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.
So I'm a green party MP. I've been in parliament since 2008, um, and as an out gay man, I was involved back in the late seventies and the early eighties in, uh, in advocating for, um, homosexual law reform and then later on, and, um, outside of parliament, working for the AIDS Foundation, uh, advocating for the human rights reforms. And then while in parliament, [00:00:30] uh, I worked with, uh, particularly Lewis, but some other MP S on marriage equality. Um, and as as part of that, um, part of the work that we were doing, we sort of became aware of, um that this big group of of of men who had been convicted under the old law and I made an approach to at that stage Judith Collins, um, who was the minister of [00:01:00] justice at the time to say, Well, you know, how about it? Because these are men who deserve an apology and, um, and deserve to have these these convictions wiped because the the law, in fact, was never a moral, a morally justifiable law. And, um, she was interesting. She, like she was open to the idea interested in talking it through, obviously got some some advice from the Ministry of Justice, [00:01:30] and and, um, decided I think we were probably a little too close to the 2014 election for her to take it forward. But I think that that was, uh And I'm assuming that that was, um, the, uh, the source of some of of who is this Auckland man who really is the person who's driven the petition, getting the idea that we should that we should do this? Of course. At the same [00:02:00] time, there have been, you know, a couple of other countries who have made similar moves. And, um, you know, I'm sure that that was part of his thinking as well that if they could If they could do it, then surely we could as well. So how easy was it to identify those convictions like you were saying there was quite a number of convictions? How How did you go about that? Well, we haven't done that yet. In fact, that's that's the principal task. In fact, uh, that would sit in front of justice [00:02:30] officials or whatever the mechanism that we set up will be to, um actually work their way through those historic convictions. The the tricky bit. Which is why Amy Adams, who's the Who's the current minister of justice? I went to see her, um, when she became the minister, Um, after the last election to to pick up the conversation I've been having with Judith Collins. And, um, she had several particular, um, objections. [00:03:00] Uh, the one that one was that, um, let's see that, uh, this was the law of the land at the time, and people should have been expected to follow the law. You know, that was so that was one of her objections. The second one was, um that if, uh, an apology and quashing of convictions occurred in this case, um well, uh, does that open the door to to [00:03:30] some other groups, um, seeking something similar in relation to other laws that have changed. Um, And then the third objection, which I think is probably the most realistic of the three that she had was, uh, the practical one that, um if if someone who was convicted of say, um, indecent behaviour, um, which was one of the the the offences that people were convicted under and there were a number of [00:04:00] them that that, um uh, that that were used at different stages. Um, uh, prior to law reform in 86 um, that there were that there were other behaviours, uh, that work that attracted the same charge and therefore the same conviction that would, in fact, still be problematic today. So, um uh, for example, there was no distinction made based on age. [00:04:30] So, uh, so behaviour that that we would still, in fact, probably more strongly classify as, um as rape. Um, today, because of because of, uh, a person being underage, um, actually might simply have have attracted an indecent behaviour or, um, sodomy. Um, charge. Um and so whatever we do is going to require sifting through court records [00:05:00] rather than simply everyone who got an indecent behaviour. Conviction is now, um, no longer has one. So so that's gonna be the main body of the work. But I've seen in an article I think I was on gaz dot com where there was a number of, um, there was, like, 879 convictions within from 1980 to 1985. I think. I mean, is that the kind of figure that those are the kind of numbers that you're I I [00:05:30] have. I have, um, steered clear of trying to be precise about numbers. Um, I've seen that number before. Um, and I'm not sure how robust it is. Um, certainly from my own knowledge, I mean I I remember the days of, you know, along to court, um, and and and seeing a succession of, um, of cases, uh, of of men appearing, um, to [00:06:00] usually plead guilty, in fact, almost universally plead guilty to get their conviction. So I have no doubt that we're talking at least about, um, hundreds. Um, if not thousands of men. Um, now, of course, for, you know, for many of those men, they will will now have passed away. But I've been quite clear to say that I'm interested not only in the men who are currently alive today, but also [00:06:30] the men who have passed away. Um, because the consequences for men of of getting these convictions were generally pretty catastrophic for for their lives. And they had the those consequences rippled out to others, you know, to the to their partners and friends and and families and um, probably have rippled down the generations as well. You know, Uncle Bill that we don't talk about? Well, actually, you know, Uncle Bill, [00:07:00] who's now passed away, Um, and his descendants deserve the dignity of an apology and for that conviction to be wiped, So were you able to answer, um, Amy's other, um, kind of