This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
Criminal records Expungement of Convictions for historical Homosexual offences Bill Committee stage I declare the House and Committee for consideration of the criminal Records Expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences Bill Madam Chair Mr. Speaker, Members of the house is in committee for consideration of the criminal records Expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences Bill, the question [00:00:30] is that part one stand part I called Allen Um Madam Chair I seek leave for all provisions of the criminal records Expungement of conviction for historical homosexual offences Bill to be taken as one debate leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that Parts one and two schedules one and two and clauses one and two stand part [00:01:00] Madam Cheer I call, uh, madam Chair. It's an absolute delight to be able to take a call. Uh, in regards to the, um criminal records of expungement of convictions for the historical, um, homosexual offences Bill Um uh a and in particular, uh, for this reading, Uh, for this, um, debate this committee [00:01:30] of the whole house debate. Uh, Madam Chair, um, and having regard to this very significant and important. Um, uh uh, Bill that I'm proud to see that there is universal and widespread agreement across the house for the, uh, the the ethos that underpins that That does expunge those that were convicted under our previous law, Uh, for the simple act of being able to [00:02:00] love somebody. Ah, Madam chair. Um, Now, I just have a couple of questions, uh, for, uh, the minister in regards to, um, some of the finer details of the bill. Uh, Madam Chair, um, now the general effects of expungement. Um, II. I wanted to understand, uh, with a conviction. Uh, for an expungement under New Zealand [00:02:30] law would have a a broader purpose. Um, uh uh, When When members, Uh, sorry. When people who had been convicted under the previous law where they would be required to disclose, uh, still be required to disclose, Uh, those, uh, former convictions in any overseas jurisdictions. Um, And whether that was universal across the board. So I just, um I want to understand [00:03:00] that, uh uh, and if the minister could step us through that a little bit, um, image here. I, I guess for me from on a personal note, Um you know, a couple of weeks ago, my, um My, my, um Uncle Darcy, uh, he was my Nana's youngest brother. He, um he passed away, but he was, um he he went, he he moved from our and, uh, as a young man moved up to, um, Auckland, the [00:03:30] the city of bright lights to live a life. Um, that in our small town wasn't, um wasn't viewed with much favour, and, uh, at his at his funeral, there was a range of people that came, uh, that talked about the lifestyle of the queens. Uh, that lived up in Auckland, which my uncle was very heavily involved in in that community. And, uh, as they gave these stories, um, both inside the [00:04:00] and outside of the, uh, outside, uh, that they spoke of the the weight of what? It was to be a young man, uh, as they were, uh, some of them, um, in constant fear of hiding from the law, uh, being disconnected from their families. And they spoke about the impacts of being able to, uh, travel universally. Well, actually, just to just to live their life actually and get jobs, decent jobs, and, uh, without having [00:04:30] to make disclosures of those, um, of those criminal offences. Yeah, just because of the fact that, uh, they they loved, uh uh uh. They love somebody of the same sex. So that was a topic that was very much a part of discussion at my, uh, my uncle Darcy. And so if the minister might be so kind to, um, just give some, uh, update for those that might be watching this debate at home and and also for myself, uh, to understand exactly [00:05:00] what the nature and extent of expungement, uh, of those domestic, uh, convictions will mean here, um, for those members living outside the country. Thank you, madam Chair. I call a rash. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, there are some bills that we debate in this house that that strikes straight at the heart of people's lived existence. People's suffering, fear and hurt and gives us an opportunity to remedy that. And this bill really [00:05:30] does that. Um, I just also want to say that it was an absolute privilege to be part of the select committee that, um um that went through this bill that heard public submissions to this bill and actually worked very well together to make some amendments to part of this bill, which I will go through today as well. So I just want to, uh, firstly, thank the the former minister, um, the honourable Amy Adams for her work on this, the current minister, [00:06:00] the Honourable Andrew Little, uh, for his work on this and my colleagues on the select committee. And of course, those who submitted to this bill as well. We heard some very emotive and very emotional submissions. And I want to acknowledge that, um, part one of this bill, uh, looks at basically, uh, the purpose of of this act. What? What does this act do This The reason that we're here today, and, um, this goes back to the way I began. Actually, um, for those of us in this [00:06:30] house, there is immense power here to impact people's lives. It's a little bit like fire. Sometimes we don't get it right, and it ruins people's lives completely, and sometimes we have the opportunity to remedy it. Now the Crimes Act 1961 and its predecessor in 19 08 criminalised sexual activity between males 16 years and over between that time and 1986 when the Homosexual Law Reform [00:07:00] Act decrimi decriminalised the same activity. We saw a number of people who were caught in a space where just being themselves meant that they were they became criminals or were deemed criminals by society. According to the Department of Statistics. Between that time period, nearly 1000 men were convicted of indecency between males. About 100 and 38 of them had a sentence of imprisonment, and many others either had fines [00:07:30] or community based sentences as well. Quite apart from that was the abject fear that they lived in of law enforcement agencies. The stigma that they suffered. Young men who were thrown out of home for being homosexual, um, huge implications on their health, their mental health. And so this bill puts that gives us an opportunity if passed. To put that straight, it also sends a really clear signal to future generations of young people in the LGBT Q I community [00:08:00] as well. So what does it do? The purpose of this act is to reduce to address that stigma, that prejudice that the young men who were convicted have faced because it's all well and good for us to say post 1986 that this is no longer criminal, but it's a whole different matter for it. Still to be on people's criminal records when they, um either apply for a job or are considered for any position or status of some sort. So this addresses that issue. Um, [00:08:30] it enables an application for expungement of the conviction to be made under this act, uh, parts of the act that I will get into, uh, shortly sort of outline. Who's eligible to make the application? Um, whether it's the person who's been convicted themselves or someone acting on their behalf as well. And actually, both are eligible to, um to apply for a for an expungement, and I'll go into that a little bit. But one also looks at the interpretation. [00:09:00] The definitions. Who does this apply to, um and how? And it lays that out quite quite clearly. I just want to draw your attention, Madam Chair to Clause to Clause four and those who are watching as well. Um, as an example of the types of, um, issues we debated, uh, in a lot of depth, actually, at select committee. So um, for example, criminal record of a conviction for a historical offence. Um, initially in the act, uh, it it was was written down as, [00:09:30] um uh, an official record. We've changed that. Or suggested select committee suggested that that be changed to a public record. So that it So that we align the definition better with section four of the Public Records Act. Um, 2005. There are a few other, um, changes in clause four as well. That will give a better meaning to, uh, the expungement per se. Uh, the other part of, um, part one, of course, is the definition of [00:10:00] historical homosexual offences, and it's quite specific as to who can apply. So what sorts of convictions must a person, um, have had in order to be eligible to apply for this madam chair? Thank you. So, um, so it it lays out in in clause five. So basically, there is the time period that I laid out at this at the start. That's between 19 08 and 1986. So from the start of the Crimes Act, that criminalised [00:10:30] such behaviour right through to 1986 with the homosexual Reform Law Reform Act that decriminalised the same behaviour. So that's the time period within which people who have had such a historical, um, conviction can apply for the expungement. The