The title of this recording is "Parliament: third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill". It is described as: Audio from the third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. It was recorded in Parliament buildings, 1 Molesworth Street, Wellington on the 3rd April 2018. This is a parliamentary recording and features the voices of Adrian Rurawhe, Andrew Bayly, Andrew Falloon, Andrew Little, Anne Tolley, Chris Bishop, Chris Finlayson, Darroch Ball, Duncan Webb, Grant Robertson, Jan Logie, Jenny Salesa, Joanne Hayes, Louisa Wall, Maggie Barry, Matt King and Raymond Huo. Their names are spelt correctly, but may appear incorrectly spelt later in the document. The duration of the recording is 1 hour and 25 minutes, but this may not reflect the actual length of the proceedings. A list of correctly spelt content keywords and tags can be found at the end of this document. The content in the recording covers the decades 1900s through to the 2010s. A brief summary of the recording is: The abstract summarizes a significant parliamentary event in New Zealand where the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill reached its third reading. On April 3, 2018, a parliamentary recording took place, featuring prominent members of Parliament who contributed to the discussion and passage of the bill that addresses historical injustices against individuals convicted for consensual homosexual acts prior to the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1986. The recording, which lasted 1 hour and 25 minutes, began with the call on government Order of the Day Number two for the third reading of the bill, moved by the Honourable Andrew Little. An overview of the bill states that its purpose is to right the wrongs of the past by creating a process for the expungement of these convictions from criminal records, acknowledging the deep prejudice, stigma, and negative effects suffered by those convicted. Under the bill, the Secretary for Justice must be satisfied that the conduct which led to the conviction would not be considered an offence under current law, focusing on the age and consensual nature of the act. Eligible convictions are specified, and upon expungement, individuals are entitled to declare they have no conviction of this nature, and it would not appear in any criminal history check. Moreover, disclosure of expunged convictions by officials is prohibited. However, the bill specifies there will be no compensation as it goes beyond the scheme's intended purpose and historical convictions were lawful at the time. The bill signifies New Zealand’s commitment to not only correct historical injustices but also fosters an environment that recognizes and celebrates diversity. Throughout the recording, there's a reflection on the impact of the debate and the transformation in societal attitudes towards members of the LGBTQ+ community. Importantly, the bill enjoyed widespread support and passed through the Parliament unanimously, marking a profound moment of bipartisanship and shared commitment to justice and equality. The session included not only legal and policy-related discussions but also emotional addresses that paid tribute to those who have faced long-standing discrimination. Personal stories and apologies for the hurt caused by past laws were highlighted, and a sense of collective responsibility and apology emanated from the parliamentary members. The full transcription of the recording begins:  Call on government Order of the day Number two Criminal records Expungement of Convictions for historical homosexual Offences Bill Third Reading I call the Honourable Andrew Little Mr Speaker I move that the Criminal Records Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences Offences Bill Be now read a third time Madam Speaker. The bill addresses the prejudice, stigma and other negative effects caused by convictions for historical homosexual offences. The Justice and Electoral Committee considered the petition from and 2111 others calling for an apology to those convicted of consensual homosexual acts prior to 1986 and the process for reversing those convictions. An apology was made in the house on the sixth of July 2017 by my predecessor as Minister of Justice, the Honourable Amy Adams and the bill has created a process for expunging the these convictions from criminal records. The bill provides for a statutory scheme that allows people convicted of historical homosexual offences to apply to have their convictions expunged. The Secretary for Justice must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct would not be an offence under today's law. In particular, this will include the secretary being satisfied that all parties involved were 16 years or older and the conduct was consensual. A convicted person or a representative of the convicted person, if they are uh deceased, can make an application for expungement eligibility under the scheme is for people convicted of any of five specific offences. These include offences that were decriminalised under the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986 and their predecessor offences. If expungement is granted, it entitles the convicted person to declare they have no such conviction for any purpose under New Zealand law and the conviction will not appear on any criminal history check. It's an offence for officials to disclose expunged convictions. There would be no compensation, however, as this would go beyond the purpose of the scheme, which is to prevent further negative effects from the stigma of conviction. There's no general principle that a person who's convicted of a repeal offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of the offence. In this instance, there's no suggestion that the convictions in question were wrongfully imposed as they were in accordance with the law at the time. The bill sends a clear signal that discrimination against homosexual people is no longer acceptable and that we are committed to putting right wrongs from the past. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who've been instrumental in the passage of this bill. Firstly, the honourable Amy Adams, who introduced the bill to the House. Secondly, the members of the Justice Committee who spent considerable time and effort hearing submissions, considering very carefully the detail of the bill and coming up with the bill that is more or less intact as we embark on its third reading. I'd like to thank all parliamentary parties for their backing of the bill and for the constructive way in which this bill has progressed through every stage of the House. The bill has enjoyed widespread support as it has passed through the House. Can I acknowledge the many, many other citizens, including the women and lesbian women who have been part of this cause for justice, supporting the men and their families who have been wrongly stigmatised for so long? Both be before, but especially since the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986 Madam Speaker, the one of the calls and the permission from was for an apology. And indeed, the honourable Amy Adams referred to a motion in the house or in fact, moved a motion in the house providing for that apology. That was, in terms of apologising to new what were described as homosexual New Zealanders who were convicted for consensual adult activity and to recognise the tremendous hurt and suffering that those men and their families have gone through. Can I say not? Because the Apolo that apology was not genuine. It was from this Parliament. But can I say an ad, a personal touch that is the current minister of justice on behalf of this house and all members who have passed through it since parliament was established in New Zealand. Sorry to those men who have carried the stigma and shame of doing nothing other than expressing the love for the person that they did love. And for the families who have shared that shame and embarrassment as well. And to the many thousands of others who lived in eternal fear of a law that was unjust and to our mind and proper that we have enjoyed the benefit of a better enlightenment if I could put it that way. A better sense of justice, of respect for the dignity of the person and who they are. And this law goes some way to recognising that for the many, many men who were treated in the most unjust way for who they were and and for doing nothing other than expressing their love. It is the right thing for this house to do. Uh, Madam Speaker, can I also address another issue that came up in submissions? And that was the call for compensation And the committee having considered that request from submissions, not all submitters, uh, but enough to make it an issue worthy of further consideration. The committee acknowledged that it was too complex a task, uh, to set up not only a process where every individual has their personal circumstances considered in the process of achieving an expungement, but then to consider whether compensation ought to be payable and therefore, you know, and if so, how much that was going to be. Too complicated. So But that does not mean that members of this house and indeed the government bureaucracy that will now be put in place to administer the scheme provided for in this bill, Uh, does not consider that we must continue as a nation, recognising the diversity of all people in this country their sexuality and sexual orientation