concerns. I think there were two other concerns that she raised. Yeah, I? I think so. I mean, I think for So for me, the one of the distinguishing features is, um, that the law, as it stood prior to 1986 [00:07:30] required, um, gay men to act against their biological nature. Um, and I you know, I I think that that, uh, that that places this kind of offending these kinds of convictions in a different category to convictions for I, I don't know, some sedition or some some [00:08:00] something else that was previously an offence and might no longer be, um uh and and so I would say these were laws that never, never ought to have existed because they offended so fundamentally against people's human rights. And I guess the the thing that and so the thing that I would say about about Amy's concern about precedent is, Well, if if there [00:08:30] were other convictions for offences that were similar to this, that actually required people to act against their their nature, then you know that that we should we should open that door. You know, they they they deserve an apology as well. Um, but as to the this idea that, you know, even though the law, you know, our modern construction of the law is that it should never have existed nonetheless, people owed [00:09:00] a duty of obedience to the law. My counter would be actually, that's the very reverse of the position that, um, countries like New Zealand took in the Nuremberg trials. Where actually we we said to, um, Nazi officers. Um, yes, we know that this was the law of of your land at the time and that you were only following orders nonetheless. [00:09:30] Actually, there are principles of natural justice and human rights that trump the law of the land. Actually, that's I believe the principle. We should be applying here, too. So what is this petition seeking? So the petition seeks two things. It seeks an apology. Um, and it also, uh, in quite a general terms seeks, um, for, uh, for the for the convictions, [00:10:00] Um, that that were registered against these men's names to, um I guess be deleted in some way. Uh, now, I'm I'm not an expert in in all of the mechanisms that are available to do that, but, uh, you know, I what? What I'm in seeking to represent the petition in Parliament trying to do is is seek for those convictions to be quashed or expunged, actually, [00:10:30] rather than a pardon. I mean to me. And I'm sure, to To to most people, the idea of a pardon is that, um, yes, yes, you did something wrong, but we But the state has forgiven you for doing so. Now, Uh, I'm not sure that if I had a conviction, that that's what I would want because, um, I, I guess the my argument would be [00:11:00] people who were convicted under the those historic laws never did anything wrong. And so a pardon is the wrong construction and quashing the conviction is the right thing to do. And you would go for a quashing of conviction and an apology. Not just an apology. Yes. Yes, I would. I mean, I think, Yeah, my guess is that the [00:11:30] the the aspect of that formula that would carry the most power, um, and meaning would be the apology. Um, I think as a sincerely sincerely meant and appropriately delivered state apology, um would be a very, very powerful thing. Um, for those men. But, um, the, uh, the, you know, the petitioner and his evidence to the to the select committee said, Well, that's the very [00:12:00] least that the state should be doing. And actually, um, we we should be, uh, going further and saying this should never have been a crime. But that actually is also a really powerful, um, signal. And there will be there will be people around today who, um, still have to declare, you know, a a con, Um, in certain circumstances, because the clean slate legislation doesn't apply in all circumstances. [00:12:30] Um, and they really should. Shouldn't have to do that. So what would declaring a conviction? Um, mean nowadays? What? What would that limit or well, it might, um, it it might prevent someone being able to travel to some countries, for example. You know, it might have, um you know direct practical implication of that sort. Um and, uh, yeah. I mean, so that's I mean, that's an example. That [00:13:00] of of a circumstance in which a conviction like that would still need to be declared. There are also some limitations on, uh, the types of offences that the clean slate legislation applies to, and some sexual offending still has to be declared, you know? And so, um, I I've just been through the process of applying for a job, and they asked me about my my criminal convictions. Well, you know, the the you know. So someone with, [00:13:30] uh, with one of these convictions, if it's framed in as a as a sexual offence, which it it, it will have been for For most people, um, that probably still has to be declared, um, and so that might mean, you know, missing out on employment. So have men with convictions come forward through this process? So far? II. I know of some who who, um, there there have been one [00:14:00] or two who've been prepared to, um, talk to media, for example. You know? So when I've talked to media about this about this issue previously, um, typically the first question a journalist will will ask is Well, can we talk to someone? And of course, the reality for the for men who've been, um, affected by this legislation is that for many of them, they have lived since their conviction, a life that has been heavily [00:14:30] affected by shame. Embarrassment, Um, and so talking to a journalist is often the very last thing that they want to do. So I've been really grateful to those men who have been prepared to talk. And the the select committee, um, has has taken actually the extraordinary step because