other relevant part that's outlined in Clause four and I'll, I'll, I'll just read this bit because it's quite detailed. Uh, the sections that have been repealed the specific sections of the Crimes Act that have been repealed, [00:11:00] um, are section 1 41 and that deals with indecency between Male so that Section 1 41 of the Crimes Act 1961 Section two. Sorry, Section 142 Deals with Sodomy Section 1 46. Keeping place of resort for homosexual Acts, Section 153. Unnatural offence of the Crimes Act 19 08. So that's the predecessor act, but only to the extent that the section covers committing buggery with any other male [00:11:30] human being section in 154. Attempt to commit unnatural offence so similar to the previous one, but an attempt rather than the actual offence being committed as well. So people within that time frame who were convicted under any of those sections five sections that I've outlined will be eligible to apply for the expungement of that conviction. Um, now, this also applies to those who might [00:12:00] have passed on since that time, so they may not be able to apply in person, but a representative someone from their family perhaps can apply on their behalf as well. And I'll just, um, at this point draw attention to the fact that some submitters at, uh, select committee, um, alluded to the fact that potentially this act should go a little bit further, Um, and apply an automatic expungement, um, to everyone who so those 1000 people, perhaps [00:12:30] that we have details for, um who would be eligible, but that that was considered by select committee. But the advice that was received was that that blanket or automatic expungement actually might leave a few people out. So, um, a proactive application for expungement was actually better and meant that people could, um, we potentially included more people in that. The other point to note, of course, is that, um, these convictions actually brought about a lot of trauma [00:13:00] for those who who were convicted. And so it's not everybody who would want to be, uh we want to have to revisit that trauma as well. And an automatic expungement might put people in that position. So instead of that, it was better that people applied if they wanted an expungement. Now, part two is the test for expungement. Um, so who's eligible? Now? We've gone through the, um, the time period and the specific convictions under the two Crimes Act. I've also mentioned that the that [00:13:30] the person themselves or a representative, and that's in clause eight, part two of the act. Now the test is that the conduct constituting the offence if engaged in now, so when the application is made, would not constitute an offence. So basically, what we're saying is we had a law back then that criminalised people just being who they were, we don't think that was right. And if the conduct that they engage in at the time actually happened [00:14:00] today, they wouldn't be convicted. So that's pretty much the test, which then rules out, for example, uh, cases of rape, uh, cases where there was no consent. That would have been an offence back then, Also because it was, uh, between males. Um, that part of it would no longer hold under current law, but the lack of consent would so those that fall into that category, this act clarifies, uh, would not would not fall into or that would [00:14:30] not be expunged. Basically, that particular conviction would not be so. Part two of the act lays out quite clearly the instances in which it would not, um, the the conviction would not be expunged. There are also parts, um, in part two, that that basically says that a status cannot be refused or revoked. So basically a person who has an expunged conviction, um, should not be disqualified on that grounds for employment or [00:15:00] for any other, uh, appointment or post so quite detailed. Um, uh, in the act. I have a question, though, for the minister. And that's around compensation that came out, uh, in the select committee as to why that wasn't part of this act. Uh, it would be good to get clarity. Thank you. Thank you. Um, First of all, uh, I'd like to acknowledge, uh, the members of the Justice Select Committee that are here today, including the chair. Ramon and I'd like to acknowledge that the great work done on this [00:15:30] by the Honourable Amy, Amy Adams. And also, I'd like to acknowledge the honourable Andrew Little for taking it on. Um, now, But I was on the put on the Justice Select Committee. Um, when I first became an MP, which is only a few months ago, and, uh, I I was learning about how select committees work. And I thought that, um, listening to dealing with this particular case was the way select committees operate. And I didn't realise that it's not always the case, um, this important piece of legislation [00:16:00] I'm proud to have served on it. And I found that the whole select committee across parties supported this and and quite frankly, it's a it's a it's a no-brainer to support in anyway, Very collegial manner that we dealt with it. Um, and And what I found was that select committee members brought, um, their own life experiences to the, um, to the discussion. And, uh, and in particular, we had Jenny Anderson, who's got a background with police and intelligence and, uh, and justice. And we also [00:16:30] had the the dinosaur up there, Um, Greg O'Connor. 30 years in the police, um, and huge amounts of invaluable experience and I say that quite fondly. Um, so he brought a lot to the table. Um, And also, uh, the officials that are here today also bought, uh, their contribution. And so, uh, we all work together, and we we I think we got a good result. Um, now, one of the things we argued about or talked about actually discussed. We didn't argue. We talked about [00:17:00] it was what the definition of, um, sponging would be or what would literally it would mean. Would it mean that, um, on the computer screen, it said that the conviction and then it had the word expunge by it or did Did it mean that, uh, that there was no reference to what the conviction was? And it was just said expunge and the the officials came back with, um the what? They believed it would be the way to deal with it. Um, and that was just to have the word expunge. But from our experiences [00:17:30] in the police and and others, we felt that any reference on that computer screen to that could identify what That what it was, uh, would defeat the purpose. Uh, so then the officials came back to us and said, Well, why don't we just make it an offence to disclose whatever it was on the screen, But I have to hark back to an experience or my experience when I was in the police, was that, um and it doesn't relate to this particular thing, but it relates it is along the similar lines. And that was, uh, a school [00:18:00] teacher that came to the area. And, um, he he had he had a, uh some some convictions. Um, just a minor one very minor one. And people within the courthouse, uh, is a small town. And people within the courthouse, um, had access to that information and and disclosed, and it caused them a lot of problems. Very minor stuff, nothing to do with this, but it caused them problems. So from my own experience, I felt that, um, the computer record itself had [00:18:30] to have no reference, um, in there, otherwise it would defeat the purpose. And, uh, I believe that's where we've gone with it. So, um, that's my contribution. I have to say it was a pleasure to be part of the team. I'm no longer no on that select committee. I've been moved to transport infrastructure, but it was a pleasure to be on that team. Um, it's a pleasure to be part of this, uh, process. And I recommend it to the house. The honourable Andrew Little. Thank you, madam Chair. And thank you. Members, too. For your contribution. So far, uh, to, uh, Mr [00:19:00] King, it's It's good for members, um, and legislation like this to be able to bring their personal experiences. And it's for that reason that the bill specifically provides not only for the expungement and whatever nature that takes, but actually that subsequent disclosure by an official of a conviction that, uh, uh has been expunged, um, or to lead to consequences, too. So, um, it was good to be able to bring that insight. Um, can I just come to a couple of the the questions that have been raised? Uh uh, by [00:19:30] members so far? So, um, asked a couple of questions. One about the extent of expungement and the other about what is disclosed. So, in relation to the extent of expungement, the bill is pretty clear. The specified offences, uh, which have led to a conviction. Um, those are expunged from the record. But if somebody has or is convicted of an offence such as disorderly behaviour [00:20:00] that might relate to the same sort of conduct that would otherwise have led to those other offences, the offence of disorderly behaviour will not be expunged. But then the failure to expunge that particular offence will not lead to an inference or an implication that, uh, the person making the application, um, has engaged in, uh ho a homosexual offence and therefore subject to the discrimination that might be associated [00:20:30] with that on the issue of of what is disclosed and particularly in relation to, uh, dealing with overseas bodies and organisations and parties, um, I think the the bill and the consideration by the committee, uh, saw that this was particularly problematic. In any event, it will come down to the sort of question that is asked. So if the question is, do you have a relevant conviction or a conviction? [00:21:00] And in this case, a conviction under this bill has been expunged, then the person is quite free to say no. There is no conviction because it has been expunged. If, however, the question is, have you been arrested for an offence that will not allow the person to say no. They have not been arrested. Um, they will. They will have to disclose that they've been arrested. They will not have to disclose the offence. Um, so people do need to understand that particular [00:21:30] limitation. Um, I'm thankful to Rada Krishnan for her, uh, AAA of the issues that she gave. Um and she notes the in a sense, arbitrary date about or around which the historical offending is, uh is limited. And it is offences after the fourth of August 19. 