side of the coin where it shows how far we’ve actually come since not so long ago.

Denis O’Rourke took the first call and was involved with the select committee process of this bill. I only took over this, obviously, this year, but one of the things I think everybody out there in the general public understands is that it wasn’t that long ago that we had a law against homosexual orientation. What this bill actually highlighted to me was, in fact, that it was such a short period ago, in 1986—which is in my lifetime—and I find that it’s unimaginable for anybody of the new generation who were born post that time to actually comprehend and to understand. Of course, it’s never too late to apologise and it’s never too late to admit to wrongdoing, so that’s what this legislation allows. Unfortunately, it is too late in some circumstances to avoid the massive damage that was caused to some of those individuals, to innocent people, and we need to acknowledge that.

There are three main issues that this bill seeks to accomplish, and it does, I believe. The first is that it reconfirms the freedom of people to lawfully express their sexuality and be free from any prejudice in doing so. The second is that it avoids the huge disadvantage of suffering such a conviction in regard to having to disclose the conviction in terms of employment and so on. But most importantly, the third one, is that it goes some way, hopefully, to restore some sort of self-esteem to those individual, and helps enhance the mental well-being and self-worth for all of those who suffered convictions.

One of the most important aspects of this piece of legislation going through is that it’s not just a piece a paper—that there were, and are, real-life stories and individuals who were affected by this. I think it is important to not just speak about what is written in the legislation—the bill that’s going through this House—but how the previous law affected specific individuals and their stories. I’d just like to take the next couple of minutes to read two or three of the submissions that I have gone through and that really stand out for me.

One states that, “These convictions destroyed careers, including in the case of our friend, a top honours graduate of Portsea Officer Cadet School, forcing his resignation from his post as the youngest-ever captain to hold a commission in the New Zealand Army. More significantly, they caused substantial trauma and loss of dignity to those affected.” A quote from another individual says, “This conviction still leads, after 53 years, to self-hatred, worthlessness, unjustified guilt, and shame. To relieve the anguish and pain, chronic drinking and self-destruction took control over the next 10 to 15 years, until the realisation that I wasn’t a two-headed monster and there were many others like me throughout the world. I love my country, but live in fear of being found out, of further humiliation, panic attacks when I see a uniformed police officer, and a general feeling of being unworthy to myself—something few others would understand.”

Another one: “I had never been arrested before or been in trouble with the police. I was charged with keeping a place of resort for indecent acts between males. There was the abuse, bashings, and terror that followed from anti-gay bigots. This conviction has affected me personally and financially ever since, hindering my employment prospects and overseas travel. I have been active, doing voluntary work, but have been disadvantaged when background checks have been required for some organisations.”

This one is from a different perspective. It was from a young New Zealander who didn’t live in those times. They say, “I’m a criminal in 76 countries, and I am so thankful that I am not seen as a criminal in my home country. I am the hateful words spoken by the mouths of many—whether it is in high school halls or behind some walls. Hate speech is still prevalent in our society. I am the death sentence in five countries. I’m the noose tightening around their neck or the shock from the electric chair, because they could have been me if I was born in a different place and if I had spoken up then. Some people cannot be a voice. Thirty-one years ago I could have been behind bars for just being who I am.”

Lastly, I think everyone has heard of one of the most notable examples of being convicted for their sexual orientation, and that individual was Alan Turing—not a New Zealander, he was obviously British, but suffered under the same legislation that occurred back then. He was highly influential in the development of theoretical computer science. Turing is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence. He was responsible for breaking the Nazi Enigma code during World War II. His work gave the Allies the edge they needed to win the war in Europe and led to the creation of the computer. In 1952, he was arrested and charged with indecency, after a brief relationship with another man. Homosexuality was still a crime in Great Britain at that time. Defiant, he did not deny the charges. When he was arrested, the first thing he said was that he thought this should not be against the law. He gave a statement that was unapologetic, that detailed what had happened. Turing took his own life in 1954, two years after being outed as gay. He died from eating an apple laced with cyanide. He was only 41 years old.

I think that those individual cases that we heard from the submitters are just a few of the examples—as well as one of the most famous examples—of the hugely negative effects that a piece of horrid legislation that previously existed prior to 1986 has had on individuals. I’m very proud of this House moving forward as one, and representing New Zealand First as part of that in passing this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with great pride I rise to speak at the second reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. National, of course, supports this bill because it builds on the work of the former Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, who took an earlier call in this House.

In July last year, when the first reading came through and the apology was given, I feel it was an extremely significant milestone—really, a watershed time in this House, actually. I’m searching for the right words, because this is a House that has lagged behind where it ought to have been on this particular issue. This is a scheme that is long overdue. It is a step towards addressing the stigma, the prejudice, and the pain that many New Zealanders had to live with, unfairly, and it has helped to put right a wrong that has stood for too many years.