select committees, when they receive petitions, typically will listen to what the petitioner has to say. [00:15:00] They'll ask the relevant government department to respond. They might seek evidence from one or two other expert groups. Um, and then they'll make a report. What the select committee has done in this case is thrown open the inquiry to the or the process to submissions. And I've tried to encourage, um, men and their families, in fact, and to tell their story [00:15:30] that in my experience, those personal stories of you know how this has affected me are the most powerful evidence that a select committee can hear. And so, um, I'm I'm certainly very hopeful that, uh, that that that men will actually take this chance to actually tell their story. Um, there is a way of doing that confidentially. Um, if, um if if that's what men would rather do. But I think [00:16:00] in the same way that during the campaign for law reform our most powerful weapon, in fact was our willingness to come out and to say this, you know, this is about me. Um, I think that if men are prepared to tell their story kind of on the record and using, you know, using their names, that actually will that will be the most powerful way that we can actually convince others of the of the need [00:16:30] to do this. Has there been any opposition to an apology and a quashing of convictions? Well, I, I have heard opposition from kind of the usual suspects, you know, family first and and some of the, um, uh, fundamentalist churches who typically have have opposed every single, um, step [00:17:00] forward towards full recognition of our human rights. Um, but, uh, not from anyone else. In fact, um, it would be it would be interesting to see, uh, what submissions opposed to what would remove is so in the petition. Do come forward. Um, I haven't seen any so far. So what's happening around the rest of the world in terms of this kind of apology and quashing of convictions? [00:17:30] Well, um, I don't I don't know the detail of that. Um What? But I do know that, uh, that that other jurisdictions in the UK is the one that I that I have the most familiarity with. Um um, are moving in precisely this this direction. Um, and, uh, you know, while we you know, we always, um we we should be [00:18:00] doing this, Um, because it's the right thing to do. I think, actually, the fact that others are taking the step might give confidence to particularly, um, government government members, Um, that, uh, that they can do this without without having to be leaders, which they don't seem to like doing. And And so why now? And why now in New Zealand, is there? Is there a particular reason or it's just the the right time? Well, [00:18:30] I guess the the right time was the day after, uh, law reform passed in 1986 with every, um, with every passing year, more of these men have passed away. And I'm just aware of what a profound, not redemptive but, um, restorative effect that, uh, these steps will have for most [00:19:00] of these men. Um, so I think it, you know, every passing year actually gets us further away from when we should have done it. But I think that with the 30th anniversary with having having, um, having passed marriage equality, which really was the last legislative hurdle, because actually, adoption law reform is is sometimes cited. But actually, the reality is we're already there on adoption. Um, [00:19:30] so so from a legislative point of view, um, and looking at at, um, the needs of, uh, gay, lesbian and bisexual people rather than a transgender rights which still have quite a way to go. We're kind of there on the legislative programme. And, um so I think the 30th anniversary, which, uh, which many of us have have been involved in celebrating in some ways, [00:20:00] looking back, um, taking some pride in our achievements. Uh, but also thinking about, uh, the the other side of the ledger which was all of those who were harmed by the previous regime, Um, and doing what we can now to reverse that harm. Um, I think probably that 30th anniversary has been the spur this year. I think I've heard Amy Adams comments saying [00:20:30] that, um, she would consider things on a case by case basis. Would, uh, would that be something that you would go for rather than a blanket apology and quashing you? Would it would It would be a case by case thing. Well, the the there has to be some kind of case by case process because of this problem of, um, of the the conviction offences not being sufficient as categories to be able to distinguish those [00:21:00] who who, um, are entitled to the the apology and and the conviction being wiped. Um what? What? What then arises is whether that's done proactively or reactively. Um, And again, in his submission to the select committee, uh, quotes the Human Rights Commission who have had something to say about this saying, Actually, the, um, kind of proactive res [00:21:30] respect and honouring of human rights always carries more weight than reactive. So it would be preferable for for us to set up some kind of process that actually says, Well, let's look at the categories of offence. Let's go. Case by case through those convictions and say this one is in this one is out. And then and then extend that, um, extend the apology to everyone who was convicted for circumstances [00:22:00] that should never have been offences, um and then and then very deliberately, Case by case, provide those, uh, that of convictions now, uh, the other way to do it. And it may be that this is what Amy would prefer is to say, um, we're setting up a tribunal. Say, um, and the job of the tribunal will be to hear applications from men or from [00:22:30] from their families, in the case of those