08, because it deals with the legislation. The first legislation that provided for these offences, which was the legislation [00:22:00] that took effect from the Fourth of August 19. 08. And then subsequently the Crimes Act 1961. Obvious question is, why wouldn't you go, uh, to a period early than 19 08. And I think the committee made a pretty pragmatic conclusion, which was that it is most unlikely that there would even be descendants who would be concerned enough about convictions made before 19 08 be able to warrant the system to be able to accommodate that. And so yes, the cut off date, uh, back [00:22:30] to 19. 08 is arbitrary. But I think there are good reasons for that in terms of the specific question that, uh, Ms Rada krishnan raised, which is why compensation has not been provided for. And I think it was pretty clear from a policy point of view. And I think this committee discovered it was just going to be too problematic. And I think it is true also to say that there are mixed views within, uh, the community about whether compensation is warranted or justified. Um, and And even [00:23:00] if you did want to work out a compensation regime, how would that work? What are you compensating or what is the extent of compensation? And in the end, I think what is what most of the matters raised was, uh, in order to remove the stigma associated with a conviction for these offences. That or the conduct that is no longer regarded as a criminal offence, it is removing the record of that offence. And that is the right outcome to achieve, Um, rather than trying to come up with a complex arrangement for, [00:23:30] uh, for compensation. Uh, so on that note, Madam chair. Happy to answer those questions. And I look forward to the ongoing discussion I call Raymond. I chair. Um I was late in returning to the debating chamber to take my call because, uh, honourable, uh, honourable, uh, bar and I had a joined a meeting with the clerk of the justice committee. So it is very fitting for me to thank the clerk for his contributions. Uh, it's a very busy, uh, very effective, [00:24:00] uh, committee. And we did enjoy the work. And congratulations are in order, uh, for the minister in the chair, uh, on, uh, making this bill one of the government's priorities. And also for the then Minister of Justice, the honourable Amy Adam, uh, on putting up the bill in the first place last year. Um, at the committee of the whole house stage. It is very appropriate [00:24:30] for me to touch upon some important issues raised by members at the second reading. Those issues included, for instance, eligibility illegality, the real effect of expungement and also, as the minister just touched upon the issues around compensation. Some of these issues were difficulty ones and without [00:25:00] the input of the submitters and people in the know and without the help of the officials, we simply could not get the point of where we are now. Uh, for instance, the original Clause 13 sub clause two, could be interpreted as such that those job applicants could be seen as agreeing or consenting [00:25:30] to the disclosure of the expanded convictions. Uh, even if, uh, those sort of convictions are not relevant to the job at all. And this is not at all the intention or the purpose of this bill, uh, 13. Clause 13 2 is a difficulty one, simply because, uh it concerns with the, uh, this bill's [00:26:00] relationship with other pieces of legislation, especially the vulnerable Children's act. Having said that, I should acknowledge our officials, uh, who have, uh, done a great job. And the officials are in the debating chamber. I acknowledge their knowledge, input and level of professionalism. And also, I'd like to acknowledge and thank, uh, parliamentary council office, uh, particularly Mr [00:26:30] Ross Carter. Uh, they have always taken the optimal drafting approach, which has been reflected in the great deal in the shape of this bill, back to some important points raised by, uh, members, uh, during the second reading speech. Uh, the first one, obviously, regarding the records. Uh, because this is about the real effect [00:27:00] of the expungement. And when talking about the checks or, uh, records, there are generally two, kinds of such kind of, uh, records. One is AC MS a case management system. And the other one is, uh, criminal and traffic conviction. Uh, history report, uh, with regard to, uh, C MS case management assistant. Uh, operationally, the court record will be retained [00:27:30] in the C MS, uh, which is the court's database? A court staff member, uh, with access to C MS for the criminal jurisdiction will be able to view the records. Um, all charges are recorded in C MS. This includes a verse if they have been withdrawn by leave, dismissed, acquitted or crushed, uh, on appeal, et cetera. It would [00:28:00] be undesirable to remove expanded convictions from case management system, as this system is intended to provide a full record of all court activity. At the select committee session, we did hear submissions from those concerned about the record and the real effect of the expungement and one or two submitters risk the point given This is, uh, nature [00:28:30] and the nature of expand. And why not remove the entire thing from any such kind of record? Uh, records at all, Mr Madam Chair, Madam chair. Thank you, madam Chair. So to reinforce that sort of a view, it is it would be undesirable, uh, to remove expunged convictions from the C MS simply because this system is intended to provide a full record of all court activity. However, for the purpose of [00:29:00] this bill, um, that expunged conviction would not appear on the individual's criminal and traffic conviction. Uh, history, Uh uh, report, Uh, some submitters raised, uh, their concerns or some proposals with regard to the compensation. As the minister just said, there's no such kind of a principle to [00:29:30] support such kind of, uh, compensation, because, uh, there is no general that a person who is convicted on a repealed offence is entitled to compensation. Uh, on the repeal of the offence Now, yesterday, when I made my contribution, I did mention about the Georgia Carter principle because some submitters raised their concerns that without a conversation [00:30:00] or lack of such kind of, uh, uh, policy initiative, we could be seen as potentially in breach of the Georgia Carter principle. Now Georgia car principle is a set of a principle established in 2006 about human rights in the sexual orientation and gender identity space. The principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all states must comply. There are 29 such kind of principles [00:30:30] together with additional recommendations. Uh, representatives from UK US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were among the signatories. We acknowledge the concerns raised by submitters. However, compensation goes beyond, uh, the purpose of the scheme, which is to prevent, uh, as the minister Minister just said, which is present prevent further negative effects from the stigma [00:31:00] of a conversation. Uh, having said that Clause 22 however, of this bill does not limit uh, other measures and the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which protects the right to bring civil litigations against the crown. Uh, further clause 22 does not exclude other rights to, uh, compensation, which may be pursued under existing legislation. [00:31:30] So for those who are concerned about lack of compensation or there's no mechanism provided under this bill, what we can confirm this this, uh, particular, uh, clause or initial policy initiatives. Um, align well, with the approach in comparable, uh, office jurisdictions. Uh, another matter. Um, the minister in the chair just touched upon this about the 19 08 [00:32:00] cut off. Because under this bill, uh uh, it concerns with the two pieces of crimes act if you like. Uh, the first one is crimes act 1961. The the other one is crimes Act 19. 