Thirty-two years ago, in this place, the Homosexual Law Reform Act decriminalised homosexual conduct between consenting males 16 years of age and older. It then took Parliament a further seven years to amend the law, to allow the right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of homosexual orientation, which was recognised in the Human Rights Act of 1993. It then took another 25 years to pass the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act. In 2013, I was a member of Parliament in this House, and I’m proud to say I voted on all three readings in favour of that piece of legislation allowing same-sex couples to legally marry.

This Parliament has taken its time to address the rights of the past, but we are doing it again today, with this second reading. At the first reading, the then Minister, Amy Adams, who referred to it again in her earlier call, made an apology on behalf of all of Parliament about the hurt and the stigma suffered by men who were made into criminals. When the provisions of this Act come in—and I think it will quite swiftly because it is supported across the House; as others have said, that is a rarity—the main provisions will be that people will be able to, and be eligible to, apply if they were convicted of specific offences under the Crimes Act relating to sexual activity between males 16 years and over. Those were the acts, of course, that were decriminalised under the Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986.

So there are five main offences. I won’t go through them, the presiding Minister did that a few moments ago, but I think it is very important to recognise that the sexual activity must have been consensual and that both parties were over 16 years of age. I know that there were people who made submissions who felt that the age should not be relevant, but the criminal Act factor still applies, of over the age of 16 now. I know that the select committee at the time, the Justice Committee, of which I am a member currently, really debated that extensively. But I think it is important to acknowledge that.

The process, as well, is a different one for this Parliament. There are many differences about this piece of legislation; I’ll highlight a couple of them. The Secretary for Justice will be the individual responsible for determining applications on a case by case basis. But this will not mean that men will be expected to come forth and give evidence, or appear in person even. The Secretary for Justice will be able to require applicants to provide relevant information on request, if necessary, to make the decision, but the process should be as easy as possible. I think that that is important; these men have suffered enough, and for long enough.

So if an application is approved, their conviction would be expunged and that expungement is noted in official records. But what does that mean in practice? It means that the person formerly with a criminal record would be entitled to declare that they have no conviction, and that their conviction would not appear on any official criminal record. For those of us who are laypeople and don’t understand the minutiae of the law sometimes, in this case, it is important I think to note that the Justice Committee took a lot of time to talk about expungement, which is, as others have mentioned, very rare in New Zealand law.

The significance of it is that if it went to a concealed conviction, which was I think what was initially proposed, then that conviction may still be disclosed in certain situations. A person must be conviction-free for seven years and have never been imprisoned, to be eligible under the Act. An expungement, though, will be available regardless of any subsequent offending and the sentence imposed—I think that is extremely important—and expungement as if it never existed, and nor should it have. We are putting that record straight, and that’s important because of the psychological impact that this legislation—the former laws, really—have had on the victims and the people supposed to have been the perpetrators. The previous speaker, Darroch Ball, gave some very moving examples of people whose lives have been blighted, overshadowed, and shortened—sometimes at their own hand—by that sense of shame.

It is not to be taken lightly. Experiencing discrimination on the basis of sexuality is not something that happens in New Zealand any more, and nor should it. It can have an impact on an individual’s opportunities, not only in their employment—for example, they wouldn’t be able to take on governance roles on committees and so forth because a criminal conviction would not allow them to do that—but they wouldn’t even necessarily be able to travel to places. These are the sorts of ongoing issues for people with criminal convictions that are really important to note because they really do contain people’s lives and restrain people’s lives in a way that is manifestly unfair.

It seems to me that this is a piece of legislation that, really, is tidying up some of the bad practices of the past, and I think that the 10 submissions, I think it was, that the Justice Committee heard outlined the reasons why it was so important to men who are alive, but also those who have passed away. This bill allows people to be able to put their relative’s or their friend’s case forward and to ask for that expungement. I think that when you’re putting right historical wrongs, it’s very important to understand that for those who have passed, it is still important—as it is in war records, actually. When people have been unlawfully or inappropriately found guilty in a wartime situation, their families spend sometimes generations trying to put their military record right and to put their side of the story. I think it is a very important element of this legislation that it does allow that posthumous recognition of innocence—and expungement, I think, is the key note here.

So I think that this bill will proceed. This will go through the House smoothly. I hope it does. It can’t come soon enough, and I would urge all members of this House to continue to make their points, but also to move this piece of legislation through as quickly as possible because it is a wrong that needs to be put right as soon as possible. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the second reading of this bill. In the first reading of this bill, I made a speech that really, I hope, set up for myself and for others the premise behind why we need this legislation. It’s been mentioned by a number of other colleagues, and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight, in what now will become a slightly technical debate about elements of the bill, of what we’re trying to achieve here. What we are doing, as other speakers have said, is trying to right a vastly unjust wrong that existed in our society for so long.