who are have either passed away or who are no longer in circumstances where they could apply on on their in their own right, Um, and a and, uh, provide the Caine of conviction on, um, on application and on the on the the merits of that, that individual case, um, now taking Wu's point on on board, you know that that actually is less satisfactory [00:23:00] because, um, you know there. There will be people who don't know about the process. Can't manage the process. Um, and nonetheless, still deserve, you know, that that, um that conviction to go, um there is, on the other hand, something of an advantage to that. I mean, um, a, uh actually, a journalist whose father is a is a gay man. Um, [00:23:30] uh said to me that some of he was talking with his some of his father's friends over dinner one night. Some of them have convictions, and they have chosen to reframe those convictions as being badges of honour in a in A in a sense, um, and so So they were saying to him that they would prefer to retain those convictions. And actually, II, I kind of understand that, you know, the the, [00:24:00] uh, the actually well, Amy is concerned about precedent. In fact, there have already been precedents. You know, there has been, um uh, a reversal or quashing of convictions for for a category of men who are, as I understand it, convicted of desertion in the first World war, you know, so that so there's there's been a precedent there. There's also been, uh, a quashing of the convictions [00:24:30] of all of the people who were convicted of trespassing in the Bastion Point occupation in 1978. Now, I didn't get a conviction in 1978 for the best in point occupation. But in 1980 uh, who I think it was, there was a reoccupation, and I did get a conviction for trespass on Bastion Point. But when the quashing of convictions happened, they didn't [00:25:00] think about the 1982 occupation. And when I thought about it, I thought, Well, actually, I'm proud of of of that action. And I do actually kind of wear that conviction as a bit of a a badge of a badge of honour. So I actually don't want that conviction to go. So that would be an advantage of the, um of, uh, of [00:25:30] of dealing with quashing of convictions on application. So there are there are advantages and disadvantages to the two different approaches. So what is the process from here? So the the process now will be that, um So the select committee has opened submissions. Um, we have, uh, asked the Ministry of Justice to supply Advisor, so their job is to provide expert advice [00:26:00] to, um, to the select committee. Uh, and, uh, when the submissions close in October, we will, um, start hearing from those who want to be heard as well as, of course, reading all of the submissions that people have made. Um, the Ministry of Justice will provide an analysis of the submissions. Um, and they should also provide us advice on the precedents that have already been set [00:26:30] the options that are available to, um, to the government because it still is the government that will make a decision. And the select committee will will, uh, will make recommendations to the government on what it should do. I have to say that, um, I mean, while media reporting has tend to focus tended to focus on Amy Adams talking about the problem, saying this is not a straightforward process. [00:27:00] My, um, experience talking with both Amy and with Judith Collins before her was that actually, I found them both really open to the to the ideas here. Um, and that was my experience with the select committee as well that, um, members from all parties seemed genuinely well disposed to trying, um, to be able to grant [00:27:30] what petition has sought. And I thought, man, isn't that great? You know that we've reached that point in our parliament where all parties actually want to do the right thing. So it's more about the just the practicalities of actually how you go about it. It is. And I'm confident that just as other countries have been able to find a way through the practical problems that that are genuine problems, I'm sure we're gonna be able to as well. [00:28:00] Today has been a huge day for you. Um, last night you announced that you were leaving parliament after eight years. I just thought, um since we're here and it's the day after, um what what are you most proud of in in your parliamentary time? I guess the the the single thing that I'm most proud of is, uh is my work around the Pike River disaster? Um, actually achieving [00:28:30] a degree of accountability from from from the government and, uh, re really leading them to a point where it became necessary for them to overhaul New Zealand's health and safety legislation and and regulation. And I you know, I. I know it wasn't just me, but I I can confidently assert that that that I led that process and I feel really proud of that and providing a voice [00:29:00] to the Pike River families and to the men who died, um, in in the New Zealand Parliament on that issue. So that's probably the single biggest thing. But there's other other things. And I guess for our communities, um, probably the marriage equality, Um, law, where I worked with Louisa Wall and with, um um Nicky Kay who? I I extend my absolute best wishes to. And this time where where she's unwell, [00:29:30] Um, and and people like, uh, Ruth Dyson Mallard. You know, these were all people who worked, worked together, um, in Parliament and, um, to achieve a great outcome. And my bit of that was, um, mostly providing, I guess, the strategic input and actually trying to steer steer the process as best I could, and I feel that went really well. So So I'm proud of that, too.
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