08. What? What I could add on to, uh, the contributions made by the minister and other members is that in practise, the secretary for Justice may [00:32:30] receive a few applications for offending over this time period because the convicted persons would be deceased and potential representatives of the convicted persons are unlikely to have knowledge of the convictions now offences Prior to the Crimes Act, 19 08 were not included. As any convicted persons from this era would have been born [00:33:00] in 18 92 at the latest, Namely, uh, at the age of 16. So, having said that, um, I'd like to take this opportunity to, um uh thank uh, those people who's involved not only, uh, behind this this bill, but also the petition in 2014 of Dam and 2111 [00:33:30] other people behind this petition, which we considered along with this bill. Thank you, madam. Che. I call Greg O'Connor. Madam Speaker. Um, it gives me pleasure to rise on the criminal records. Expungement of conviction for historical homosexual offences. Bill, um, one of my colleagues across the house, uh, described me as a dinosaur some minutes ago. Um, relation to my time in police. Um, [00:34:00] it did cause me to reflect that, um I did spend some time, um, as a police officer in New Zealand police. And I was indeed, um, in place at a time when police were actively policing these these acts. Um, Section 41 in decency between males. Section 142, Sodomy 146. Keeping place a resort for homosexual acts. Section 153. Unnatural offence, Section 154. Attempt to commit unnatural offences. [00:34:30] And as I sat on the select committee and considered the submitters considered the bill, um, it did, uh, cause me to give thought to just what it was like in those days. Um, those days as those in the sixties seventies, eighties even, um, for those who were brought into the criminal justice system because it wasn't just a conviction, [00:35:00] it was, uh, everything that went with that, Um, a lot of the latter years, a lot of the policing of the act was around. And particularly in Wellington around Marion Street, where a lot of, um, transsexual, um, men, Um, a lot of, um, homosexual men, um would, uh, nightly be brought into the Wellington Central police station and charged with associated offences. [00:35:30] So as I considered that, um, I looked at, uh, the different parts of the bill, um, I couldn't help but, uh, having context for what it was we were actually doing and achieving with this bill and that complemented by the submitters who bought their own stories and their own experiences to the select committee. Um, it really did give me a sense that this is a very right thing to be doing. Um, [00:36:00] saying that I think we should remember that we are in another time now. And we shouldn't be too hard on those who were responsible for the legislation, um, or the enforcement of saying in that period because, um, quite frankly, that was another time, but we are now in a time when we are, I think, take a much broader view of, um, the effect of some relatively narrow views um, placed [00:36:30] into criminal justice system can have on the lives of people. Um, particularly those who are part of this and I. I look at what the bill was attempting to actually achieve, um, and its outset. And one of the main parts of that, of course, was that, uh, it was essentially to achieve that [00:37:00] reduce prejudice, stigma and other negative effects. And I go to clause three, the purpose of the act to reduce prejudice, stigma and other negative effects arising from a conviction for historical homosexual offence, Um, and doing that, allowing on application by the convicted person, um, or a representative on their behalf if they are deceased to expunge a historical heterosexual offence if it meets the test for expungement. [00:37:30] And I think that, uh, I, I refer to, um that part of the act where the classes of people who are able to apply on behalf of a deceased person about the executor, the administrator, or the trustee of their estate, or their spouse, civil union partner, de facto partner, parent, sibling or child. Um, the deposition of representative also includes anyone who has requested to be a representative, [00:38:00] and the secretary has granted that request. Um, and I There was some discussion, um, at select committee, Um, as to the extent that it should be applied to those who had passed on, But, uh, certainly the agreement was that, um the pain was often so great. Um, for those individuals, um, that it did actually carry on well beyond the grave and in fact, to family representatives. [00:38:30] Um, Madam Speaker, Um, I commend, um, this bill, um and I would thank you, man. I called Jenny Anderson. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the criminal records, expungement and convictions for historical homosexual offences. And as a member of the, uh, select committee that considered, uh, this bill, it's been, um, really a great privilege to see it progress through these final stages, [00:39:00] and in particular knowing that the the burden that will be lifted off many shoulders of New Zealand men who have been, uh, wrongfully convicted, uh, in the past. So what? This legislation, uh, effectively does is, it sets up a scheme that opens, uh, individuals to be able to apply an application for those that have, uh, been charged and convicted of specific offences that are listed in this, uh, piece of legislation [00:39:30] in particular, sexual conduct between men consenting between 16 years and over or by a family member. So if someone has deceased, it's able to be applied for by a family member of the person affected. And it's important to note, too, that this application process is free. Uh, and it's good to see so many of the, um, submissions that we heard at select committee, uh, raise the question of compensation, uh, under the bill [00:40:00] and whether or not, uh, compensation should be provided, Uh, and that's in clause 22 of, uh, of the bill. And it clearly stipulates that no compensation will be provided for those that had convictions that expunged. And while um, many of those submitters felt who had suffered wrong would like to have been, um, given consideration to that, uh, it's important to note that, um, [00:40:30] we are aware that men convicted of these offences suffered real harm as a result, but, uh, to go further than that. Uh, it was not required. So, uh, there were submitters who agreed with that position of the committee, and and the resolution has been that Clause 22 in fact, provides that there will not be, um, compensation able to be provided. It's important that, um we look at how this bill enables, Um, those, [00:41:00] uh, to, um, look at the case by case analysis. So in clause eight, the scheme requires a case by case assessment of the relevant facts to determine whether the conduct of a person was charged, um, and whether that was, in fact, unlawful today. And it's important to note that that decision is in fact made by the secretary for justice. So there's no need for applicants to appear in person for that. And if a person's conviction [00:41:30] is expunged, the conviction will not appear on a criminal record or a check for any other purpose. And it's also important to note that they will be entitled to declare, if requested, in any way for filling out a job application in terms of requiring to declare their criminal history, that there's no reason for that to be declared in that space, and that is also great to see. Um, there's been a number of, um [00:42:00] uh, comments, too. Made around, uh, clause nine, the general effects of expungement. And that was an issue that the committee also, uh, looked at very closely. So clause nine confirms the effects of expungement and the person with that expunge conviction, um, does not, uh, is entitled to declare they have no such conviction. So the committee, um, has made an amendment to that clause nine to include, um, that the expungement does not authorise [00:42:30] or require the destruction of criminal records of expunged convictions, as stated in the explanatory note on the official record. Um, and it's also important to note that there's been, um, another amendment under clause 13, which notes that it is an offence to unlawfully disclose the information, um, and and the requirement to make sure that is concealed. And so that's an important note, too, that, uh, we live in a in a small country [00:43:00] and people are often accessing records. So by putting the burden of proof on somebody else, for whatever official reason is looking through records to make sure that that is an offence to disclose it. Um, under this legislation to protect, um, really, the privacy of those people who have been wrongfully convicted in the past. Um, it's been, uh, a real privilege to be