It was interesting to me, when reading the submissions that came in on this legislation to the select committee, just how many of them came from young people—from people whose life and existence is far removed from that of the men who were convicted under this unjust law. I was struck particularly—and my colleague Darroch Ball has already quoted from this person’s submission—by the teenager who submitted to the committee and used this phrase, which I think’s an extraordinary one: “Love used to carry a prison sentence in this very country until 1986.” For a teenager to say that so clearly and starkly to this House is, to me, a validation of a number of things—including our select committee process, actually, but also of the fact that we have a new generation of young LGBTIQ people coming through who have the most extraordinary vision, not only of their own lives but also looking back to the past, and I think we need to acknowledge that that happened in the select committee process.

I want to talk, for the most part, in this second reading—as I think we’re actually meant to do—about the select committee process, and acknowledge the fact that the committee has done some useful things in terms of dealing with the issues that were raised in front of them—the whole question of what an expunged conviction is. The movement from defining a “criminal record” and replacing that with “official record” I think is a step forward because I think that acknowledges that a criminal record could be defined as quite a narrow term. The official record means that we cover a wider set of public records, particularly those in line with the Public Records Act, and it also makes it more similar to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. I think that will go some way to meeting the concerns of submitters who came to MPs with that.

The other matter that I know a number of submitters were concerned about was the question of whether or not the language in the bill was limiting what we are doing here today to New Zealand, and that it would, in fact, not help people who are working or travelling overseas, and that we were, in fact, writing the bill in such a way as to cause difficulty there. I note that the committee is looking at clarifying clause 9 to remove the word “only” from the phrase “for the purposes only of the laws of New Zealand”. We do, I believe, as a Parliament want this expungement to be recognised in overseas jurisdictions. It is only right that we as a Parliament take some responsibility for that. I do, of course, note that we can’t take full responsibility for the laws of other countries, but what we can do is ensure that our law facilitates and supports people who have been affected by these unjust convictions when travelling overseas.

The other and more far-reaching thing that I think came out from the select committee submissions is the importance of noting that this piece of legislation matters not only for the people who are still alive today who have convictions, not only for the families of people who were convicted, but also for the wider community and the LGBTIQ community. I think that was starkly drawn out by the submissions that came from organisations that represent youth, all the way through to the Law Society and others. We as a Parliament, as we pass this legislation, have to realise that not only does the weight of history land on our shoulders but also the weight of the future. Time and time again, what the submissions here do is call this Parliament to action to continue to make New Zealand a place where people can be who they are—where people are supported to live lives of dignity and hope, free from discrimination.

Those submissions, time and time again, raised the issues that still exist in our community. Some of them are legislative, particularly for the trans community; some of them are attitudinal, for young people expressing, still, the discrimination that they feel in their communities; and some of them are about the way in which we continue to support people, be it the trans community seeking gender surgery, or be it health services and social services that are provided. While this particular bill cannot do much about that, I think we owe it to the people who submitted to the committee to acknowledge and to recognise the fact that we are on a journey here. It’s a journey that this bill takes an important step in, but it is not the end of that journey, and there were several submissions that went down this path.

I do want to make a special reference to someone who is known to me, I should say, Ted Greensmith-West, who in his submission—I think very eloquently—talked about the issues that are in front of us today. I just want to quote briefly from the end of his submission: “Everything that I do in my life is to ensure that those LGBT kids coming through the system today do not have to experience the same struggles that I did growing up in New Zealand. These are exactly the same goals of those brave men who fought for decriminalisation in the 1980s, and of those who suffered in silence for decades … We have a long journey before us in order to achieve true equity and equality for LGBT New Zealanders.” Ted’s writing to the committee here: “I invite each and every member of the select committee to join me and the hundreds of other LGBT New Zealanders in that journey. We need you.”

Parliament needs to hear the call of those in our community who are saying they still need us. This is an important step. This is a useful and important piece of legislation that will mean an enormous amount to the people who carry the shame and the stigma still today of the convictions that they got. We must make sure, as we move through the remaining stages of the bill, that we make the bill as clear as possible—and I believe the select committee changes do that, and that is what we will be doing today for them and for their families—and then, we must redouble our efforts to make sure that, as a Parliament, we do everything we can to support the young people, not only those who submitted but those who are still working their way through their own journey.

I won’t delay the House much longer on this matter other than to say I’m very pleased that the legislation has found its way to this stage. There is an important issue that needs to be acknowledged in my final area, and that is the call for compensation. We need to acknowledge that members of our community have come to the select committee and asked for this. We also need to acknowledge that this is an issue where there are divided opinions about compensation. I hope, as we move through the committee of the whole House stage, members of the committee will talk through the way they came to their decision about this. It is not an easy topic, but it is important that we give honour to those who submitted on this matter and the people that they represent.