and looking for opportunities to celebrate that diversity. Uh, and, uh, to continue to acknowledge what a richer country we are for allowing people to express themselves and who they are. As I said, Madam Speaker, this bill will go some way to putting right a wrong that has been on the records of the thousands of men affected by the unjust law. Uh, that was finally removed in 1986. It will go some way, but it will never replace the years and decades of hurt and harm that have been caused as a result. Madam Speaker, we can be thankful to some small degree that this house and this generation recognises the injustice, uh, and has put that right and and it is recognised across this house from all members from all parties who have, uh, united together to express this act of justice. Uh, so on that basis, Madam Speaker, I once again thank those citizens who were brave enough and courageous enough to bring this matter to the attention of the House to express thanks to all members of the House who have been involved either through the select committee or simply as members voting on this bill to have to have brought that insidious injustice to an end. And finally to commend this bill to the house. Madam Speaker, the question is that the motion be agreed to Chris Bishop, Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Today is a historic day for the parliament because the Parliament is going to unanimously apologise and pass legislation which allows people convicted men convicted of homosexual offences prior to 1986 to wipe those convictions from the statute book. And I want to acknowledge, um, first of all, the minister for his, um, ongoing leadership in this area. Uh, but also the honourable Amy Adams, the minister of Justice, who introduced, uh, the legislation, uh, in the previous parliament. But more importantly, I want to acknowledge, uh, and the 2111 others who signed the petition that brought that issue to the Justice Committee, the Justice and Electoral Committee, as it then was in the last parliament. Uh, and, uh, all my colleagues on that committee who considered, uh, that particular petition. Also, I want to acknowledge, uh, Kevin Hague, who I'm sure is watching the debate tonight because it was Kevin, uh, who presented the petition on behalf of Mr um And I know we're joined in the house tonight by Georgina Buyer, uh, as well, fantastic to see you in the chamber. Uh, Georgina. And for your leadership over many years on issues like this and others. It's 32 years since homosexual law reform seems hard to believe, really. 32 years, and, uh, sadly, this this parliament doesn't have very many members left who were around at the time. But I've talked to the honourable Anne King who's just left us, and I've talked to Trevor Mallard. Um, I haven't talked to Winston Peters about it, but I have talked to Trevor Mallard, and it's hard for people of my age and generation to get their heads around the vitriol and the hate, uh, and the anger and the sense of controversy at the time, 800,000 people signed a petition, and it turns out that a lot of those 800,000 were dead or they were Children or they weren't actually real people. But regardless of how you measure it, hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions asking that the that the wild bill uh, not proceed. It's hard for people of my age who were. I was three at the time, perhaps four, to understand the hate. And so New Zealand has come a long way since 1986. And I acknowledge Louisa Wall and her contribution to our next steps on the evolution, uh, with the marriage equality legislation in 2013. And this, I believe is is just a further progression of trying to create a New Zealand where people of all backgrounds, all sexualities, all genders, are welcomed and embraced for who they are, Uh, and for their own individual humanity. Of course, It was then Young who introduced the first legislation in 1974 to decriminalise homosexuality, uh, between consenting adults between 21 years and over and and Norman Kirk opposed it, says Christopher Fin. But but people have been people in this house have made the efforts over many years to try and put wrong try and put right what is wrong, and this legislation is a continuation of it. So what does it actually do? Well, in a in a technical sense, it allows people who are convicted of specific offences under the Crimes Act related to sexual activity between males 16 years and over, uh, to apply to the Secretary of Justice. To have those convictions expunge the five specific offences 1 41 in decency between males 1 42 sodomy 1 46 Keeping place of resort for homosexual acts 1. 53 and section 1 54 and attempt to commit an unnatural offence And we think about 1000 people were affected by these offences prior to 1986. So it allows, uh, people who were convicted of those offences to apply to the secretary. It's done on the papers. Uh, the secretary is responsible for determining applications on a case by case basis. The law is modelled on, uh, overseas jurisdictions, uh, the United Kingdom, where it's known as law, Of course. Uh, various parts of Australia and the Justice and Electoral Committee actually travelled to Australia, uh, in the last parliament to hear from other jurisdictions as to how they did it. And we've made some technical amendments to the legislation to reflect that. But in general, the the bill as introduced was a pretty good one, because it reflected what's happened in overseas jurisdictions. So in a technical sense, it's a It's a fine piece of legislation, but the most important thing that it does, uh, Madam Speaker, is it puts right wrongs from the past. It is the Parliament, saying unanimously these laws should never have been the law. It's Parliament saying these laws were wrong and we are going to express our condemnation of those laws by expunging or allowing people who are convicted of those by those laws the ability to expunge them from their own records. And it is Parliament saying to the rainbow community and those who were affected by the laws, you should not have to bear the stigma and the shame and the height any more, because now you have the ability to wipe it from, uh, the books and make sure that that ongoing sense of shame and stigma does not continue at its core. Madam Speaker, This bill has a very simple notion put in right what is and was wrong and in my first reading in my speech on the first reading of this bill, Madam Speaker, I did say, and that I did admit that I did struggle with the concept for some time for a couple of reasons. One, I thought it would be very difficult to unpick uh, conduct that everyone now agrees should have been legal from that which was not legal and should never have been legal. And there was some advice and evidence that the police were often not exactly particularly picky about what particular offences they chose to charge people under. And it turns out that we can move through that, and it turns out that the enough records exist and, um, to be able to unpick that. But I did. I was worried about that, and I was also worried about the concept of rewriting history. I was worried about the Parliament looking back and saying, Essentially, these laws should never have existed and and I think you do need to be. We do need to be wary as a Parliament about when we do something like this. We do because it is essentially recast in history, whether we like it or not, and we obviously don't. The laws that existed prior to 1986 were the law. That was the law of the land and people were convicted. But the thing is, when you talk to the people who are affected by the laws, when you have the conversations and you hear the evidence and we did at select committee and I have done through my engagement in the community and you listen to the experiences and you listen to what people went through and you you reflect on, how can that be the New Zealand? How can that How could that have even happened in New Zealand? And you just have to You just have to acknowledge that the Parliament this is the right thing to do. Uh, for the parliament, it's the right thing to do to say to our rainbow community, your individual and collective humanity is affirmed and solidified by this legislation. These laws should never have been in place. They did do harm. They did cause grief. They did cause dissent, and they did cause hate. And the parliament is now making a unanimous stand for tolerance and equality and diversity. And I am so very pleased to commend this bill to the house. Six. I call the Honourable Grant Roberts. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this, uh, third reading debate, Madam Speaker. Uh, a few years ago, after one of the Labour Party's leadership contests, we had a couple. Um I, uh, took some. I took some time out and I went down to Dunedin, and I went to the Hockin library in Dunedin, and I went there to look into a person who in many years to come when I leave this place I want to write a book about and his name is Rodney Kennedy. And Rodney, Um, I won't go into the connection that I have with Rodney Kendy. But Rodney Kenny was an amazing man. Patron of the arts. Uh, supported Colin McCann, toss Williston. Incredible person had a long running, uh, relationship and, um, potentially platonic relationship with Charles Brash, uh, the poet, uh, and was an incredible person and has never really been recognised. I my belief for what he did in his contribution to the arts. And when I was looking at some of his, uh, records, I came across, uh, a very, very small envelope, which he in. It was, uh, he had addressed it to Charles Brash, who at that point wasn't living in Dunedin but was living in Christchurch. This would be in the 19 late 19 fifties, early 19 sixties, and inside the envelope was a very, very small newspaper clipping, which said, Rodney Eric Kennedy was today discharged from the conviction of indecency with another male. And what Rodney Kennedy had obviously done was that he'd clipped that out of the paper, and he'd sent it in an envelope to Charles Brash. There were no other words in the envelope, no letter, nothing. Just this clipping. And Rodney Kennedy and Charles Brash moved in circles, particularly Charles Brash moved in circles where the shame and the fear and the anxiety and the depression caused by the illegality of homosexuality and by the arrests and by the attitude of the police of the time would have been unbearable. And in this incredibly poignant moment, it captured for me the impact it had on these men's lives. They could barely speak to one another about this. Rodney Kennedy added no words to that clipping. He couldn't express himself and how he felt to a man he was close to very close to and shared a relationship with. That was the state of fear that these men lived in. And it is to Rodney Kennedy to Norris Davey and to the less famous when Norris Davey became Frank Sarge and the less famous men that we stand tonight as a parliament and we say we're sorry and I say more than that as I did in my first reading, I say, I'm sorry as a man who has been able to live my life relatively freely as a homosexual male, a person who's able to come to this Parliament and get heckled and abused by the national party because I'm the finance spokesman, not because I'm a gay man. That's a fantastic advance that is built on the shoulders of those men and not just of those men who were arrested or convicted or who spent time in prison, but of those men who just live their lives as a gay man who actually just tried to survive through those years. So to all of the men who were not arrested and their families, we also say sorry because this rule law was and is wrong. And the fact that we can expunge, uh, the convictions today is a mighty step forward for addressing that. But the constant fear and the reminder of the worthlessness and the shame of your mere existence is not something we can put away so easily because it echoes through generations. And I've been deeply moved by the men and their families who have written to me since this legislation came forward. And since the first reading, who have expressed the fact that finally there is a time for them to feel some self-worth. But we can't undo what's been done to them. But we can now say it was wrong. We are sorry, and we want to say that out loud to me, These men are heroes. They are people that we should look up to. They are people who now need to know that their country actually does value them. I want to thank as others have tonight for starting this through his petition. It was a brave act, and it was supported by more than 2000 other people. All of them, uh, deserve credit. I also want to add my thanks to Amy Adams, the Minister of Justice, who introduced the legislation and to Andrew Little, my colleague, who has shepherd it through and also to the Select Committee. The select committee improved this bill. The Select committee have made it particularly in terms of travelling overseas. Uh, I believe that they have a strengthened what Parliament is trying to achieve here so that hopefully, uh, when people travel, they won't be required to disclose a conviction that is no longer, uh, with them. Madam Speaker. It's important for me to address the topic of compensation tonight. There were many submissions of the or a large percentage of the submissions that came to the committee that sought compensation. Uh, for the men involved. I have to tell you that the men themselves have mixed views on that matter. Some would like, I believe, to see compensation. Others believe that that is an impossible thing to calculate, and actually not what they want the focus of this to be about. So we have to recognise and accept that there are mixed views about that question. What I want to focus on Madam Speaker is that while there may not be compensation. I can give my personal commitment that there will be a legacy that we, as a parliament in the future, will be able to find a way to pay tribute to those who have gone before and give to those who are to come. Because Madam Speaker, the journey that this bill that the the the step this bill takes represents another step in a journey, a journey that we can point to great milestones. And Chris Bishop has already done some of this to the Homosexual Law Reform Act and the incredible work of Fran Wilde to the Human Rights Act and the tremendous work of Catherine O'Regan in supporting that forward to the Civil Union Bill, a civil union act with Tim Barnett, Georgina buyer and others who did such a fantastic, uh, job there and forward to marriage equality with my colleague uh Lewis, a driving that piece of legislation and supported by by fantastic people such as Kevin Hagan and Jan Loki. Those are important steps on the journey, and this is another one. But there are more to come because Madam Speaker, we should not be naive that if you're a young trans person growing up in rural New Zealand today, your life is not easy. You're likely to be subject to discrimination. You're likely to feel the stigma and the hurt that these men felt. Actually, if you're a young gay man growing up in some of those places, you will still feel the same. Not every school in our country is a safe place if you are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender or intersex. Not every community in New Zealand is a safe place. There is still more work to do. There is still some legal recognition to sort out when it comes to our trans community to make sure that they believe that the Human Rights Act actually works in their favour. And there is a tremendous amount of work to do to make sure that every young New Zealander grows up believing in themselves, believing in their own value and knowing that society supports them. That society says you have self-worth. You are an important person, you have great potential and whether you are gay or whether you have gender diversity, or you are questioning that we will support you through that. So the legacy of tonight for me has to be that we continue the journey towards not just tolerance but acceptance and embracing diversity. And in saying that is what makes our country a great country to live in. But we know we have more to do, so there will be more that comes from tonight. But for now, I commend this bill. I celebrate the fact that we are expunging these convictions. I say sorry again to the men and their families and commit again to supporting a legacy from this that will ensure that in the future, generations of young people know they matter. Love is not a crime. They should be who they are. Madam Speaker, I call the Honourable Maggie Barry. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am very proud tonight to be part of this group of people who are making change as we reflect on the amount of change uh, that we have witnessed going back 32 years to the homosexual law reform bill, Uh, in another life, Uh, I was, uh, a radio interviewer. And in the lead up to that legislation going through, I interviewed uh, Norm Jones, known as the mouth from the South and Fran Wild in a talkback session, which remains one of the most torrid of my broadcasting career. Uh, Norm at that stage had a stick, and he wheeled it. He wielded it and attempted to bash Fran Wilde, who was sitting across from him with the microphone in between, It was commercial radio, madam Chair and I went to a break. And I said things that I could not repeat in this house, uh, to the member of parliament for Invercargill at the time and suggested that if there was the faintest murmur of anger and antagonism, he would be gone. And I would spend the rest of the three hours, uh, taking talk back with only Fran Wilde that did, in fact silence him for a while. But when people have alluded to and talked about the courage and the courage it takes to make change, I think that it is an opportunity to reflect on how far we have come. Yes, as the um, the speakers have said, we've still got a long way to go to build a more tolerant and accepting society. But this is a bill that was long overdue. This is a place that took too long to change the wrongs of the past. But it has done so now, and it is doing so tonight. And I add my apology to the men down the decades who have suffered as a result of the love that they have felt as an natural instinct for another person that those are the the crimes that are not crimes. These are the places where we need to consider the consequences and the unintended consequences sometimes of laws. But these laws, when they were enacted and when they were enforced, were cruel. And the men who suffered under their the yoke of these laws, uh, lived in fear. I was brought up in this area. My mother was a florist, uh, on Molesworth street. Her business partner was gay. That wasn't a word that was ever used, of course, in that context, uh, but he was somebody who, uh, was