participating in a bill at this stage after hearing, uh, those submissions firsthand from people affected. And I'm proud to see a strong [00:43:30] bill, uh, that enables the wrongs of the past to be put right and to give people a sense of of that justice. So without further ado, I commend this bill to the house I call the Honourable Andrew Little. Thank you, madam Chair once again thank members for their contributions, and I like to take a moment to respond to as some of the issues raised. Uh, our colleague, uh, Raymond Hare referred to, um clause nine, sub clause seven. And the fact [00:44:00] that court records, um, will continue to be retained. So this is a process. This bill allows for a process for the conviction to be expunged and therefore for the person making the application to not be required to disclose that there was a conviction. That is the nature of expungement. And for those requesting that information not to be able to have access to it, but it doesn't mean that the that the record of the conviction, um, is therefore [00:44:30] destroyed. It is important. Is, uh, I think the select committee was advised that public records, because of the obligations under other statutory obligations, need to be maintained that a combination of the application for expungement, which is then granted changing the or altering what is appears in the record it's accessible to officials. Um, who would be providing information and also constraining those officials from disclosing [00:45:00] a conviction that is otherwise exposed, I think, provides the protection and the certainty that those making applications under this bill, uh, would be looking for, uh, once again, Mr. Hore, um, raises a question about compensation. And he notes that, uh, there is still a right for those who have been convicted under previous legislation and who would be entitled to an expungement under this legislation [00:45:30] to bring claims for damages in relation to conduct against them while in custody or uh, while, uh, incarcerated or otherwise, while while being handled by the authorities, uh, in relation to the offence, which they were subsequently convicted of, There is that angle but compensation merely for the effect of convic. Uh, conviction which would lead to an expungement under this legislation, is too problematic and too complex to contemplate. Uh, which is [00:46:00] why, uh, the bill does not provide for compensation in which, Why the gov Why the government also outside the the confines of the legislation, is not considering a compensation regime? Um, the Honourable member Greg O'Connor um referred in his contribution to, uh the definition of people who can apply for expungement on behalf of those [00:46:30] who have been convicted. And so those who are deceased but who had a conviction, uh, can posthumously achieve an expungement if someone applies on their behalf. And so the legislation calls for a definition of a representative of those people. Um, and that is clearly laid out. And and, uh, Mr O'Connor very assiduously and I would say with great eloquence went through those who are defined as a representative who can make that application. Um, and [00:47:00] it does require it does require some proximity of relationship, uh, to to achieve that is, it is not any old, uh, J blogs can turn up there and apply on behalf of somebody they don't know. Uh, but because they are a busy body and might have some interest in some historical figure, um, it has to be somebody, um uh, a member of the family bearing a mind that a conviction of a person under the the those, uh, historical offences, um, will [00:47:30] feel a sense of shame as well. And it is as much for the assuagement of their sense of shame as much as for the person who had the conviction as well. And finally, uh, Jenny Anderson, uh, referred to the issue about compensation again in clause 22 and confirm the select committee's view is that compensation is not provided for uh, but then Ms Anderson focused on the test for expungement. And what that taste for expungement focuses on is not just merely [00:48:00] the conviction, it's the conduct underlying the conviction And that allows the secretary of Justice who has to consider the applications for expungement to consider whether the nature of the conduct that led to the conviction, um was GE was innocent was was consensual or whether there was a, uh, a predatory character to it or coercion or some other, uh, nature of the conduct that vitiated consent that you would expect there to be, um, [00:48:30] in relation to activities, uh, that that today would not attract a criminal sanction. So those things are covered off. Uh, and once again, I thank members for their questions, and I look forward to the ongoing discussion I call the Honourable Thank you, madam Chair. It's, um I feel quite, um, proud and humbled to take a call on this bill. Such a necessary piece of legislation, Um, in the healing process, which continues around [00:49:00] the stigma, Um, that has persisted despite the 1986 piece of legislation. But the stigma that has been, um, suffered by people, um, who are being punished or have felt that they continue to be punished for being themselves by previous criminal convictions. Um, and, uh, I feel really proud of the the whole of this parliament. Uh, and, um, the parliament of New Zealand that, uh, that we are taking [00:49:30] this step. I've got some specific questions. Um, around, uh, the, uh, section 13. Uh, clause. Sorry. Clause 13 A, which was, um, inserted at the select committee process, which was around the offence to require or request that individual disregard expungement, um, and note that again, the purpose of the bill to reduce prejudice, stigma and all the other negative effects arising [00:50:00] from the conviction for historical homosexual offence. Um, but the select committee, uh, obviously felt concerned enough to want to insert a new clause. And I don't know whether that was as a result of, um, good work just by the select committee members, um, thinking of all the unintended consequences or whether this came from submissions, Um, the 37 submissions, But the concern that in some situations, even if a conviction [00:50:30] had been successfully expunged, that people might still be required to disclose the fact of the conviction. And so the insertion of clause 13 A makes it an explicit offence to require or request an individual to disregard the effect of expungement under the spill. So my question to the chair to the minister and the chair is, um, around the problem definition around that was there, Um [00:51:00] uh, a a set of circumstances where in actual cases where, um, it was concerned this kind of behaviour would occur and and also, um what what would be the process for, um, for actually uh, enacting that offence is how does how does it become an offence? Has what? What? What was [00:51:30] the thought that went into that? And and And I'll just remind the house that, um section uh, clause 13 a, um, has, um, two parts to it. Um, the first part. The person commits an offence if that person, uh, requires or request that an individual disregards the effective expungement under the act when answering a question about the individual's criminal history or disclosing information concerning any convictions of the [00:52:00] individual or both or, um, or they disregard the effective exp expungement under the act. So it sounds as if it's blatant disregard of what this legislation actually stands for, and that there is concern that there is still the prejudice that exists partly in our community, where there are people who would disregard and, um uh, and And if they did, then as a as 0.2. [00:52:30] That a person commits an offence is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 as to what thought has gone into how that would actually, um, be enacted. And what would the recourse be? Because if if they wanted to get their, um, conviction expunge they have to apply. Am I correct to the minister? So how does how do you actually get that offence to occur? Does it have to go through the minister to be referred to the court? Or [00:53:00] is there some other mechanism? I guess that's the question I have for the chair on this bill. Um um and I. I certainly am not disagreeing with clause the 13 A. I think it's, um uh, it it's obviously but showed good thinking by the select committee members. But I just, um, on reading through it. And of course not having been at the select committee, um, and am unsure about how that actually played out. Other than that, this is, um, other than having that question answered, this is an extremely [00:53:30] important, um, uh, piece of legislation, part of the healing process. Um, commend it to the house, uh, called Dr Duncan Webb. Madam, it's really just a short point, uh, that I'd like to put to the minister, and it's around clause five of the act which defines historical homosexual offences. Uh, my concern is that there are a number of offences which may have been, uh, lead to