I continue to believe there are a number of ways available to the Government and to this Parliament to think about how we honour the men who were so unjustly convicted, the men whose lives were ruined, and the men whose lives were ended by this. There are a number of ways forward for this Parliament and this country. I want that dialogue to continue. I think it’s very important that we do that as part of this bill process.

I want to end my contribution by acknowledging every single person who made a submission to the select committee, the people that they represent, and the committee members themselves. This is our democracy working well; it is also a lesson and a story for us to continue to hear in the years to come.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I just want to agree with what Mr Robertson has said in the House so far. This is a profoundly important bill for New Zealand’s Parliament and for our democracy, and it’s fantastic that it will, I believe, receive unanimous support in the Parliament.

Thirty-two years on from homosexual law reform in 1986, and the rancorous, antagonistic—putting it mildly—debate and the tortured passage of that piece of legislation through the Parliament on a personal vote, a conscience issue, members divided morally and politically, some of them engaging in appalling behaviour. Thirty-two years on from that, it’s just a testament, really, to how far we’ve come as a country that we will have a bill before the House that not only affirms homosexual law reform in 1986 but actually seeks to wipe from the record books convictions under the law as it existed prior to 1986, and that that bill will pass Parliament unanimously. And the apology that Parliament has given at the same time, which the Hon Amy Adams delivered when she was the Minister of Justice in the last Parliament, because of the bill passing unanimously—Parliament is every single person, to a man and a women, endorsing that message of reconciliation and of justice, and doing justice, to be more precise.

I do want to echo what Grant Robertson said in his remarks about how we have a long way to go in that strive for equality and tolerance in our society and about creating a New Zealand where every young person, in particular, no matter their sexuality or their gender, can grow up living in a society where they feel they are valued and they feel that they are respected and that they are acknowledged and that their dignity is upheld. We have a long way to go—we have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. And I’m looking forward to being part of that conversation as we move forward into the 21st century.

It was a privilege to work on this bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee, in the last Parliament, and in the renamed Justice Committee in the new Parliament. It’s a shortened committee title, but we seem to have picked up double the work, because the Law and Order Committee has been folded into us—and I see my colleague Raymond Huo smiling, perhaps a bit wryly, because it looks like, from the Order Paper, we’re going to get even more work over the next few months. But that’s OK; we’re a very hard-working committee. I know members from both sides really enjoyed working on this—my new colleagues Greg O’Connor from Ōhāriu, and Ginny Andersen from Labour, and Priyanca Radhakrishnan from Labour as well, really enjoyed working on this really important bill.

I think we’ve made some useful changes, actually. We interrogated the substance of the bill really closely. We did get really down into the weeds of the bill, because the operation of the expungement regime is of vital importance to the purpose of the bill and to giving effect to what the purpose of it is, which is to wipe from the statute book and wipe from the record books the history of that conviction and the conviction itself. Members previously have gone through some of the quite technical changes we’ve made around criminal records, what “official records” means, and amending the definition of “expunged conviction” in clause 9 of the bill, and those are very useful changes.

The only thing left for me to do is to commend the bill to the House. I’m looking forward to its speedy passage through committee of the whole House and also its third reading. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s also with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this, the second reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. I want to share the views and the sentiment that is being expressed in the House tonight of the importance of this bill and also acknowledge the origins of this and the fact that I think it’s also a victory for the parliamentary process and democracy in itself.

We’ve had quite a few years of members of the LGBTIQ community calling for the expungement of homosexual convictions and that seemed to be falling on unhearing ears. Then a young person, Wiremu Demchick, put together a petition—and got over 2,000 signatures—which was presented to Parliament, asking for an apology for those who were convicted of homosexual crimes, and for this legislation. Through that process, the view of the Government changed to the point that we now have unanimous support in this House for the apology previously and now this legislation to expunge those convictions. And it is a wonderful thing to see that working effectively.

I too just want to echo some of the sentiments that were in the submissions, noting that while the primary purpose of this bill is to seek to reduce prejudice, stigma, and all other negative effects arising from the conviction for a historical homosexual offence—this legislation, which is so significant to those men and their families because lives were ruined and ended early as a result of the prejudice that was created by our laws—the impact has also been wider, and the significance of this legislation is wider. And I would also like to quote from the submission from Ted Greensmith-West, which Grant Robertson previously referenced as well, where he was saying that, as a younger queer man, for him the primary purpose of this bill was that it was an opportunity to recognise and address the wrongs of the past, to remember and recognise the sacrifice of these brave gay and bisexual men, and to pave the path forwards so that, as a society and as a Parliament, we never make the same mistakes again.