a florist. Uh, he was beloved of his mother. He was an only child. He was blackmailed. And my mother came home. Uh, very upset and very distressed. Uh, because, uh, one of her best friends had decided to leave the country to go to South Africa. other side of the world. He didn't know anyone. And to start his business a fresh because he could not bear the idea that his mother would find out who he really was. He then left the country. He never returned. He never said goodbye to his mother. In those days, uh, there wasn't the phone calls, the skyping and so forth. Obviously. So the the price that that family paid represents to me the human individual suffering, Uh, his mother was beside herself and terribly distressed and couldn't understand it. And he never explained because he couldn't. He didn't want her to feel the shame and the stigma and the fear that came with bearing such a freak. And he had that terrible burden. And for me, as a child growing up, I could see that there was something very wrong about stopping that man, uh, from being honest about himself, maybe to his wider family, Uh, but certainly to the bad people that were blackmailing him him And using these laws, uh, to, uh, to bring about dreadful, tragic and unnecessary consequences. We all I'm sure have stories of this kind. I know that in an era that I've grown up in. There's been enormous change, and we're not quite there yet. But this bill, uh, with the expunging, uh which, you know, means that a person with a criminal record will be amended to ensure that the conviction does not appear on a criminal history check for any purpose in New Zealand. And that person will be entitled to declare that they have no such conviction. That is enormous, I think, building on again the courage of the people who lead the change. And I commend Louisa Wall, who's in this house tonight on the courage that she showed. These are you. You pay the cost and the penalties and the hatred and derision that I know Fran Wilde experienced and also probably Louisa as well, uh, moments. But you did the right thing. And tonight, in this house, we are doing the right thing. So in closing, I would say that to all the men who have lived in fear, who have lived with self loathing and a sense that they are are not as good as other people that they have because of this law, even the ones that have passed But for the ones that are there now they have the opportunity to live their lives as they ought to live them. We, as lawmakers, I think, should save this precious evening and the the all that has gone before it, Uh, with Amy Adams introducing the bill, Uh, with, uh, the current minister carrying it forward and with all the support and genuine sentiment and heart and intellectual rigour as well through the select committee process. And I commend the select committee for the changes that they made because they were ones that enhanced, uh, what what this law change was setting out to do. So those who took the courage and the leadership, I commend you to those who put up with, uh, the indignity and the horror of of being made to feel the way they did. I commend you as well, and I acknowledge your strength. And again I add my apologies to what has been a long overdue. But tonight is the time when we do reflect we've come a long way and we need it to. So I commend this bill to the house I call Derek. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand first in full support of the criminal records expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences. Bill um, earlier, Chris Bishop mentioned the number 800,000, uh, for the signatures that were gathered originally, Um, and in my ignorance, I didn't know that that was that such a larger number. And that's an extraordinary number of people, um, to, um, want to utilise our their democratic right and their views and do it strongly. Um, and I made a little bit of a gasp because it was such a huge number. And Patterson, my colleague sitting next to me on my left, went over and said, I signed that petition. Uh, so I think that, um and I would have too, to be honest, but I was only four years old at the time. Uh, but, um, I think that, um, it it somewhat highlights something that Maggie Barry actually said as well, Which was this is far too late. Uh, the apology in and itself 32 some years later, Uh, and I was thinking earlier on about, um Why that was, and why that why it was too late. And was it a Was it a a factor of, um, the legislation needed to catch up with society or the other way around. Was it society need to be able to catch up, uh, to the legislation to see it through this house. Um, or was it a fact of this house, Uh, and the members of it needing to catch up with the rest of society and what they wanted originally, um, it was and it's I think it's it's one of those bills. Madam Speaker that, um it has been unfortunate somewhat that it has taken so long to write its natural course even before its consideration. Uh, with the, uh, petition being presented some 30 odd years after, um, the law was had been decriminalising homosexuality, um, 2017 just last year. The bill was introduced in 2018 here today, Um, and in the process of the third reading, we hear a reiteration of the apology that is much needed. Um, in the passing of this bill as well. On behalf of New Zealand, first, I'd like to congratulate this house, um, for being, um uh, collaborative and, uh, and unanimous in the support for this bill. I believe that it was, uh, Matt King, who said that when he was on the justice Committee, um, his first taste of of a bill going through was this bill, Uh, and he was bitterly disappointed. Um, that, um, other bills didn't go through in such a collaborative way. He thought that that's how the all the committees worked. Um, and, um, perhaps they should in the future, um, like to congratulate, um, Amy Adams for firstly bringing it to the to the house. And, um, given the apology late last year under the national government and also the current minister as well. Um, Andrew Little for reiterating and seeing this through the house. Also, the all the members of the Justice Committee, whether they be under the national government or the current government, uh, seeing this through from the second reading through to the final reading in such a speedy manner, I think one of the most important things uh, Madam Speaker, is to remember that legislation like this, um, and, um, obviously speaking about this one in particular, it's not about the law. It's not about the legislation. It's not about a piece of paper that that law legislation is written on or the words. It's actually about the people. Uh, and they are real. They are real people. Um, they have real families. And the effects of of what happened to those people and their families 30 some years ago still affects them in a very, very real way. Um, and I think that it was, um, one of the important steps in the process of this bill going through the house, uh, was the committee stage, and that allowed people to submit And for us as representatives to hear those stories, whether that be from people who experienced it firsthand or their loved ones who, um, were representing them. A very important part of the process of this bill going through, um, and finally, uh, Madam Speaker, I, um, going and being able to speak on this bill from the second reading forward, it's made me wonder a little bit, um, about the current laws that we have. And maybe if we look back in five years or 10 years or 30 or 50 years, what laws, perhaps at that stage will look back and say, Why didn't we change it sooner? Why were we blinded Why were we misguided? Uh, and how could we have been so wrong? Uh, so I think the these types of legislation this one in particular allows, uh, members of this house to reflect on the current situation. Um, a little bit more vividly, um, and a little bit more, uh, with the greater context and the, uh, and have an appreciation of who we actually represent and where society is today. New Zealand first fully supports this legislation. Madam Speaker, I call Andrew. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be, uh, taking another brief speech on the criminal records Expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences. Bill this evening. Uh, Grant Robertson earlier in the debate, uh, spoke about the number of challenges that are ahead of us and I think laid down a challenge to us as parliamentarians to continue the fight that many parliamentarians have fought over, uh, over over many generations and decades. I was born in 1983. Nearly all of my life homosexual acts between consenting adults have been legal. And I look around the house and I see the Chloe SWR. I see the car and I see the Chris bishops and I like to think the future is in pretty good hands. During the second reading, uh, I spoke about the profound impact that convictions, uh, have had on the men that have carried them unjustly for many years. After that speech, I was contacted by a man in my electorate who had a different story, but one that I think is important. Nonetheless, he told me about growing up in New Zealand in the 19 sixties and seventies and the as a as a young gay man and the impact that the law had on him. He was never arrested, never charged and never convicted. But it did affect him. It affected him because he said that the law said to him that what he was was wrong, what he was was immoral and what he was was illegal. And so when he eventually came out to his parents to his family, they shunned him. That might have happened regardless of the legality. But to have the government essentially back that position is what hurt him and continues to hurt him the most. He's only just reconciled with his sister and mother. After many years of being apart I accept that the legislation that we're passing tonight won't do anything for him. It won't do anything to say that what he went through was wrong. But he asked if I would tell his story. Madam Speaker, I said during during an earlier speech that every member of this parliament should be proud to see this law pass. We should. But I'm pleased that speakers tonight have also acknowledged the wrong that the law placed on the men that affected this is the right thing to do. It goes as far as we can to remove the black stain that this country has on its history, and I commend it to the house. Take care. I called Jan Logie. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a huge honour for me to again be able to stand and speak on behalf of the Green Party in support of this legislation and um to note Georgina by sitting in the house as well. It's as it seems, appropriate for a piece of legislation that is so significant and when she's been at the leader, um, up front on many of these issues in our community and in this house, I also want to specifically thank and the 2000 other petition signees and the campaign group Pardon gaze and a for all of their work getting us to this point, um presented the green Party MP Kevin Hague with the petition petition. That was the immediate catalyst, Um, first for the apology and this legislation to enable men convicted of indecency between males of sodomy or of keeping places of resort for homosexual activities, which I always thought sounds like quite a good time. Um, to be able to apply in writing for the secretary of justice to have their criminal record expunged. And it wasn't a matter of chance that, uh, Kevin Hague received the petition. He had previously unsuccessfully, I might say, approached the prime minister to for justice um, seeking such legislation. And, um, he did this because Kevin was an out gay man in the 19 eighties, living under the cloud of these oppressive laws and campaigning for decriminalisation. He was one of those men who put his life at risk for this campaign and for our collective well-being. And he knew well many men who had their lives destroyed by these convictions, or even just the threat of such a conviction. So while I certainly need to acknowledge the previous minister of Justice, Amy Adams, for bringing this bill and the current minister, Andrew Little, for seeing it to third reading so expeditiously, I do want to acknowledge Kevin Hague and de as significant forces behind this significant piece of legislation. It was the parliaments of the early 19 hundreds that introduced or legalised homophobia in this country. Those laws overrode indigenous laws, which held that both same sex attraction and diverse gender identities and expressions were natural. That was the state status quo before the government introduced legislation to legalise homophobia and hatred. So it is our job to remove the harm from the laws that were created by this place and to apologise because it was harm that we created from this house. And I do think it is worth following on from some of the other reflections and to take a moment to feel some satisfaction in how uncontested this legislation has been. It is encouraging that we've progressed so far since some homosexual law reform in 1986 when so many New Zealanders seemed to believe that homosexuals, gays, lesbians, bisexuals were an abomination to God were mentally ill, that we were sexual perverts and all paedophiles. Those views, though, were a reflection of the legislative status quo of the time of those laws that had been introduced in the early 19 hundreds. Those views that we now um, recall with a slight sense of horror, reflected the law. The law reinforced those beliefs and through the process of the petition and then the select committee hearings on the bill, we have heard again how many lives were ruined by those laws. And we've heard the experiences of men who were convicted and men who were not convicted but had their lives made small when they could have been huge. And we heard of people isolated and stigmatised and beaten and abused because of these laws and these convictions. And we know that people have died and sadly still in some cases, continue to die because of homophobia. This legislation that we are now seeking to expunge the convictions that were a result of legitimised the view that homosexuality was a mental illness and this ended up seeing people hospitalised and electrocuted and tortured by our state as a result of being who they were and loving who they loved. We need to remove the convictions and the shame from these innocent men who suffered horribly because of the decisions of Parliament to criminalise them. Many gay and bisexual men lived in constant fear of being discovered. Many did things they were not proud of to try and protect themselves. This legislation can't fix it all. There were famous incidents. A previously incredibly popular mayor of Whanganui was given 15 years of hard labour for attempted murder after shooting another gay man who was attempting to blackmail him. This incident led and the media around it to many gay men and bisexual men leaving the country, as we've heard described already. It was a common situation for men to leave and go over to another country to escape the homophobia here. And this mayor's conviction, um, will not be expunged by this legislation. Obviously, it's not covering attempted murder. Um, but I hope the apology and this debate around this legislation does extend to remove the shame and blame from all the men and their families affected by this legislation directly and indirectly, and also to note that well respected closet new Zealand author who was given a suspended sentence in return for giving evidence that sentenced an older gay man to six years of hard labour for being gay, who never ever mentioned that incident again. Because of the shame, we can only assume of feeling responsible for that man's conviction and pain. So do those men who were criminalised and irreparably hurt and who have been left, in the words of one submitter with quote, self hatred, worthlessness, unjustified guilt and shame. Unquote, I want to repeat that the shame belongs with this parliament and our society for robbing you of your inherent and inalienable right to be who you are and love who you love. We cannot undo the damage, but I hope that today represents another step towards healing for you and for us as a society and has been noted by previous speakers. We do this homophobia. When you pass the law and decriminalise it does not disappear. We still feel it in our schools and in our communities and in people's lives, and I will echo the words of Grant Robinson on saying the only reason I can understand that we have not ensured access to basic healthcare and basic legal rights for people. Uh, transgender people can only to my mind, be a result of the outstanding impact of these laws. And we in this house need to make that connection to be able to move forward. It is not enough to say sorry. And to enable people to get the convictions wiped out, we need to wipe out homophobia and transphobia from every part of our society. And I am proud and the green party to stand in this house in one of those moments. We are where we are making a united commitment to do that. Madam Speaker, I call Matt King. It's a real pleasure to take this, uh, call on this third reading of the, uh, expungement of of convictions for historical homosexual offences. Bill, um, I I've got to acknowledge, um, Amy Honourable Amy Adams for her work. And also, I've got to acknowledge this coalition government for taking it on and seeing it through to the end. And I'd also like to acknowledge Georgina buyer in the house today. Um, now, this bill seeks to reduce the prejudice, stigma, negative lifelong effects of a conviction for historical homosexual offences. so it's about it's about being fair. It's about putting things right. It enables them to apply to have their conviction for indecency between males sodomy or keeping a place of resort or attempts to do the same to have them expunged. Now, prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986 it was a criminal offence for sexual activities between males over 16. And that fact astounds me. And I think back to 1986. What was I What was I doing in 1986? Well, I was a school leaver, and, uh, to think that when I was at school, it was an offence. Um, I struggle to believe that. But then what also surprises me is that Andrew Flo and Chris Bishop were only two or three at the time, and I thought they were a lot older than me. So So I feel positively old. Those who positively old. So between 1965 and 19, 86/1000 men were convicted of indecency between males. My grandfather was a policeman during this time. He was a policeman for 30 years, knowing him as I do, I can't imagine him ever arresting someone for, um, this sort of offence. However, he's not alive today, so I can't ask him, but I would love to ask him. And if he if he did, I want to know, um I want I would understand his thinking, but thankfully, we live in, uh, modern times now, and, uh, we're putting this to bed, so that's great. I was a member of the select committee and I heard some harrowing and, um, emotive submissions from some of these people. The select committee process is really important so that these people can be heard. Attitudes have changed, and I welcome that change, and the world is a better place for it. I'd like to acknowledge the brave view of Dem and over 2000 petitioners, and it's pointless having offences such as these removed from the statute book without having the expungement legislation to accompany it. It's well overdue. And I'm proud to be part of a parliament that enacts this accordingly. We support this and we commend it to the house. Thank you. I call Doctor Duncan Webb. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand this is a split call. It is a split call I'll give you a ball at one minute. Thank you, Madam Speaker, This I'd like to really start this by saying that one of my mentors in politics was, uh, Tim Barnett, a gay man who was the MP for Christchurch Central for many years. And I must acknowledge the leadership that he and many like him, uh, have really, uh, had in politics because, um as he showed me the ropes and I worked within his electorate, uh, it was whilst he was clearly and openly gay and accepted that as part of his identity, it never became a defining point about how we work together. And it was simply part of the natural landscape. And I think that that's perhaps, uh, the difference, Uh, that we see today from many years ago when something like that would have been, uh a huge, um, issue, Uh, a fact which would mark everything. But here today what we are saying as we pass the criminal records ex expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences, Bill is that those things are rapidly receding in the past. And I know that, uh, this is yet another step along that road and is uh, Jan Logie stated I. I don't think we've finished that road yet. There's still work to be done. And I know that even in my own electorate, uh, there are a number of trans people who are talking to me about things, aspects of the law that they see, uh, as needing attention. And I tend to agree that there's work to be done there. But it is. I do commend, uh, Amy Adams for listening. Um, and even though there were significant technical hurdles for introducing this bill into the house, um, for Andrew Little for picking it up, uh, for the select committee for doing such a good job, uh, with the work that they had ahead of them. And it must be said that, you know, for a lawyer, the concept of expungement is important. Um, it's not simply, uh um, a pardon. It's not saying that although you have a conviction by some kind of prerogative of mercy, we are reversing that it's saying that this should never have happened, that this was a wrong and this is yet another occasion upon. And I think it's good to see politics moving into an age where we can apologise. We can look back and say we were wrong. The government of the day took a wrong approach and we are sorry. And as Andrew Little stated, compensation may well be too hard. But I'm not sure that compensation actually meets the need of saying this should never have happened. And your record is expunged. It is wiped clean. That conviction never occurred. You never committed a crime. So whilst that can be righted by law, the record can be wiped clean. There are, of course, the other aspects the much more personal aspects, the stigma and the effects of a conviction which I think we need to accept can never be put right. We cannot turn the clock back. But it is, uh it is pleasing that the house has taken unanimously this step in saying these offences are ex sponged they cannot be referred to. They cannot be asked about if you travel overseas. They never existed. So whilst the impact of these convictions will no doubt last for the entire lives of the men convicted of them in terms of at least the eyes of the law, they are gone. They are gone forever. And for that reason, Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the house I call Joanne Hayes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I rise to take a call on the third reading of the criminal records Expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences. Madam Speaker. And as I've been listening on the television and on the contributions in the house tonight, I feel privileged to be able to speak on this third reading. Um, Madam Speaker, um, I want to, uh, thank Amy Adams, um, for taking the time, the honourable Amy Adams, for taking the time to listen to the petitioner back in the day and, um, to bring forward this bill. And I also want to thank the government, um, for picking this bill up and taking it through to fruition. Too many lives have been affected by this, um, by the convictions, the wrong convictions, Madam Speaker. And, um, too many, uh, skilled people have, um, have lost out on really good, um, opportunities and employment in other areas because of the criminal conviction, the homosexual criminal conviction. Um, Madam Speaker. And so I think tonight it is a um It is a momentous time. Um, for this house to come together as one, to, finalise the reading and to, um, ensure that this bill, um does, um, reach this royal assent? Um, Madam Speaker. So it is with, um heartfelt. Um heartfelt. Um, um, I I'm I'm not trying trying not to say pleasure, but it's It's my heartfelt, um, convictions that I want to stand here and and and support this third reading Madam Speaker and committing it to the house. And I want to thank everybody that was involved in getting it to the stage. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I call Raymond. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Uh, tonight is one of those moments that all parties come to support a bill that is intended to provide a humble but meaningful measure of restorative justice. Advocates have long called for convictions for, uh, historical homosexual offences to be expunged. And tonight, um, we will see that a not wrong is finally to be Write it. I regard it as kind of a privilege to be able to not only witness the parliamentary debates, but also be part of the process as chair of the Justice committee. I can report that this bill was the very first bill that the committee reported back to the house. On that note, I think it is fitting for me to thank all the members past and present for their contributions. I thank in particular, uh, the Minister, the honourable Andrew Little for making this bill one of the government's priorities. I thank the then Minister of Justice, the honourable Amy Adams, for initiating this process and this bill in 2017. I thank also, uh, our officials and all of the submitters who helped make some necessary but important amendments to better reflect the intent of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to remove the stigma, prejudice and other negative effects arising from, uh, the conviction of historical homosexual offences. This bill is the first, uh, of this type in New Zealand, the law which indicates, uh, the extraordinary nature of this kind of historical offences, uh, which were decriminalised by the homosexual, um reform Act 1987. No longer would men, uh, having consensual sex with each other, be liable to prosecution and a term of imprisonment no longer. The man in that situation. Would it be subject to the specific offences under the Crimes Act 1961 or the Crimes Act 19 08. I acknowledge all those people who are behind the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986 the campaign to reform the law moved beyond the gay community to wider issues of human rights and the discrimination in that regard. I believe it is fitting, if I may, to extend the apology to all LGBT community. Now, members of all parties have made uh, moving speeches, acknowledging the wrongs that have been done to the affected parties and their families. Those prosecuted have faced and just travel restrictions and difficulty gaining employment for decades in terms of the employment and the likely impact under this bill. I particularly thank, uh, community law in Wellington and Lower Heart and all other submitters with regard to the detailed analysis and the eventual removal of Section 13 sub two. To ensure the employment opportunities for those affected parties would not be jeopardised on the bill's third reading, it is important for us to reflect on some important issues. Like other members who spoke before me have acknowledged the first, uh, of such kind of an issue is compensation, and some submits raised concerns that this bill has not gone far enough and claimed that lack of compensation could be seen as a potential breach of the gear principle. Some submitters, uh, also raised the possibility that the establishment of a charitable trust similar to the charitable trust would go some way to help address the issue. Now. The poll tax was a kind of A tax uh imposed on the early Chinese immigrants between 18 81 to 1944. Only the Chinese people were forced to pay as much as £100 then the equivalent of about 10 years work to come to New Zealand in 2002. The Prime Minister Helen Clark apologised on behalf of the parliament to the Chinese community over the racially discriminatory legislation, and the uh charitable trust has subsequently been established. And this year, during