conviction. [00:54:00] Um, but which don't fall within those in particular, um, offences which the prosecutor chose to prosecute under some act which didn't have necessarily a homosexual element to it. And examples might be, um, a loitering offence or an indecent exposure offence which, nevertheless, um, were triggered by behaviour. Um, which in fact was [00:54:30] came to the attention of the authorities, the police, Because it had this this homosexual element, which now would not even raise an eyebrow. Uh, a As I read the act, a person who has been convicted of an offence which the prosecutor might in fact have prosecuted because it seemed the less invidious offence to prosecute, will know nevertheless now be tarred with that offence and can't come to the come to come forward and say this is, in fact, and [00:55:00] in substance um, a historic homosexual offence. And because of what appeared to be almost an act of mercy of the prosecutor um, I, I can't now have that that offence expunge, but nevertheless, um, it still carries with it all of the difficulties, um, of of a of an offence that would have to be disclosed. Um if requested. And that does seem to me to be something of a of a mismatch. Now, I, I accept that the [00:55:30] difficulties of proof, uh, around that may be difficult, particularly with the of time. Uh, but it does seem to me particularly for people who are, um, and whose, um prospects and reputation is is affected by this, uh, that it would be appropriate for them to be able to come forward and say, This is a This is a real matter of concern to me. This is, in fact, an offence I should never have been convicted of because it attracts it. It's it's only attracted attention because of my homosexual [00:56:00] conduct. So, Minister, I won't take any more time. It's just a short point. Uh, but I would like to see, uh, your response to that. I call the Honourable and, um similar to my colleague Duncan Webb. Um, just one issue that I wanted to raise, um, with the minister. And I know that interpretations aren't always the most exciting, uh, part of a bill. But I do want to focus in on the interpretation of representative um, which [00:56:30] is clause four, Madam chair. Uh, which sets out, um, that if someone is deceased and on their behalf, um, someone wants to get a conviction expunged. It sets out exactly who, uh, within the bill. Um, is able to do that as a representative. Um, it goes through the list of, um, the executor administrator of a trustee acting on behalf, uh, a spouse or civil union partner or de facto partner of the convicted person. Um, and the issue that I have, um, and or the question that I'd like to ask [00:57:00] is around four, is around C. And that is, um, the definition in terms of, uh, family. Because it is very prescriptive to, um, a parent, sibling or child or the convicted person, uh, can act as a representative. Um, just looking forward, uh, to clause five and the timings around where, um, these convictions may have happened. Um, beginning in August 19 08 and ending in August 1986 is quite a long [00:57:30] time frame. Um, So there could be, uh, a situation where it's not a parent, sibling or child, uh, of a convicted person. But it may be a grandchild or great grandchild of a person that has been convicted under these previous laws, who may want to see, um, the conviction expunged. And I guess the question I would like to ask is whether there is any scope to broaden out. And we're talking about [00:58:00] family who can be a representative of the convicted person who is now deceased, um, either to be less prescriptive or to include grand grandchildren and great grandchildren. Um, because I think we may get into a situation where there's two tests for direct descendants of people who have been convicted of first a proving their worthiness as a representative. Um, And if it were a direct descendant of mine, uh, I find that possibly a little bit offensive, [00:58:30] Um, and and two convincing, uh, the the system that the conviction should or could be expunged. So I guess, um, the very simple question is, can we look at that? Um III. I know that D allows the secretary to deem somebody else who may be an appropriate person to act on behalf of a deceased convicted person. Um, but with with a topic so sensitive, um, and would be felt [00:59:00] quite acutely by grandchildren or great grandchildren of people who are convicted. I think we should seriously think about broadening out the definition of a representative in terms of family members, uh, so that we don't have a two step test for them. Honourable Andrew Little. Thank you, madam Chair. Um, just to, um, uh, respond to some of the questions that have been raised in the last two or three contributions. Can I tend to [00:59:30] the intervention by the honourable Claire? Um, who raised a question about clause 13 A, uh, which makes it an offence to require or request that an individual dis disregard expungement. And as I understood, uh uh, Miss Karen, she had two questions. One is, um uh, focusing on the circumstances in which that might arise and and why did the committee think it was necessary to provide a remedy to this possibility? This [01:00:00] possibility And then secondly, how would the offence be enforced? So on the first, um, this provision mirrors a similar provision in the clean slate legislation. So, uh, somebody who meets the conditions of that legislation of going through a period of time, um, where they have not committed an offence, that a low level offence that they had previously been convicted of. They can apply to, um, have their [01:00:30] criminal record effectively, uh, cleaned up. Hence the name clean Slate. What I think was, uh, under that legislation, What the what parliament at that time considered was the possibility that a person seeking information about prior convictions might try to circumvent the benefit of the legislation by saying, uh, I not only require you to tell me your current convictions, but ask you to disregard your rights [01:01:00] under in that case, the clean slate legislation. And it is important when, considering this bill and the fact that people are now or will wish to use it to remove the more stigmatic convictions that they have, that they should not be imposed upon by others and invited to abandon the rights they will have under the bill. You can imagine a situation in which a an employer or [01:01:30] a private organisation, or whoever who is seeking information about a person because they want to understand about them, perhaps understand about their past track record, may be brazen enough to say effectively. We know you have these rights and the benefit of this legislation, but we will insist that you abandon your rights under the legislation, and we're going to demand that you provide this information and if you don't we will effectively discriminate against you to [01:02:00] allow an employer or an organisation. To do that would be to defeat the objective of the legislation, which is to remove discrimination and stigma associated with a conviction for a homosexual offence that is, in this day and age, not an offence. So, um, it it plays a very important role and the members of the committee are to be congratulated for having the wisdom to insert their provision in there. How would it be enforced where the reality is? It [01:02:30] would require a complaint to the police because if an organisation seeking information which they're not entitled to and in effect seeking information which the person being asked to supply it is not obliged under this legislation, in effect is protected, uh, from disclosing it. Um, uh, they should not. That organisation should not be able to conduct themselves in that way. They should not be able [01:03:00] to defeat the the individual person's rights and the benefits they would have under this legislation. Uh, so they would lay a complaint with the police and the penalty is set at $10,000. Which is an indication from this parliament that discriminatory action is seen as a serious thing by this parliament that one citizen, one legal entity should not be able to discriminate against uh, an individual. Um [01:03:30] uh, my colleague Duncan, Whip Doctor Duncan Whip asked about clause five and the fact that that clause which defines the historical offences which are the subject of the legislation, um is very specific about the particular offences which can be expunged on application to the Secretary of Justice and doctor, we asked the obvious question Why, uh could not other offences that may have [01:04:00] in their commission related to homosexual conduct can they not be the subject of an application for expungement? And the problem with that is, if you if you consider offences like, uh, disorderly conduct or exposure, uh, can't remember the technical nature of your, uh, madam chair? Um uh, is that it? It would add considerable complexity to the job of the Secretary of Justice to consider applications [01:04:30] for offences that can be applied in a in a number of