For me, there’re a lot of things in that short statement. It’s about recognising the harm and the wrongs and how profound they were but also recognising that journey of sacrifice for those men, many of whom got those convictions from being brave enough to push against that prejudice and try to still express themselves in a way that created a crack that opened up to enable the later homosexual law reform, which enabled people like me and others to stand in this House—stand in our identity proudly. That was an extraordinary sacrifice that so many of us have benefited from. It also speaks to the point that has previously been made: that we still have a long way to go to remove prejudice and discrimination in totality from our law books and from our society. Too many members of the LGBTQIA+ community, particularly trans and intersex people, still suffer very severe discrimination, and their lives, too, all too often end early because of that discrimination. So this piece of legislation is significant. It places our history in front of us to enable us to make choices about how we will move forward, and that is a challenge to us, as well as a moment to celebrate how far we’ve come.

I also want to pick up on some points made in a submission from the Otago University Students’ Association queer support group in Dunedin, where they talk about this legislation telling people that “the illegality of homosexuality was a thing of the past and that some wrongs can be righted, not reversed, but righted.”, and that “Diversity is important and needs to be celebrated and not shunned”. I think that calls us to action still. They also made a point later on in their submission that I think is worth repeating, where they spoke about being young people talking to older gay men that had experienced this legislation and about living in the environment of this legislation. This person had spoken to an older man who talked about when he was stopped by police when he used the public toilets because he was indecently exposing himself to other men in the toilets—when he was only using the bathroom.

I think that story for me speaks to how pervasive the impact of that law was. It was not just the harm that was done to the men who ended up convicted and living lives stigmatised by the conviction and spending time in prison for being who they were, but the environment that was created for many—if not many, many—who had to live in a way that was unnatural to them to be able to try to protect themselves from that prejudiced law. That man had spoken, as well, about how he married a woman at 23, as many of his friends did, because that was what you did. That was what you had to do to hide and protect yourselves, and, obviously, that would have had a profound impact on his life, as well as the lives of the women that these men married and their families. So there is much for us to fix, and it is great to have this legislation in the House to be able to enable the expungement of those deeply wrong convictions.

I would like just to touch on some of the points in the work that was done in the Justice Committee to make sure that it better reflected the intent of this House, to ensure that it would address the issue for people travelling internationally, not just provide that expungement in New Zealand. Also, there was the change from “criminal records” to “official records”, so that it’s similar to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act and affects a wider set of records, and thus is better protection and a more complete—I guess it enables a better implementation of the intent of the legislation.

I also, too, want to finish on the point about the call for compensation, and I hope to see wider discussion of that, either in this House through the debate on this bill or within Government. I know that there were different views presented in select committee, with some men and people saying that was not the point of this. The point was to make it clear that this law was wrong and to expunge those convictions; it wasn’t about money. I would, though, point out that in one of the submissions the example was given of recent international precedent in Germany, where compensation has been provided. Men were expected to receive about NZ$4,760 in compensation for their convictions, plus $2,380 for every year they spent in prison. It’s not huge. It’s doable. We can do this.

It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill, which we all support. Quite frankly, it’s a no-brainer. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for the large amount of work that she carried out on this important piece of legislation, which was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee last year. I’d also like to acknowledge the current Government for reinstating this important piece of legislation, and I’d like to acknowledge the current Justice Committee chair, Raymond Huo. He does a fantastic job.

As part of this current Parliament’s Justice Committee, I’ve heard some pretty convincing and emotional submissions from people grossly affected by these outdated laws. Quite frankly, this legislation is well overdue. It allows people who have previously been convicted of specific sexual acts, who in our modern society are now not considered criminals, to stand before us and declare that they are conviction free. This fact is very important for many men we have heard from. In my view, it is pointless having offences such as these removed from the statute book without having this expungement legislation to accompany it.

We have heard some harrowing submissions from members of the public about how this has affected their lives, and I want to recount one particular story which stuck with me. We heard from this poor man, who recounted how, many years ago, at the age of 19, he’d been caught and convicted of a sexual act with another male—an offence which has now been removed from the statute book, but back then was illegal. He’d been employed in a chosen profession, which I won’t disclose for privacy reasons, for over 30 years, very successfully. He decided to take some time away from his profession and return to it a few years later. On returning, he applied for two different jobs, and he would have been successful but for a refusal due to failing to pass the background checks, based on his prior conviction. This background check, by an anomaly, included references to sections covering sexual offences which are not relevant today, due to the removal of the offence from the statute law. Ultimately, he was devastated by this, and it eventually led to suicide attempts and a very low point in his life.

I felt that there was no one in that select committee room that day that did not feel this man’s pain. It’s one of the reasons why I became a politician: to help right the wrongs. Accordingly, we support this very worthwhile and life-changing legislation.

I call Ginny Andersen. This is a split call; you have five minutes.