the Chinese New Year celebration at Parliament, the trust launched a new book entitled The Fruits of Our Labels, which uncovered the forgotten world of that part of the Chinese history in New Zealand. Now back to this bill, I acknowledge contributions from submits and all members who spoke earlier. And I agree and note that in terms of compensation, we should keep the conversation open. As far as this bill is concerned, compensation goes beyond the scope of this bill. There is no general principle that a person who is convicted of a repealed, uh offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of that particular offence. Clause 22 of the bill does not limit other measures. And the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which protects the individual's right to issue civil proceedings against the crown and further Clause 22 does not, uh, exclude other rights to compensation which may be pursued under the existing legislation. So this policy initiative aligns with the approach in comparable overseas jurisdictions. It also makes a clear distinction between, uh, convictions that were wrong at law and convictions for offences, uh, that have been repealed in the case of the convictions for historical homosexual offences. Uh, there is no suggestion that these convictions were wrongfully imposed as the war at that time. Uh, with the with the law at that time, Madam Speaker Clause nine confirms the effect of, uh, the expungement, the person with the expunged conviction is entitled to, uh, to declare that they have no such, uh, conviction. And the conviction will be removed from any criminal, uh, check, uh, for any purpose in New Zealand in, um in response to a question or to a question from an overseas jurisdiction will depend on the actual wording of that question. For instance, if an official or an individual are asked whether an individual has ever been convicted of an offence in New Zealand, they would declare that they have. But if the question is is whether the individual has any convictions, they would answer No, because the convictions and any criminal records arising from that have been expunged and have no, um and no longer have any effect in New Zealand for any purpose. Lastly, Madam Speaker, I'd like to touch upon the relationship with other laws, not the criminal records. Kling Slate Act 2004. That, uh, clean slate act is designed to allow individuals with less serious convictions and and who have been convicted conviction free for a long time to conceal their convictions in most circumstances. But there are exceptions. The key difference is that while clean is temporary and the concealed officers can be revealed again. For instance, uh, under the, uh uh um, uh, vulnerable Children's act. The expungement bill does not permit the disclosure, uh, for any purpose in New Zealand. So this bill is intended to provide a humble but meaningful, uh, measure of restorative justice. I can manage this bill to the house. I call Andrew Bailey. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Uh, it's my pleasure to be talking on the criminal records. Expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences. Third reading, Madam Speaker. Tonight's one of those rare opportunities where we in Parliament come together to right or wrong, And it's actually rather nice to be sitting and just listening to the thoughtful, careful and at times moving speeches from many members of the House in dealing with this issue and discussing it in full. I wasn't a member of the Justice Select Committee that heard all the, um, different submissions, but I do know that they were a particularly hard working committee. And I also want to acknowledge honourable Amy Adams for introducing this bill to the house, but also the honourable Andrew Little for, uh, pursuing it and seeing it through to fruition. This bill is about the expungement of criminal offences. And what the word expungement means is that the conviction will no longer appear on on any criminal history check, and people will be entitled to declare that they have no such conviction. Now. Exp punishment goes beyond the, um, rights that, uh, go with a concealing a conviction under the Clean Slate Act of 2004 under the clean slate bill or act, a concealed conviction may still be disclosed in certain a certain circumstances. But what this bill does do, um, Mr Speaker, is it places rules on agencies in particular about holding personal information and making sure that, um, men with such convictions are are are no longer available to be, um, disclosed. In fact, out and no such information can be held. And so, Mr Speaker I, I want to congratulate all those who started out on this journey. Um, we've heard about some of them tonight, Fran Wild. Um and I acknowledge, uh, georginia by, uh, sitting here in the chair tonight, uh, to my right, Mr Speaker, But, um, it's also a journey that, uh, many people have been involved in. And, uh, I also hoping that my good friends from my electorate, um, Mr Jeff Smith and his partner, John Fleet, are watching this, Um, as this bill comes to a fruition tonight, uh, Mr Speaker, because I think it's, um, a wonderful opportunity to be part of this to be able to see this bill through to its fruition and see it pass unanimous unanimously, which I hope will happen very shortly. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I call Lewis a war. It is my pleasure to speak on the third reading of the criminal records expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences. Bill and I thought I'd take us through, uh, a bit of a history lesson. And I want to start with, uh, a quote from the kale. Uh, kaleidoscope trust speaking out the rights of LGBT citizens from across the commonwealth. And it reads, As with the abolition of slavery, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in our time must be an act of law. And I want to quote from Sir John Wolfenden, uh, when he urged Britain in 1957 and he said unless a deliberate attempt is made by society acting through the agency of the law to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality, which is in brief in crude terms, not the law's business. Uh, and, uh, this particular, uh, publication, which was published in 2005, ends with a conclusion for by, uh, Ram. And it says, and I quote that that was a must now inspire us in the countries of the Commonwealth to rid ourselves of this archaic legal inheritance. We are here to call for that decriminalising act of law, and by it an end to the wrong we do to our brothers and sisters who like us all members of what Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, called the Commonwealth of God. And I want to reference that because in fact, uh, at the moment there are 72 countries in the world where being LGBTI Q means you're a criminal. Uh, there are 13 countries in the world currently, uh, where if you are LGBTI Q, the punishment is death. And unfortunately, of those 72 countries, 36 of those countries are commonwealth countries. So that's 50% of the countries in the world that criminalise homosexuals are commonwealth countries. So our experience of the criminalization of homosexuality started 100 and 51 years ago, Uh, with the 18 67 offences against the person act and it was in that year that the punishment ceased to be execution, but it actually was, uh, imprisonment for life. And so, 100 and 51 years later, I think I stand here proudly as a member of this house, uh, to end what I am going to label a crime against humanity. And I label it a crime against humanity by definition, because it's acts that are deliberately committed as part of a widespread or systemic attack or individual attack directed against any civilian or an identifiable part of a civilian population. Uh, which is the International Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association? Uh, released a report last year. It's quite thick, and it's titled State sponsored Homophobia. And so we are here today because we are ending the remnants of state sponsored sponsored homophobia. I would like to thank uh, win Dimick who in July 2016, uh, with MP Kevin Hague presented a petition to Parliament that has resulted in an apology. And I want to acknowledge the honourable Amy Adams, uh, for that apology. And it also called for legislation that expunges convictions for homosexuals doing what homosexuals do, which is making love to other homosexuals. We do do other things. But in fact, uh, that's what we were criminalised for for loving the person that we chose to be with. Now the definition of expungement is a process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed. And then we treat this convic this conviction as it as if it had never occurred. And for me, that is the beauty of this piece of legislation. Because we are saying that homosexuality being a crime, people going to jail, people being punished should never have occurred. But this legislative reform, actually, uh, began with a petition in the UK in 2009 by John Graham Cumming and John Graham. Cumming wanted an official apology for Alan Turing. We all know who Alan Turing is. He broke the German Enigma code. He was convicted in 1952 for being a homosexual man who engaged in consensual homosexual acts with a 19 year old man. What happened to Alan Turing? Alan Turing had to choose between going to prison or being chemically castrated. He chose to be chemically castrated. And in 1954 at