situations, many of which would be legitimate reasons for the conviction and for which there will be no legitimate reasons to not continue to record that conviction. Um, there would be, you know, something like an offence, Like disorderly conduct has an enormous breadth of application. And so, um, although the conduct to which it might apply, uh, might [01:05:00] be homosexual conduct, which this bill, in its specificity, is seeking to avoid the stigma associated with it to determine whether or not the particular offence on that person's record relates to homosexual conduct or something else would add considerable, um, effort and, uh, complexity, that it would make the bill unworkable. So I think the committee has struck the right balance and ensuring [01:05:30] that the bill remains workable and achieves its fundamental objective, which is removing the stigma of criminal offences from a day and age when it was regarded as criminal, but which, in this day and age is not, um, and and to then and therefore remove the stigma and shame associated with that. If I could turn to the question raised by the honourable Christopher, uh, in his contribution, which [01:06:00] is the definition of representative under Clause four, and he's right. The definition of representative goes through a number of steps. There's the legal agents, uh, that a person may have um And then there are the family members and they combined to, um uh the the There are your spouse and civil union partners and what have you. Then there are family members and parent, sibling or child. And the question quite legitimate. Question is, why not a grandchild, given that the bill will apply [01:06:30] to offences that go back to the fourth of August 19 08. And if there is somebody who has a conviction in 19 09 In this day and age, it is most likely going to be a grandchild who will want to make the application. But I think he also, uh, touches on the answer to the question, which is that, uh, clause D or paragraph? D of that, uh, definition of representative allows the Secretary of Justice to exercise a discretion to allow somebody who does not [01:07:00] fall into the definitions and paragraphs a B and C to also make the application and therefore have the application, uh, considered. And I think that is, um, the basis on which a grandchild or or some other it might be a a nephew or a grand nephew or grand niece might make the application. I think what the Secretary of Justice will look for is a familial link, a proximity of the person making the application to the person who has the conviction. Um, on the on the basis [01:07:30] that a conviction of this nature and a day and age and an unenlightened age when these convictions were happening, um, is as much a source of shame to the family as it is to the individual, uh, itself. And when the individual has passed on and deceased the family, it is possible for that family to continue to wear the embarrassment and the shame of that conviction, which they should not. And so I think the the member should be reassured if I can do so [01:08:00] that the Secretary of Justice, uh, would be expected to, uh, take a fair, large and liberal interpretation, uh, of his or her discretion under paragraph D to ensure that, uh, this bill is of value to those who suffered the ignominy of a conviction for conduct, which today is not at all regarded as criminal. So I thank the member for bringing that issue to the attention of the House. But I consider that it is, uh, covered [01:08:30] off by the, um uh, the other provisions in the bill. Um, I call Barbara al. I move that the question be now put. Um, I call coffee. Uh, thank you, Mr Chair. I think the opportunity to talk on this particular bill, uh, and as I get up here and I, uh, have listened to a few of the contributions from some of the members in this house. Uh, I just want to remind the house that, uh, we are We [01:09:00] were once, um, part of the problem. Uh, actually, we were the ones that made the laws that everybody had to follow. And so, as we um, praise, uh, the work that we do Um, I I just caution that we also praise that. Well, remember that we were actually once part of the problem. Um, and for that reason, I'm I'm happy. And I'm sad to stand here and take a call on this. Uh, I'm standing on behalf of all of those people that can't be here today, Of course. Uh, but who have had to live with the guilt and the shame of [01:09:30] having a conviction under this particular, um, under this particular act of parliament. And it's for that reason that I I stood proudly in support of the marriage equality bill back in 2014, um, so that people could understand that things were changing, that times are changing. And I'm happy to say that Parliament, uh, through this particular bill here is also changing as well. Uh, if there's somebody in particular that needs some thanks just in relation to this particular bill, it is, um, the petition of and the 2111 [01:10:00] people that signed his petition, Uh, that came before the house, and, uh, and I just want to, uh, just read it out, Uh, that, in the manner of those who were convicted of consensual consensual homosexual acts prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 that the house promptly issued an official apology to those convicted and B pass legislation, which sets out a process for reversing the convictions of those convicted, both living and deceased [01:10:30] in a manner which upholds the manner and the dignity of those convicted. Um, I would like to uh, commend. And all of those people that signed this particular petition, uh, to bring this bill before the house. If anybody needs things, it's actually them. Uh, I want to, uh I want to also, uh, just, uh, raise a point about the, uh the what? What I see is is is very necessary. Uh, the ability for, um, somebody to apply on somebody else's [01:11:00] behalf. Um, I just wanted to touch on that wee point, because, uh, there are many people who, uh, have had convictions against their name for a long time now, uh, who have since passed on. And, uh, for that reason, it is only right, uh, that somebody be able to, uh, apply, uh, for this, uh, expungement on their behalf. Uh, so I commend the committee, um, and and also the minister for making sure that that's a a key part of it. Um, so that we can have representatives, uh, that [01:11:30] can step in on behalf of their, um, their their family member, uh, their friend, their, uh, to be able to make things right. Uh, 1000 people. They say 1000 people may be eligible to apply under this scheme. based on, um, based on data that has been gathered by the Department of Statistics. And for that reason, I look forward to, um uh, to monitoring the process and seeing, uh, the names of people coming out of the shadows, uh, who have been firmly standing [01:12:00] in the shadows for quite some time. Uh, for those prosecutions that were held in 1919, 65 and 1986. Uh, I did want to, uh, just ask the minister one question about the compensation question. I know that, uh, I've been, uh, spoken to by some members of the, uh, of the community of the rainbow community in particular. Uh, just asking that question around, um, compensation. I understand firmly that that's not part of this, but I did want to know, uh, so that I can report back to the community [01:12:30] about why there wasn't the question of compensation raised, Um, and also the difference between an expungement and a pardon, too, because, uh, to normal people out there that don't sit here in the hallowed halls of Parliament, um, they may not understand the difference between those two particular terms. Uh, so just a bit of clarification uh, around that, uh, would also be very welcome. Uh, I'm happy to understand that this is part of a of A of an international movement of, [01:13:00] um, of countries that are, um that are undertaking this process. Uh, I understand that our scheme is particularly mirrored on, um, on the scheme. Uh, that was put through in Australia. Um, and we're going to align our particular bill. Uh, that way, Uh, of course, it has been done in England and in Wales, too. Uh, so I was just trying to understand, uh, what exactly the differences were in those two, as I've only recently come, uh, come [01:13:30] before this particular piece of of legislation. So if we could just, uh, having a have have a wee bit of an explanation as to what the difference was between, uh, the England and Wales situation and why we chose to align ourselves, uh, with the Australians. That would be great. Thank you. Um, I call the Honourable Alfred be now put. Um, I call, uh, Derek ball. Uh, thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take a very quick call. And, um, in fact, just add a couple of questions or [01:14:00] supplementaries, I guess to, um, the member that just, um, set down some of the coffees questions because they were all revolve around the same topics. The first was the, uh, representative. I know it's been brought up quite a number of times, and you have answered