This bill is part of a progressive journey—for want of a better word—of change in New Zealand, and I’m proud to see that there is agreement across the House on making positive change that directly affects the lives of many New Zealanders.

I vividly remember, at about seven or eight years old, coming out on the streets of Christchurch after a family meal to stumble into a protest on the streets. I’d never seen anything like it before. I’d never seen people so angry; people calling out obscenities at one end—words that I was never allowed to use at home or even at school—and, on the other side, people calling out, “Out of the closets and into the street!” And I didn’t know what it meant. I remember asking my parents, “What was that about? Why were these guys in the cupboard anyway? And why couldn’t they be out?”, and learning about the types of discrimination that had happened in New Zealand.

So I’m really proud to see this journey come so far—that the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986 in some ways has been let to take its full course by this piece of legislation that removes the stigma and the discrimination of those that were wrongfully convicted under that previous legislation. So I’m proud to be part of that.

I’m also proud, as a new MP to this House, for this to be the first piece of legislation that I have spoken on at second reading that I’ve directly heard submissions on from members of the public. As we’ve heard already, some of those submissions were really moving, and it’s great—as a former public servant who only got to write papers and draw diagrams—to be able to directly engage with the public and understand, first hand, about how laws can impact on people’s lives, and to be grateful of the opportunity that we have here to undo those wrongs.

While this legislation can’t undo the hurt that was caused, I hope—and I’m sure others here today do—that this will help to patch up, to help move forward, and to create a better country for people going forwards. While we’re reminded, when we look at how far we’ve come in my lifetime from when I was a child seeing those protests to where we’re at right now, we still have a long way to go—we have a long way to go further. And I believe that that’s our duty: to keep changing attitudes, to keep challenging those who choose to discriminate, in order to keep that journey moving.

There were two submissions that I’ll quickly refer to, and the first has already been mentioned in terms of someone who’s had employment opportunities removed from them as a direct result of having convictions under the previous legislation. So this is important—that we have a practical purpose, that people should not be denied the right to a job because they’re working with children and they’ve failed a background check. That’s unacceptable. That is blatant discrimination, and this legislation is definitely needed in order to put that right.

I also heard from a good friend—who’s already been mentioned tonight—which is Ted Greensmith-West, and he, to me, really represented at select committee a new generation of young people in the LGBT community who aren’t prepared to sit back, who want to take action, who are prepared to be politically active and want their voices heard, and that is encouraging.

So I see this legislation as two-fold: it’s fixing those wrongs but also providing a new environment of hope and of giving young people a country where they can be proud of who they are. And that is so important: that we have those young people prepared to step up and take that.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the work of Amy Adams who, as deputy chair of that committee, was passionate also about this legislation. As the former Minister of Justice, she had expertise in this area and knew the legislation very well. That facilitated my colleagues here today from the Justice Committee to fully understand the legislation quickly and get to grips with what we had in front of us. So I acknowledge her contribution.

I have no further comments. I’m proud to speak on this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to be speaking this afternoon on the second reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill.

I’d like to commend the current Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, for progressing the bill, but also commend and congratulate the previous Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, for her dedication. There’s been a lot of talk over many years about expunging homosexual offences, and I don’t think it would’ve happened without her hard work over the last few years.

This bill has been a long time coming. In 1974, a National MP by the name of Venn Young, who is the father of Jonathan Young, a friend and colleague of ours, introduced a bill to permit private homosexual acts. That bill was, unfortunately, defeated but was revived in the 1980s by Fran Wilde, and I’d like to join other colleagues in acknowledging her tonight.

The Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed in July 1986, and came into effect in August of that year. The Act decriminalised sexual acts between men aged 16 and over. However, convictions prior to that have remained, providing a permanent scar for those men who carry them.

It was an absolute privilege and honour to sit on the Justice Committee, that considered this bill. My colleague Amy Adams has already commented on the collegial atmosphere of that bill. At times, it was, I think, eight members of the committee versus the officials, rather than Labour versus National MPs. But that’s the way it should be on important legislation such as this. My colleague Matt King has already commented on the very emotional testimony that was given at that committee. Sometimes it was very challenging to sit there and listen to it and hear the stories and the experiences that some of these men have gone through in the past and in more recent years.

I’m conscious that this bill will never make up for the hurt that those men suffered over many decades, and it won’t erase the black stain on this nation’s history. It is, however, the right thing to do, and I hope it brings some sense of closure for those men and their families. Every member of this Parliament should be proud to see this bill’s passage. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to take a very short call in support of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill.

I can only join with other members in saying that this is a wonderful occasion—to see members from five different parties coming together unanimously to say that these historical convictions are wrong, they were hurtful, and they should be gone. Indeed, it’s part of our tradition that we have worked on throughout our history as a nation to gradually expand the sphere of human rights so that people have the right to be who they want to be and act as they wish to act, so long as they are harming nobody else.

The men who were affected by these convictions did not hurt anybody else in what they did, but they were none the less victimised by the State under the laws made by this Parliament. It’s an important time for us to remember as lawmakers here in this House that the power of the State that we are charged with restraining can do real harm to the lives of innocent individuals if we get it wrong. That is why we should always exercise restraint in lawmaking. We should always reserve a special place for the rights of the individual when we make laws, and we should always look up to the very basic principle that my choice is what I choose to do, and if I’m causing no harm, it shouldn’t bother you; your choice is who you choose to be, and if you’re causing no harm, then you’re all right with me.

That is a principle on which to make laws, and I am so proud to stand here with four other parties unanimously supporting this bill through its second reading, because it’s the right thing to do and it signals the continued growth of our modern, sophisticated, liberal, and tolerant nation—New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is an absolute honour to stand and take a call in the second reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. It was also an incredible privilege, as colleagues of the Justice Committee have said before me today, to be part of the select committee that considered this bill, that heard the submissions to this bill, and that received advice on it as well. Many people I speak to talk about the fact that, at times, things are rather adversarial in this House, and, again, as other members have pointed out, I wish they could have actually seen us in action at the Justice Committee, because that’s absolutely how it should be. It was such a pleasure to work with members from across the House on this bill, in refining this bill.

As has been said already this afternoon, this is a piece of legislation that will introduce a scheme to wipe convictions of historical homosexual offences. It is a progression of change, and it’s one that, as a new MP, I’m incredibly proud to be part of. It follows on from the Homosexual Law Reform Act back in 1986, that was passed by the fourth Labour Government. You know, the previous piece of legislation that actually criminalised homosexual men has ceased to have any meaning; it ceases to have any meaning for us legally today. But, of course, we’ve heard from those who have suffered for many years as a result of those convictions.

It also follows on from the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, that allowed same-sex couples to marry legally and, of course, the apology that was given by the former Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams. At this point, I too want to acknowledge the work that she has put into the bill and, of course, also our current justice Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, for carrying on with this piece of work, as well.

So this bill, this piece of legislation, goes to the heart of the hurt and stigma that so many have experienced over the years: young men we’ve heard who have been arrested and convicted for just being who they are; people—men—who have lived in constant fear of law enforcement, the health, including the mental health implications, of this fear, and the convictions, as well, all for just being who they are. And this is really what this piece of legislation does; it celebrates, and it allows us to celebrate, who we are by lifting that stigma and that hurt.

So how does this bill work? We’ve actually heard about the fact that men with convictions for historical homosexual offences can apply for those convictions to be expunged. Basically, what we’re saying here today is that it never should have happened, and, with this piece of legislation, it will be as though it didn’t, for the purposes of applying for a job and from the legal point of view. It won’t completely be deleted from records, because this is a record of something that’s happened, and, really, something that we’re not proud of—a collective shame, in fact.

I’ll touch on one aspect of submissions that were considered by the select committee that members haven’t actually alluded to so far, and that’s the fact that some submitters—and I think the Human Rights Commission was one of them—suggested that it be an automatic expungement. That was considered by the committee but the advice that we received was that that automatic expungement wouldn’t actually capture everyone who was affected by the convictions and that proactive application was a better way to go to ensure that a wider group of people, or more people who were affected by this, could actually apply to have them expunged. We worked incredibly hard to ensure that it went a lot further than the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act as well, such that it wasn’t just that it wouldn’t be recorded but that the effect would be that it ceases to exist, in essence, from a legal point of view. As was mentioned before, this does apply to New Zealand law, and—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s a privilege to rise as our last speaker on this bill, and I certainly endorse those comments we’ve heard previously today and commend this bill. It is well past time, and it is actually fantastic to see that this is now happening. To be able to expunge these historical convictions, I can just imagine, would be such a weight off the shoulders of those people that have had this hanging over their heads, unfairly, for far too many years. It, I believe, enables us as a country to actually celebrate our diversity so much better, to celebrate the uniqueness that we have as New Zealanders, and to recognise that people are different and something like this should not be considered a criminal act.

Again, I would just like to acknowledge the hard work of the Justice Committee in pushing this through. They’ve done a fantastic job, and hearing some of the stories we’ve heard earlier today just reiterates the need for this piece of legislation. Also, just echoing David Seymour’s comments earlier, it is a nice recognition to see every party speaking in support of this bill and acknowledging that, indeed, it is certainly time to address these concerns and to move forward as a much more open and inclusive society. So, on that behalf, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. First of all, I’d like to thank the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, for making this bill one of the Government’s priorities. The purpose of this bill is to reduce stigma, prejudice, and other negative effects arising from a conviction for a historical homosexual offence. The bill is the first of its type in New Zealand law, which indicates the extraordinary nature of historical homosexual offences. These offences were targeted at a specific group in the community and criminalised sexual activity between homosexual men.

This bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to right the wrongs of the past for those who were convicted of offences prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. As the Hon Grant Robertson stated earlier, it is important to acknowledge that the illegality of homosexuality prior to the 1986 legislation ruined lives. The shame, the stigma, and the hurt caused was unbearable for many.

On that note, I should congratulate the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, for putting up the bill last year, and I acknowledge her contribution at the select committee. We have worked very closely at the Justice Committee, and I enjoyed her knowledge and commitment to help make the bill what it is now.

It is very fitting, in my capacity as the chair of the Justice Committee, to thank the Hon Amy Adams for her contributions at the committee, and to wish her good luck and to enjoy her new role as finance spokesperson for the Opposition. I’d like also to thank Matt King and Andrew Falloon, who have also moved on to take up other roles in other select committees following the leadership change of the National Party and the subsequent reshuffle.

This is the second reading of this bill. I should acknowledge the submitters. We have received submissions from 37 submitters. Those submissions were very helpful, especially concerning the bill’s relationship with other pieces of legislation such as the Vulnerable Children Act, and I’ll come to those issues at the committee of the whole House stage.

It is important to acknowledge that the illegality of homosexuality prior to the 1986 legislation ruined lives. That not only happened in New Zealand; that’s kind of a worldwide issue. Many would remember the gay purge campaign in Canada. The gay purge was a campaign in Canada to remove homosexuals from military and public service, from the 1960s to 1996. This was a systematic Government policy, and a device was developed to detect homosexuality, known as the “fruit machine”. The device was supposed to be able to identify gay men, who were derogatorily referred to as fruits. The Canadian police collected files on over 9,000 suspected gay men, and as a result, a significant number of workers did lose their jobs. Discrimination aside, the test was faulty and had no scientific merits.

Now, I cited the Canadian experience to show it is not easy for us to come to the point where we are now. So I should acknowledge all those people who were involved in making the 1986 New Zealand legislation a possibility. Thanks to that piece of legislation, no longer—no longer—would men having consensual sex with each other be liable to prosecution and to a term of imprisonment. The campaign to reform the law moved beyond the gay community to wider issues of human rights and discrimination.

Back to this bill. The bill provides for a statutory scheme that allows a convicted person, or a representative on behalf of the convicted person if they are deceased, to apply to have a conviction expunged. The Secretary for Justice decides whether the application meets the test for expungement, which is that the conduct would not constitute an offence under today’s law. Clause 8 sets out the test for expungement. The test, again, is that the conduct constituting the offence then would no longer constitute an offence now under the laws of New Zealand. The test was framed in such a way to ensure that any conduct which is considered still to be criminal would not be expunged.

The bill entitles the convicted person to declare that they have no such conviction for any purpose under New Zealand law. The conviction would not appear on a criminal history check or record if the application for expungement is granted.

In terms of the criminal records or checks, there are two types of such kinds of records. One is a case management system. The other one is a criminal and traffic conviction history (CaTCH) report. For the purpose of this bill, what I can say is that for those whose conviction has been successfully expunged, the conviction will not appear on the individual’s CaTCH report.

The bill identifies those who are eligible to have their convictions expunged. To be eligible to apply, a person must have been convicted of one of the specific offences under the Crimes Act 1961 or equivalent offences under the Crimes Act 1908.

The New Zealand Law Society and Rainbow Wellington do not support excluding offences prior to 1908. They claim that not extending the scope of the scheme to offences prior to the Crimes Act 1908 seems to be arbitrary and that there is no clear rationale behind such a kind of policy initiative.

The committee did consider whether the scope of the scheme should be extended to predecessor offences contained in legislation prior to 1908. This would eventually include pieces of legislation from the 1800s and the relevant UK legislation in so far as it was part of the law of New Zealand. In practice, the secretary may receive few applications for offending of this time period because the convicted persons will be deceased and potential representatives of the convicted persons are unlikely to have knowledge of the convictions.

Several submitters raised the lack of compensation as an issue. Some submitters also claim the lack of compensation could be seen as a potential breach of the Yogyakarta principle. Yogyakarta is the name of the city in Indonesia, I believe, where the principle was established. I’ll come to that point at the committee of the whole House stage, but in terms of some issues raised by the Hon Grant Robertson and other speakers who spoke earlier, we do acknowledge the importance of compensation.

However, compensation goes beyond the purpose of this scheme, which is to prevent further negative effects from the stigma of conviction. There is no general principle that a person who is convicted of a repealed offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of that offence. But I do note the contribution from the previous speakers and I do believe we should keep the conversation open.

I look forward to further debates at the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.