the age of 41 years, he committed suicide. And so John Graham coming, wrote to the Queen, and he wanted a posthumous knighthood for Alan Turing. And so, on the ninth of September 2009, the prime minister of England, Gordon Brown, apologised to Alan Turing. And in 2007, that apology was extended to all homosexuals convicted of consensual homosexual con conduct, which in the UK is between 50,000 and 100,000 men. Now what they said about was a process that actually I'm really proud. New Zealand, uh, is at the forefront of with Australia. So South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria AC, T, Tasmania. They have all enacted expungement legislation, and tonight we also join Canada, and we join Germany in every jurisdiction. We've issued an apology and the importance of the apo. That apology, I don't think can be underestimated because, as I pointed out earlier, we should never have been criminals and we should never have endured, I guess the legacy of that. What? What that criminality said to ourselves and also said to society, I do want to highlight that in other jurisdictions, they have actually compensated people in Canada. They created an $85 million fund to compensate individuals. Uh, and just recently, I'm not sure if you know this Grant They've actually, um, settled a class action because people who were in the military and people who were federal employees lost their careers. And so Canada has $100 million fund to compensate those who are criminalised for being themselves. Plus, they have a $250,000 fund for community projects to combat homophobia. And in 2019 in Canada will be the 50th anniversary of homosexual law reform in Germany. Uh, they had 100 and 50,000 people who are criminalised for being homosexuals. 5000 are still living, So they have engaged in a personal compensation process. €3000 as a base payment and €1500 for every year spent in prison. Uh, I've actually just come back from Geneva. I was over there as part of the Interparliamentary Union and believe it or not, since 18 89 we have never had a debate at the IP U about LGBTI rights. And so, of the 162 member nations, we actually had a forum where we were able to talk about LGBTI rights. And the outcome of that process in Geneva was a vote 31 4, 26 against and at the next IP U. For the first time in its history, they will actually have a panel and discuss the rights of LGBTI peoples in the role of Parliament. Uh, in ending this apparent discrimination perpetrated by the state, I'm incredibly proud to come from a country and a parliament that after 100 and 51 years of colonisation, lest we forget, these laws came from our coloniser. This is part of our colonial history, and it's incredibly interesting when you go to these IP U forums and you have, uh, the African countries and you have the Asian countries and they all talk about this being abnormal behaviour. But the reality is the condemnation of this behaviour came from England, and I believe that England is a colonising power still has a lot of work to do to help us move from a world that is filled with hate to a world that's filled with love. And so I'm incredibly proud of our parliament because we've stood up for love tonight and I want to thank all those involved, uh, in bringing this piece of legislation to the house. The question is that the motion be agreed to those of that opinion will say I to the contrary. No, the eyes have it. Records expungement of convictions for historical homosexual offences Bill Third reading. I call on government order of the day number three Residential tenancies prohibiting letting fees Amendment Bill interrupted debate on first reading our members the last time that the house was considering the residential tenancy prohibiting letting the amendment Bill, the Honourable Jenny Saa had the call and she has seven minutes and 50 seconds remaining. Should she so wish to do so? Mr. Speaker, I call the honourable Jenny Sasa. Thank you, Mr Speaker. And what a night to be here in the house of Parliament and a New Zealand. I want to just acknowledge all of the speakers that have spoken before me on the previous bill, How wonderful it is to be here tonight and to see that we, as members of Parliament, can actually unanimously agree on this legislation on doing what is right. Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the residential tenancies prohibiting letting fees amendment bill. The full transcription of the recording ends. A list of keywords/tags describing the recording follow. These tags contain the correct spellings of names and places which may have been incorrectly spelt earlier in the document. The tags are seperated by a semi-colon: 1900s ; 1950s ; 1960s ; 1980s ; 2010s ; Adrian Rurawhe ; Africa ; Alan Turing ; Alan Turing law ; Amy Adams ; Andrew Bayly ; Andrew Falloon ; Andrew Little ; Anne Tolley ; Aotearoa New Zealand ; Asian ; Australia ; Campaign to Pardon Gays in Aotearoa ; Canada ; Canterbury ; Charles Brasch ; Charles Mackay ; Chinese ; Chris Bishop ; Chris Finlayson ; Christchurch ; Christmas ; Civil Union Act (2004) ; Coming Up ; Community Law ; Community Law (Wellington) ; Crimes Act (1908) ; Crimes Act (1961) ; Crimes Amendment Bill (1974, Venn Young) ; Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act (2004) ; Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Act 2018 ; Darroch Ball ; Duncan Webb ; Enigma machine ; Fran Wilde ; Frank Sargeson ; Geneva ; Geoff Smith ; Georgina Beyer ; Germany ; God ; Gordon Brown ; Grant Robertson ; Green Party ; Helen Clark ; Historic Convictions ; Hocken Library (Dunedin) ; Homosexual Law Reform ; Homosexual Law Reform Act (1986) ; Human Rights Act (1993) ; ILGA World ; Inter-Parliamentary Union ; Invercargill ; Jan Logie ; Jenny Salesa ; Joanne Hayes ; Job ; John Fleet ; John Graham-Cumming ; John Wolfenden ; Justice Committee ; Kaleidoscope Trust ; Katherine O'Regan ; Kevin Hague ; Kiritapu Allan ; LGBT ; Leonard Hollobon ; London ; Louisa Wall ; Maggie Barry ; Marriage Amendment Act (2012) ; Marriage Equality ; Matt King ; Member of Parliament ; National Party ; New South Wales ; New Zealand First ; New Zealand Labour Party ; Norman Jones ; Norman Kirk ; Offences against the Person Act (1867) ; Older Gay Men ; Out Loud ; Parliament buildings ; People ; Raymond Huo ; Rodney Kennedy ; Rowan Williams ; Royal assent ; Secretary for Justice ; South Africa ; State-Sponsored Homophobia report (ILGA) ; Tasmania ; The Fruits of Our Labours (book) ; Tim Barnett ; Toss Woollaston ; Trevor Mallard ; United Kingdom ; Vulnerable Children Act (2014) ; Wales ; Walter D'Arcy Cresswell ; Wellington ; Winston Peters ; Wiremu Demchick ; Wolfenden report ; Yogyakarta Principles (2006) ; abomination ; acceptance ; access ; acting ; activities ; advice ; anger ; anxiety ; apology ; arts ; attack ; attitude ; attraction ; author ; aversion therapy ; balance ; bear ; beauty ; belief ; bisexual ; blackmail ; boat ; bravery ; broadcasting ; building ; camp ; career ; celebration ; change ; chemical castration ; children ; class ; closet ; code ; collective ; colonialism ; colonisation ; community ; compensation ; conflict ; consensual sex ; conversation ; convictions ; courage ; crime ; crimes against humanity ; criminal background check ; criminal history ; criminal record ; crown ; death ; depression ; difference ; dignity ; disappear ; disclosure ; discrimination ; diversity ; division ; embarrassment ; employment ; engagement ; equality ; escape ; execution ; experiment ; expungement ; face ; family ; fear ; film ; fire ; florist ; food ; forum ; friends ; future ; gay ; gender ; gender diverse ; gender identity ; government ; grief ; growing up ; guilt ; gym ; hate ; healing ; history ; hit ; homophobia ; homosexual ; homosexual law reform petition ; hope ; human rights ; humanity ; identity ; imprisonment ; individual ; inheritance ; injustice ; intersex ; journey ; justice ; knowledge ; law ; lawyer ; leadership ; legacy ; legal rights ; legislation ; lesbian ; library ; listening ; love ; marriage ; media ; mental illness ; military ; modem ; morality ; murder ; nature ; normal ; opportunity ; other ; overseas travel ; pain ; pardon ; parents ; parties ; passing ; pedophilia ; petition ; petition on historic convictions ; pets ; police ; policy ; politics ; poll tax ; power ; prejudice ; priorities ; prison ; privilege ; punishment ; queen ; questioning ; radio ; rainbow ; reading ; recognition ; records ; reflection ; respect ; restorative practice ; running ; rural ; school ; select committee ; self esteem ; self hate ; self loathing ; self-acceptance ; sex ; sexual orientation ; sexuality ; shame ; ships ; shooting ; silence ; sin ; sleep ; sodomy ; speech ; stigma ; strength ; struggle ; suffering ; suicide ; support ; surgeon ; takatāpui ; tax ; teaching ; time ; tolerance ; touch ; trans ; transgender ; transphobia ; trauma ; travel ; trust ; unnatural ; unnatural offence ; victim ; vote ; witness ; women ; work ; writing. The original recording can be heard at this website https://www.pridenz.com/expungement_of_convictions_parliament_3_april_2018.html. The master recording is also archived at the Alexander Turnbull Library in Wellington, New Zealand.  For more details visit their website https://tiaki.natlib.govt.nz/#details=ecatalogue.1089827. Please note that this document may contain errors or omissions - you should always refer back to the original recording to confirm content.