questions, Minister, Um, first of all, I think it's actually one of the most important, um, clauses that's in there because, um, uh, it actually allows the family members to be able to get some reconciliation. Um, for, um, their past loved [01:14:30] ones. Um, I know that the honourable Chris asked if there should be some consideration about, uh, widen the scope for the family members. And I know that you answered that question, sir. Um, but, uh, um, I'm wondering if there's been any consideration and specifically talking about, um, clause 15, 3 and four. So, first of all, the secretary must decide as soon as it is reasonably practical whether the person can represent the convicted person. Um, now, [01:15:00] I know that there's the, um the consideration, but whether the family and the other considerations as well, but is there any situation where they do lie? Um, let's Let's just say, um, within that framework, and be a direct descendant IE, a child or a grandchild or a brother or a sister, that wouldn't necessarily be an a an able representative of that individual. And I guess that moves on to that. That fourth, uh, clause, [01:15:30] um, where it says the secretary's decision must be based on where the representation concerned will be in the interests of the deceased convicted person. So what circumstances? And I know that the that the, um the the, uh circumstances of those individuals and their families would be quite varied and unique. So whether that comes down to an individual, um, looking at them, the secretary, looking at them as individual, separate, very unique circumstances, [01:16:00] or whether there are, um, a few boundaries or rules or regulations or considerations that are existing now that would be applied and F and used to philtre before it got to that unique individual stage. So that's the first question for the minister. Um, and the second one also revolves around the no entitlement to compensation. And, um, the that question has been brought a couple of times, and the minister has, um, answered and, [01:16:30] uh, from what I can recall. The minister has explained it by saying that it's the main reason if not the only reason is because it's quite pro problematic and not disagreeing with that at all. Um, but I'm wondering if there has been consideration through the select committee phase. Um, where the, um, guidelines around compensation that already exist from the Ministry of Justice were used and or considered to justify no compensation. And I know [01:17:00] one of the, um clear. Well, from what I've read of the, um what was on the on the Ministry of Justice websites was the clear difference. I think one of the differences between the situation that we're talking about in this bill to normal compensation was that, um a, uh an individual was imprisoned because they broke the law and they found that they didn't break that law, whereas in this situation, the law itself was expunged even though they did break the law. So I know it sounds a little bit ambiguous, [01:17:30] but, um, I I think that if the minister could explain whether or not that part of the of of the, um, um, Ministry of Justice guidelines were used or not, or whether it was just simply because it was problematic. And that was the end of the conversation. So, um, those are the 22 questions. I've got to add them to the mix. Thank you, Mr Chair. Um, I call the Honourable Andrew. Uh, thank you, Mr Chair. Um, if I could just now respond to the latest set of queries, [01:18:00] Uh, so to the honourable member to Coffey, who has raised a couple of questions. One about compensation and effectively, why not? And perhaps I'll take the opportunity in answering Mr Coffey's question to answer also Derek Ball's question. Um, it was considered, as I understand it, it occupied a significant amount of the committee's time to consider the issue of compensation. Submitters raised it. And it's a legitimate question to ask, uh, given [01:18:30] that the law changed, people have been tarred with a criminal sanction for conduct. That certainly is not criminal today, and we would argue it should never have been criminal. Um, but that was a less enlightened age. In 1986 we became enlightened. The difficulty with compensation is that there will be different circumstances for different people that might call for varying levels of compensation, [01:19:00] Uh, and that then makes it very complex and very complicated. And so the decision was made not to provide for compensation. It would be equally unfair to say, right, Everybody gets the same amount if if that were the, the government were minded to do that. But that would not be to take into account the circumstances that some faced. For some, the humiliation may have been greater because of the nature of the arrest, the circumstances in which they were detained, the, uh, length of time [01:19:30] they were incarcerated, Um, and whether or not they were subjected to further prejudice and discrimination while they were in the state's custody. So huge complexity about a formula to achieve compensation. And in the end, the judgement was that it was just too hard. Um, and, uh, I think Mr Ball makes a very, um, important point, which is that right now we have compensation for those who are imprisoned [01:20:00] wrongfully, and it is then discovered that the offence for which they are imprisoned, they actually never committed. They never committed the act which lead lead to the conviction that led to them being imprisoned, and they should therefore never have been detained at all in prison, and they are compensated for that. What we're doing here is saying that there was conduct that was regarded as criminal conduct at once upon a time in our history, whether we agree with that or not. Now, [01:20:30] we clearly disagree with it now because in 1986 we passed a law saying that conduct is no longer criminal. And now we're going taking the further step of saying those who were criminalised by that conduct but who are otherwise innocent. We are going to expunge the record of that, uh, that criminality. But the act happened, the conduct happened. And, uh, we can't We might be able to expunge the criminal record. We can't expunge the the act that, in fact, took place. [01:21:00] Um, and if I could turn to, uh, that segues nicely into the second question. Asked by, uh, Mr Coffey, which was the difference between an expungement and a pardon. The expungement is of the criminal record. It says this record should not exist. We've made the enlightened decision that even though you were convicted because of the conduct that you engaged in at a time when that conduct was criminal. It is no longer criminal. You should not continue to carry [01:21:30] the shame and humiliation of a criminal record. Because in this day and age, we don't regard that conduct as criminal. So we will expunge the record. A pardon applies where you were accused of conduct, which was criminal. But you are later discovered to have never committed that conduct, and therefore, you should never have been criminalised in that sort of way. So that is why we talk about expungement. In these circumstances, we don't talk about a pardon because the conduct, in fact [01:22:00] happened. Uh, even though, uh, that conduct happening today, you know, would not would not be criminal would therefore not attract criminal sanction. Um, but But there is that difference. So on that basis, um, I think the committee has done a very good job in distilling out What is the appropriate action to take? It is an expungement, um, and and that gets us to where we are. I know. Mr Coffey referred to the petition. Um, they also called upon, uh, the parliament to make an apology [01:22:30] to those convicted and the honourable Amy Adams, who was the minister or she was the minister who took up this legislation originally sponsored It brought it to the house. And in the first reading, uh, she provided the apology that was called for in the petition. And I think when we get to the third reading, we will no doubt underscore that, because I think that is a legitimate thing to do. I'm Hamish Walker. I over the question we now put, uh, the question [01:23:00] is that the question be now, put those of that opinion will say I those against will say no. The eyes have it. The question is that parts one and two schedules one and two and clauses one and two stand part. All those in favour say I all those against say no. The eyes [01:23:30] have it. I will report the bill with out amendment. You done, members. The house has resumed. Um, Madam Speaker, The committee has considered the criminal records expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences bill and reports without amendment. [01:24:00] I move that the report be adopted. The question is that the report be adopted. Those of that opinion will say I to the contrary. No, the eyes have it the bill is set down for third reading. Next sitting day, I call on government order of the day number two.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags