Parliament: committee stage of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors. If you would like to help create a transcript, please volunteer to listen to the audio and correct the AI Text - get in contact for more details.

Criminal records expansion of convictions for historical homosexual offenses Bill Committee Stage either clear the house and committee for consideration the criminal records expansion of convictions for historical homosexual a fetus though. Madam Chair, Mr. Speaker, members the houses and committee for consideration of the criminal records expansion of convictions for historical homosexual offenses bill. The question is the part one stand part I called heady topper, lm them cheer I think leave for all provisions of the criminal records expansion of conviction for historical homers sexual offences bill to be taken as one debate. Leave a sword for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that parts one and two schedules one and two and clauses one and to stand patch. Madam Chair, I call kitty taboo, Ellen. Madam Chair, it's an absolute delight to be able to take a call in regards to the criminal records of expansion of convictions for the historical homosexual a thesis bill. In particular, for this reading, for this debate, this Committee of the Whole House debate, Madam Chair, and having regard to this very significant and important build it, I'm proud to say that there is universal and widespread agreement across the house for the the ethos that underpins it, it does expunge those that were convicted under our previous law for the simple act of able to love somebody. Madam Chair. Now, I just heard a couple of questions for the minister in regards to some of the finer details of the bill made them cheer. Now the general a fix of expunged. And I wanted to understand with a conviction for an experiment and the New Zealand law would have a broader purpose. When when members, sorry, when people who had been convicted under the previous law, without would be required to disclose still be required to disclose those former convictions and any overseas jurisdictions. And whether that was universal across the board. So I just want to understand it. If the minister could skip us through that a little bit. Image Yeah, I guess for me from on a personal note, you know, a couple of weeks ago, my, my, my uncle Darcy, is my youngest brother, he, he passed away. But he was he went he he moved from our new client porn to put up is a young men moved up to Auckland, the city of bright lights to live a life that an hour small town wasn't wasn't viewed with much favor. And it is it is funeral there was a range of people that came. They talked about the lifestyle of the Queen's of it lived up in Oakland, which my uncle was very heavily involved in the knit community injure. It's like gave these stories both inside the middle and outside of the murder. Outside that they spoke of the the white of what it was to be a young men is they were some of them in constant fear of hiding from the law, being just connected from the families and they spoke about the impacts of being able to travel universally, were actually just to just to live their life actually and get jobs, decent jobs and how without having to make disclosures of those of those criminal offenses. Yeah, just because of the nature they they love. I love somebody of the same six so that was a topic that was very much a part of discussion it my my uncle does his tongue in so if the minister might be so kind to just give some updates for those that might be watching this debate at home and and also for myself, to understand that exactly what the nature and extent of expansion of those to mystic convictions will mean here. For those members living outside the country, they come in and she I call a Priyanka Radha Krishna. Thank you, Madam Chair. And there is some bills that we debate in this house that that strikes straight at the hands of people lived existence, people suffering fear and earth, and gives us an opportunity to remedy that. And this bill really does that. I just also want to say that it was an absolute privilege to be part of the select committee bet that went through this bill that heard public's missions to this bill, and actually worked very well together to make some amendments to part of this bill, which I will go through today as well. So I just want to Firstly, thank the former minister, the Honorable Amy Adams for her work on this, the current minister, the Honorable Andrew little for his work on this and my colleagues on the select committee and of course, those who submitted to this bill as well. We had some very emotive, some very emotional submissions. And I want to acknowledge that part one of this bill looks at basically the purpose of of this act. What What does this act do? This, the reason that we're here today, and this goes back to the way I began, actually, for those of us in this house, there is a mains power here to impact people's lives. It's a little bit like fire, sometimes we don't get it right, and it ruins people's lives completely. And sometimes we have the opportunity to remedy it. Now the Crimes Act 1961 and its predecessor in 1988. criminalize sexual activity between males 16 years and over. between that time and 1986. When the homeless sexual Law Reform Act decriminalize decriminalize the same activity, we saw a number of people who were caught in a space, we just being themselves meant that they were they became criminals were deemed criminals by society. According to the Department of Statistics, between that time period, nearly 1000 men were convicted of indecency. between males, about 138 of them had a sentence of imprisonment. and many others either had fines or community based sentences as well, quite apart from that was the abject fear that they lived in of law enforcement agencies, the stigma that they suffered young men who were thrown out of home for being homosexual, and huge implications on their health, their mental health. And so this bill puts that gives us an opportunity of past to put that straight, it also sends a really clear signal to future generations of young people in the LGBT TTY community as well. So what does it do? The purpose of this act is to reduce to address that stigma, that prejudice that the young men who were convicted have faced, because it's all well and good for us to say post 1986 at this is no longer criminal. But it's a whole different metaphor, it's still to be on people's criminal records, when they either apply for a job or are considered for any position or status of some sort. So this addresses that issue. It enables an application for expansion of the conviction to be made under this act, parts of the acts that I will get into shortly, sort of outline who's eligible to make the application whether it's the person who's been convicted themselves, or someone acting on their behalf as well. And actually both are eligible to, to apply for for an expansion without go into that a little little bit. But one also looks at the interpretation, the definitions, who does this apply to, and how it lays that out quite quite clearly, I just want to draw your attention, madam chair to close, too close for and those who are watching as well, as an example of the types of issues we debated in a lot of depth actually excellent committee. So for example, criminal record of a conviction for historical defense. And initially in the act, it was was written down as an official record we've changed that are suggested Select Committee suggested that that be changed to a public record. So that so that we align the definition better with section four of the Public Records Act 2005, there are few other changes in clothes for as well, that will give a bit of meaning to the management per se. The other part of part one, of course, is the definition of historical homosexual offenses, and it's quite specific as to who can apply. So what sorts of convictions muster person have had in order to be eligible to apply for the Madam Chair, Priyanka rather crank here, so. So it lays out in closed five. So basically, there is the time period that I laid out at this at the start that's between 1908 and 1986. So from the start of the Crimes Act that criminalized such behavior, right through to 1986, with the homosexual Reform Law Reform Act that decriminalized the same behavior. So that's the time period within which people who have had such a historical conviction can apply for the experiment, the other relevant parts that's outlined in clothes for, and I'll just read this book, because it's quite detailed. The sections that have been repealed the specific sections of the crimes acts that have been appealed. Our section 141, and that deals with indecency between male to that section 141 of the crimes that 1961 section to sorry, section one for two deals with sodomy, section 146, keeping place of resort for homosexual acts, section 153, unnatural defense of the Crimes Act 1908. So that's the predecessor act, but only to the extent that the section covers committing buggery, with any other male human being section 154 attempts to commit unnatural offense or similar to the previous one, but an attempt rather than the actual offense being committed as well. So people within that time frame who were convicted under any of those sections, five sections that I've outlined, will be eligible to apply for the expansion of that conviction. And now this also applies to those who might have passed on since that time, so they may not be able to apply in person, but a representative someone from their family perhaps can apply on their behalf as well. And I'll just, at this point, draw attention to the fact that some submitters at Select Committee alluded to the fact that potentially this act should go a little bit further and apply an automatic experiment to everyone who saw those thousand people perhaps that we have details for who would be eligible, but that that was considered by Select Committee, but the advice that was received was that that blanket or automatic expansion, actually might leave a few people out. So a proactive application for expansion was actually better, and means that people could, we potentially included more people in that. The other point to note, of course, is that these convictions actually brought about a lot lot of trauma for those who were convicted. And so it's not everybody who would want to be want to have to revisit that trauma as well. And an automatic expansion might put people in that position. So instead of that it was better that people applied if they wanted an experiment. Now, part two is the test for expansion. So who's eligible now we've gone through the time period and the specific convictions under the to crimes x, have also mentioned that the that the person themselves or a representative, and that's in closed eight, part two of the x another test is that the conduct constituting the offense, if engaged in now. So when the application is made, would not constitute an offense. So basically, what we're saying is, we had a law back in that criminalized people just being who they were, we don't think that was right. And it's the conduct that they engaged in, at the time actually happened today, they wouldn't be convicted. So that's pretty much the case, which then rules out, for example, cases of rape cases where there was no consent, that would have been an offense back then also, because it was sexual activity between males, that part of it would no longer hold and the current law, but the lack of consent would, so those that fall into that category, this act clarifies would not, would not fall into or that would not be expunged, basically, that particular conviction would not be so but to have the act lays out quite clearly, the instances in which it would not the conviction would not be expunged. There are also parts impact to that, that basically says that a status cannot be refused to revoke to basically a person who has an expansion conviction should not be disqualified on that grounds for employee England have any other appointment or posts, so quite detailed in the act. I have a question though, the minister and that's around compensation that came out in the select committee as to why that wasn't part of this act, would be good to get clarity and cold medicine. letter J. Thank you. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to acknowledge members of the Justice League committee that are here today, reading the chat room and who and I'd like to acknowledge that the great work done on this by the honorable Amy Amy Adams, and also like to acknowledge the honorable Angie little for taking it on. Now, bit I was on put on the Justice League committee, when I first became an MP, which is only a few months ago, and I was learning about how slick committees work. And I thought that listening to dealing with this particular case was the way slick committees operate. And I didn't realize it's not always the case, this important piece of legislation, I'm proud to have served on it. And I found that the whole sit committee across parties supported this. And quite frankly, it's a it's a no brainer to support in any way, very collegial manner that we dealt with it. And, and what I found was that slick committee members bought their own life experiences to the, to the discussion. And in particular, we had Jimmy Anderson who's got a background with police and intelligence and injustice. And we also had the dinosaur up the gringo corner, 30 years and the police were in huge amounts of an invaluable experience. And I say that quite fondly. So he brought a lot to the table. And also, the officials that are here today also bought the contribution. And so we all work together. And we I think we got a good result. Now one of the things we argued about or talked about actually discussed we didn't we talked about it was what the definition of sponging would be or what would literally it would mean would it mean that on the computer screen, it said that the conviction and then it had the word expands via or did that mean that there's no reference to what the conviction was, and it was just it expands. And the officials came back with the what they believed would be the way to deal with it. And that was just had the word expunge. But from our experiences in the police and others, we felt that any reference on that computer screen to could that could identify what that can what it was, I would defeat the purpose. So then the officials came back to us and said, Well, why don't we just make an offense to disclose whatever was on the screen. But I have to hop back to an experience or my experience when I was in the place was that. And it doesn't relate to this particular thing. But it relates it is along the similar lines. And that was school teacher that came to the area. And he he had he had some some infections, just a minor one very minor one. And people within the courthouse as a small town and people within the courthouse had access to that information and disclosed in and call it cost them a lot of problems. very minor stuff, nothing to do with this. But it caused some problems. So from my own experience, I felt that the computer record itself had to have no reference in the otherwise that would defeat the purpose. And I believe that's where we've gone with it. So that's my contribution. I'd have to say it was a pleasure to be part of the team on no longer non on that slick committee. I've been moved to transport infrastructure, but it was a pleasure to be on that team as pleased to be part of this process. And our recommended to the US. Thank you. Thank you name is to you for your contribution so far, too. Mr. King, it's it's good for me this a new session like this Do we have to bring the patient experiences and it's for that reason that they those specifically provides not only for the management, and whatever nature that takes but actually that subsequent disclosure by an official, have a conviction that has been exposed, automate consequences to so it was good to be able to bring that in. So can I just come to a couple of the questions that have been raised by members so far? So can talk to Alan asked a couple of questions one about the extent of experiment and the other about what has disclosed. So in relation to the extensive experiment. The bill is pretty clear the specified offenses, which are related to a conviction, those are expunged from the record. button. If somebody Hayes is convicted of an offense, such as disorderly behavior that might relate to the same sort of conduct that would otherwise have needs to those other offenses, the offense of disorderly behavior will not be expunged. That being the failure to expand that particular fields will not lead to an inference or an application that the person making the application has engaged in homosexual offense, and therefore submit to the discrimination that might be associated with it. On the issue of of what is disclosed, and particularly in relation to daily with overseas bodies and organizations and parties. I think the bill in the consideration by this, the committee saw that this was particularly problematic. In any event, it will come down to the sort of question that is asked. So if the question is, do you have a relevant conviction of conviction? In this case, the conviction under this bill has been expand the in the person is quite free to say no, there is no conviction because it has been expand. If however, the question is, have you been arrested for an offense, that will not allow the person to say no, they have not been arrested? They will, they will have to disclose that they've been arrested, they will not have to disclose the offense. So people do need to understand that particular limitation. I'm thankful to create your Radha Krishna for here. Adam embracing of the issues that she gave. And she knows the innocence arbitrary date about around which the historical offending is is limited. And it is offenses after the fourth of August 19. late because it deals with the legislation. The first legislation that provided for these offenses were was the legislation that took effect from the fourth of August night in LA and then subsequently the crumbs at 1961 question. obvious question is, why wouldn't you go to a period at the night in LA? And I think the committee made a pretty pragmatic conclusion which was there. It is most unlikely that they would even be descendants who will be concerned enough about convictions made before 1908. They ever want the system to be able to accommodate date. And so use the cutoff date. back tonight Tonight is arbitrary, but I think there are good reasons for them. In terms of the specific question that miserables Christian man right, which is why compensation has not been provided for. And I think it was pretty clear from a policy point of view. And I think this can be discovered, it was just going to be too problematic. And I think it is true also to say that there are mixed views within the community about with a compensation is warranted or justified. And and even if you did want to work out a compensation raging, how would that work? What are your compensating or what is the extent of compensation. And in the end, I think what what most of the methods raised was an order to remove the stigma associated with the conviction for these phases that was conduct that is no longer regarded as a criminal offense, it is removing the record off benefits. And that is the right outcome to achieve rather than trying to come up with a complex arrangement for for compensation. So on it now, Jamie to answer those questions, and I look forward to the ongoing discussion. I call him uncle. I'm sure I was late in returning to the debating chamber to take my call because honorable, honorable maybe Barry and I had a join the meeting with the clock of the Justice committee. So this very fitting for me to thank the clock for his contributions. It's a very busy, very effective committee. And we did enjoy the work. And congratulations are in order for the minister in the CI on making this bill one of the government's priorities and also for the then Minister of Justice, the Honorable me, Adam, on putting up the bill in the first place last year at the Committee of the Whole House stage, it is very appropriate for me to touch upon some important issues raised by members of the second reading those issues included, for instance, eligibility, illegality, the real effect of an expansion. And also as the minister just touched upon the issues around compensation, some of the issues with difficulty ones without the input of the submitters, and people in the know and without the help of the officials, we simply could not get the point of where we are now. For instance, the original course 13 sackcloth to could be interpreted as such that those job applicants could be seen as a grain or consenting to the disclosure of the expanded convictions, Evan, if this sort of convictions and not relevant to the job at all, and this is not a tool, the intention or the purpose of this bill 13 close to 13 SAP to is a difficult one simply because it concerns with the This builds friendship with other pieces of legislation, especially the vulnerable children's act. Having said that, I should acknowledge our officials who have done a great job and as the officials in the debating chamber, I acknowledge their knowledge, input and level of professionalism and also like to acknowledge thank parliamentary council office, particularly missed Ross Carter, they have always taken the optimal drafting approach, which has been reflected in a great deal in the shape of this bill. Back to some important points risk by members during the second reading speech. The first one obviously regarding the records, because this is about the room effect of the expansion. And when talking about the checks or rip records, there are generally two kinds of such kind of records. One is the CMS case management system, and the other one is catch criminal and traffic conviction history report with regard to CMS case management system. operationally, the court record will be retained in the CMS, which is the courts database. A quarter staff member with access to CMS for the criminal jurisdiction will be able to view the records. All charges are recorded in CMS this inclusive those if they haven't been withdrawn, by leaf, dismissed, accredited or quashed on appeal, etc. It would be undesirable to remove expanded convictions from case management system, as this assistant is intended to provide a full record of all court activity. At the select committee session, we did here submissions from those concerned about their record and the real effect of the management and one or two separate is risk the point given this is nature and the nature of expansions. And why not remove the entire thing from any such kind of record that record at all, Mr. Madam Chair, right. But I'm sure Thank you, Madam Chair. So to reinforce that sort of a view, it is, it wouldn't be any desirable to remove expands to convictions from the same so simply because this system is intended to provide a full record of all court activity. However, for the purpose of this bell, that expands to conviction would not appear on the individuals criminal and traffic conviction history report. Some submitters raised their concerns or some proposals with regard to the compensation, as the minister just said, there's no such kind of a principle to support such kind of compensation because there is new general principle that a person who is convicted on a repealed offense is entitled to compensation on the repeal of the offense. Now, yesterday when I made my contribution, I didn't mention about the Georgia Carter principal, because of some submitters rest of the concerns that without compensation, or lack of such kind of a policy initiative, we could be seeing as potentially in breach of the Georgia Carter principal. Now church a card principle is a set of a principal established in 2006, about human rights in the sexual orientation, and gender identity space, the principles of firm binding, international legal standards with which all states must comply. There are 29 such kind of a principles together with additional recommendations. Representatives from UK, US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand will among the signatories. We acknowledge the concerns raised by sub meters. However, compensation goes beyond the purpose of the scheme, which is to prevent, as the minister minister justice said, which is present prevent further negative effects from the stigma of a conversation. Having said that cost 22. However, of this bill does not limit other measures enter the Bill of Rights Act of 1990, which protects the right to bring civil litigations against the crown further clause 22 and does not exclude other rights to compensation, which may be pursued and the existing letter the legislation. So for those who are concerned about lack of compensation, or there's new mechanism provided ended this bill, what are we can confirm this this particular course or initial policy initiatives align Well, with the approach in comparable offices, jurisdictions, and other matter, the minister in the church just touched upon is about that 1908 cut off, because ended this bill at the concerns with the two pieces of crime SAP if you like, the first one is Crimes Act of 1961. The other one is Crimes Act 1908. What what I could add on to the contributions might made by the Minister and other members is that, in practice, the Secretary for justice may receive the few applications for offending over this time period, because they convicted purses would be diseased, and potential representatives of the convicted persons are unlikely to have knowledge of the convictions. Now, offenses prior to the Crimes Act 1908. We're not included as any convicted persons from this era would have been born in 1892, at of the latest, namely, at the age of 16. So having said that, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank those people who's involved not only behind this, this bill, but also the petition in 2014 of wearable dem check. And 2111 other people are behind this tradition, which we consider along with this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker gives me pleasure rise on the criminal records it's punishment of conviction for historical homosexual of pizzas Bill Maher, my colleagues cross the house describing the dinosaur some minutes ago, relation to my time and police did cause we reflect that I did spend some time is a police officer in New Zealand place and I was in the in place at the time when police were actively policing these these x 1641 decency between miles section one for to sodomy 146 giving places resort for homosexual acts, second 153 and natural events, section 154 attempt to commit a natural offenses. And as I said, on the Select Committee, and considered the submitters considered the bill did cause me to give thought to just what it was like in those days, those days as well as in the 60s, 70s 80s, even for those who were born into the criminal justice system. Because it wasn't just a couple fiction, it was everything that went with it. A lot of the later years, a lot of the policing of the Act was around, and particularly in Wellington around Marion street where a lot of transsexual mean, a lot of homosexual marriage would nightly be brought into the Wellington secret police station and charged with associated offenses. So as I consider that, I looked at the different parts of the bill. I couldn't help but having context for what it was we were actually doing and achieving with this bill. And that complemented by the submitters who bought their own stories, their own experiences to the select committee, but really did give me a sense that this is a very right thing to be doing. Saying that I think we should remember that we are in another time now. And we shouldn't be too hard on those who were responsible for the legislation, or the enforcement of same in that period. Because, quite frankly, that was another time. But we are now in a time when we I think take a much broader view of the effect of some relatively narrow views placed into criminal justice system can have on the lives of people, particularly those who are part of this night, I look at what the bill was attempting to actually achieve. And, and one of the main parts of their course was that it was essentially to achieve that reduce prejudice stigma and other negative effects. And I go to cause three, the purpose of the to reduce prejudice stigma and other negative effects arising from a conviction for historical homosexual fence. And doing that allowing on application by the convicted person or a representative on their behalf if they are the ceased to expand a historical heterosexual feats of it meets the taste for expansion. I think that through to that part of the Act, where the classes of people who I able to apply on behalf of the deceased person about the execute the administrator, or the trustee of their state, or their spouse, civil union partner, the fact though partner, parent or sibling or child, the deposition of representative also includes anyone who has requested to be representative. And the Secretary has granted that request. And I there was some discussion at select committee as to the extent that it should be applied to those who had passed on. But certainly the agreement was that the pain was often so great for those individuals, that it did actually carry on well beyond the grave, and in fact, to family representatives, men and speaker. I commend this bill. And I was called Johnny Anderson. Thank you, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the criminal records experiment and convictions for historical I'm a sexual offenses. And as a member of the select committee that considered the spill, it's been really a great privilege to see it progress 30 seconds stages, in particular, knowing that the the burden that will be lifted of many shoulders of New Zealand mean who have been wrongfully convicted in the past. So what this legislation effectively does is it sets up a scheme that opens individuals to available to apply an application for those that have been charged and convicted of specific offenses that are listed in this piece of legislation, and particular sexual conduct between mean consenting between 16 years and over, or by a family member. So if someone who's deceased, it's able to be applied for by a family member of the person affected. And it's important to note too, that this application process is free. And it's good to see so many of the submissions that we heard at Select Committee raise the question of compensation, the bill and whether or not compensation should be provided. And it's in Clause 22 of the bill. And it clearly stipulates that no compensation will be provided for those that had convictions that respect as expunged. And while many of those submitters felt who had suffered wrong, would like to have been, can given consideration to this. It's important to note that we are aware that been convicted of these offenses suffered real harm as a result, but to go through the net was not required. So there was submitters who agreed with it possession of the committee. And and the resolution has been that close 22, in fact, provides that they will not be compensation able to be provided. It's important that we look at how this bill enables those to look at the case by case analysis. So in Clause eight, the scheme requires a case by case assessment of the relevant facts to determine whether the conduct of a person was charged. And whether that was in fact and all for today. And it's important to note that decision is in fact made by the Secretary for justice. So there's no need for applicants to appear in person for with it in a person's conviction is expand, the conduction will not appear on a criminal record or cheek for any other purpose. And it's also important to note that they will be entitled to to clear if requested in any way for filling out a job application and terms of requiring to declare the criminal history that is no reason for that to be declared. And next space. And that is also great to see. There's been a number of comments to made around clause nine the junior effects of experiment. And that was an issue that the committee also looked at very closely. So clause nine confirms the fix of experiment, and the person with it expunged conviction and doesn't not entitled to declare they have no such conviction. So the committee has made an amendment to that clause nine to include the expanded that does not authorize or require the destruction of criminal records, expunged convictions, a stated and explanatory note and the official record. And it's also important to note that these been another amendment and the cause food chain, which nights that as an offense to unlawfully disclose the information and in the requirement to make sure that is concealed. And so that's an important note to that. We live in a and a small country, and people are often accessing records. So by putting the burden of proof on somebody else, for whatever official reason is looking through records, to make sure that that is an offense to disclose it, under this legislation to protect really the privacy of those people who have been wrongfully convicted in the past. It's been a real privilege to be participating in a bill at this stage after hearing those submissions firsthand from people affected. And I'm proud to see a strong bill that enables the wrongs of the past to be put right into give people a sense of that justice. So without further ado, I can mean this go to the house. I call the honorable Andrew, thank you. Once again, thank me this for the contributions that I like to take a moment to respond to some of the issues raised a colleague rabbit hole, referred to clause nine, suppose seven, the fact that court records were continued to be retained. So this is a process that allows for a process for their conviction to be expunged and day for, for the person making the application to not be required to disclose that the was a conviction. That is the nature of experiment. And for those requesting that information, not be able to have access to it. But it doesn't mean that the the record of the conviction is therefore destroyed. It is important is I think, is the committee was advised that public records because of the obligations, and the other states true obligations, need to be maintained that a combination of the application folks Benjamin, which has been granted, changing the altering what is a piece and the record, it's accessible to officials who will be providing information, and also constraining those officials from disclosing a conviction that has otherwise exposed, I think provides the protection and the certainty that those making applications under this bill would be looking for, once again, Mr. who raises a question about compensation. And He notes that there is still a right for those who have been convicted under previous legislation, and who would be entitled to an experiment under this legislation to bring claims for damages in relation to conduct against them, while in custody or while incarcerated or otherwise, why while being handled by the authorities, and relation to the offense, which there was subsequently convicted off. There is that angle but compensation mainly for effect of convict conviction, which would lead to an experiment and the district legislation is too problematic and too complex to contemplate, which is why the bill does not provide for compensation and which by the way, the government also outside the confines of the legislation is not considering a compensation regime. The honorable man bad Greg economy, referred in his contribution to the definition of people who can apply for expansion on behalf of those who have been convicted that so those who are deceased, but who had a conviction can posthumously achieve an experiment, if someone applies on their behalf. And so, the legislation calls for a definition of a representative of those people. And that is clearly laid out. And Mr. Economy, very assiduously. And I would say with grandiloquence, when through those who are defined as a representative, you can make that application and it does require, it does require some proximity of relationship to to achieve that is it is not any old Joe Bloggs can turn up the and apply on behalf of somebody they don't know. But because they are a busy body and might have some interest in some historical figure in history to be somebody, a member of the family bearing in mind that a conviction on a piece of under the those historical faces will feel a sense of shame as well. And it is as much for the slides will have the sense of same as much as for the person who had the conviction as well. And finally, Jenny Anderson, referred to the issue without compensation, again, it costs 22 and confirm this make committees view is that compensation is not provided for but then present some focused on the test for expansion. And what that taste for expansion focuses on not nearly the conviction, it's a conduct underlying the conviction and then allows the signature of justice which consider the applications for expands want to consider with it, the nature of the contact that lead to the conviction was Jean was innocent was was conceived through or whether there was a predatory character to it or coercion or some other night from the contact that vitiated conceived, then you will expect you to be in relation to activities that today would not attract a criminal sanction. So those things are covered off. And once again, I think members for the Christians dollar 40, I'm going to go I call the Amalfi current. Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel quite proud and humbled to take a call on this still such a necessary piece of legislation in the healing process, which continues around the stigma that has persisted despite the 1986 piece of legislation, but the stigma that has been suffered by people who are being punished, or have felt that they continue to be punished for being themselves by previous criminal convictions. And I feel really proud of the whole of this Parliament and the Parliament of New Zealand that that we are taking this step, I've got some specific questions around the section fishing course sorry, pools fishing a which was and suited, ah, the select committee process, which was around the offense to require or request that individual disregard expansion. And note that, again, the purpose of the bill to reduce prejudice stigma and all the other needs get it fixed arising from the conviction for historical having sexual offense. But the select committee obviously felt concerned enough to want to insert a new clause in I don't know whether that was it as a result of good work just by the slick committee members, thinking of all the unintended consequences, whether this came from submissions, and the 37 submissions, but the concern that in some situations, even if a conviction of being successfully expand, that people might still be required to disclose the effect of the conviction. And so the insertion, of course, the chain a makes it an explicit offense to require or request an individual to disregard the effect of and specs punishment under the spill. So my question to the cheer to the Minister, and the cheer is around the problem definition around it was the a set of circumstances we're in actual cases where it was concerned, this kind of behavior would occur? And, and also, what what would be the process for? For actually, inactive native offense is? How does how does it become an offense? His what was the thought that we intend to that and, and I'll just remind the house that six, close 39 and his two parts to it, the first part, the person commits in a fence, if that person requires a request that an individual disregards the fate of expansion under the eight, when answering a question about the individuals criminal history or disclosing information concerning anything convictions of the individual both or or they disregard the effect of expansion expansion under the SEC. So it sounds as if it's blatant disregard of what this legislation actually stands for, and that there is concerned that there is still the prejudice that exists partly in our community, we there are people who would disregard and, and and if they did, then is it is point to that a person commits an offense is liable on conviction to find not exceeding $10,000 is to what thought has gone into how that would actually be connected. And what would the record speed because if if they wanted to get their conviction expanse, they have to apply? Am I correct to the Minister? So how does how do you actually get that offense to occur? Doesn't have to go through the minister to be referred to to the court? Or is there at some other mechanism? I guess that's the question I have for the cheer on the spill. And I certainly am not disagreeing with course the CJ, I think it's some it's obviously but it showed Good thinking by the slick committee members, but I just on reading through it. And of course, not having been at the slick committee, and I'm unsure about how that actually played out. Other than that, this is half of them. Having that question answered. This is an extremely important piece of legislation, part of the healing process coming to the house. Call Dr. Duncan we met him he is it's really just a short point that I'd like to put to the minister and run clause five of the Act, which defines historical trauma sexual offenses. My concern is that there are a number of offenses which may have been lead to conviction. But which don't fall within those in particular offenses which the prosecutor chose to prosecute under summit, which didn't have necessarily a homosexual element to it. And examples might be a loitering of fields, or an indecent exposure of themes, which never the lists were triggered by behavior, which in fact, was came to the attention of the all parties, the police, because it had this, this homosexual out element, which now would not even raise an eyebrow, is I read the X a person who has been convicted of themes, which the prosecutor might in fact of prosecuted, because it seemed the lease invidious offense to prosecute will know, nevertheless, now be tired with their fields in can't come to the come to come forward and say, This is in fact, Indian substance, a historic homosexual Phoenix in because of what appeared to be almost misery of the prosecutor, I can't now have that, that offense expand, but nevertheless, it still carries with it all of the difficulties of an urban theme, so would have to be disclosed, it requested in it does seem to me to be something of a of a mismatch. Now, I except that the difficulties of proof around it may be difficult, particularly with the fluctuation of time. But it does seem to be particularly for people who are alive, in whose prospects in reputation as affected by this, that it would be appropriate for them to be able to come forward and say this is a this is a real matter of concern to me. This is in fact and the themes I should never have been convicted, because that attract is only attracted attention, because of my hi Miss sexual conduct. So I minister, I won't take any more time it says just a short point. But I would like to see your response to that. I call the honorable Angie. And similar to my colleague Duncan weird, just one issue that I wanted to raise with the minister. And I know that interpretations aren't always the most exciting part of a bill. But I do want to focus in on the interpretation of representative which is closed for Madam Chair, which sits out that if someone is deceased in on their behalf, and someone wants to get a conviction expands that sits out exactly who within the bill is able to do that as a representative and it goes through the list of am the Executive administrative a trustee acting on behalf a spouse or civil union pattern or detect a pattern of the convicted person and the issue that I have, or the question that are like to ask, as around for as Red Sea. And that is the definition in terms of family because it is very prescriptive to appearance, sibling or child or the convicted person can act as a representative. And just looking forward to close five and the timings around with these convictions may have happened. But getting an August 19 is an Indian August 1986 is quite a long time frame. And so there could be a situation where it's not appeared sibling or child of a convicted person. But it may be a grandchild or great grandchild, have a question that has been convicted under these previous laws who may want to see the conviction expand. And I guess the question I would like to ask is whether there is any scope to broaden, see out and we talking about family who can be a representative of the convicted patient who is now deceased, and other three less prescriptive, or to include great grandchildren and great grandchildren. Because I think we may get into a situation where there's two tests for direct the students or people who have been convicted of first a proving their willingness, as a representative. And if it were a direct descendant of mine, I find it possibly a little bit offensive and, and to convincing the system that they conviction as shuttle could be expunged. So I guess the real simple question is, can we look at that? I know that day allows the Secretary to deem somebody else who may be an appropriate person to act on behalf of the deceased convicted person, but with with a topic so sensitive and and would be felt quite acutely by grandchildren or great grandchildren, the people who are convicted, I think we should seriously think about broadening out the definition of a representative in terms of family members. So that we don't have a two step test for the Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to some of the questions that have been raised in the last two or three contributions. Can I tend to the intervention by the honorable Karen, who raised a question about clause stating a, which makes it in a things to require or request than individual district district that expansion? And as I understood, Miss Karen, she had two questions. One is focusing on the circumstances in which that might arise. And I'm Why did the committee think it was necessary to provide a remedy for you today possible, this possibility? And then secondly, how would the fence be enforced? So on the first, this provision, mirrors I similar provision, and the clean slight legislation, so somebody who makes the conditions of that legislation of going through a period of time, we have not committed an offense, a low level of things that they have previously been convicted off, they can apply to have the criminal record effectively cleaned up is the name, clean slate. What I think was, and vent legislation, what the Parliament at that time considered was the possibility that a person seeking information about prior convictions might try to circumvent the benefit of the legislation by saying are not only require you to tell me your current convictions that asked you to disregard your rights. And in that case, the clean slate legislation. And it is important when considering this though. And the fact that people are, now wish to use it to remove the more stigmatic convictions that they have, that they should not be imposed upon by others, and invited to abandon the rights they will have under the boat. You can imagine a situation in which I, an employer, or a private organization, or whoever, who is seeking information about a person because they want to understand about that scientists day in the back the past track record, maybe brazen enough to say, effectively, we know you have these rights, and the benefit of this legislation. But we will insist that you abandon your rights under the legislation. And we're going to demand that you provide this information. And if you don't, we will effectively discriminate against to allow an employer or an organization to do they will be to defeat the objective of the legislation, which is to remove discrimination and stigma associated with that conviction for a homosexual offense that is in this day and age, not an offense. So it plays a very important role in the members of the committee to be congratulated for having the wisdom to insert their provision in the How would it be enforced? Well, the reality is, that would require a complaint to the police. Because of an organization seeking information, which they're not entitled to an effect seeking information, which of the person being asked to supply is not obliged. And this legislation and effect is protected from disclosing it. They should not that organization should not be able to conduct themselves in that way, I should should not be able to defeat the the individual person's rights and benefits they would have under this legislation. So they would like and playing with the place. And the penalty is still at $10,000, which is an indication from this parliament. That discriminatory action is seen as a serious thing by this power, that one citizen, one legal entity, should not be able to discriminate against an individual. My colleague, Dan, can we talk to tank and we asked about cross five. And the fact that that grows, which defines the historical offenses, which are the subject of the legislation is very specific about the particular offenses, which can be expanded on application to the secrecy of justice. And Dr. With ask the obvious question, Why could not other offenses that night have in the commission related to privacy for contract? Can they not be the subject of an application for expansion. And the problem with that is if you if you consider a feat says like disorderly conduct, or exposure, can remember the technical natural here is that it would add considerable complexity to the job of the signature of justice to consider applications for fences that can be applied in a and a number of situations, many of which would be legitimate reasons for the conviction, and for which there will be no legitimate reasons to not continue to record that conviction. They would they you know, something like an offense, like disorderly conduct has an enormous breadth of application. And so, although the conduct torture might apply, might the homosexual conduct which this though, and it's a specificity is seeking to avoid the stigma associated with it, to determine whether or not the particular feeds on that person's record relates to human sexual conduct or something else, when a concert will? If it ain't complexity, then it would make the bill unworkable. So I think the committee has struck the right balance and ensuring that the bill remains workable and achieves its fundamental objective, which is removing the stigma of criminal offenses from a day and age when it was regarded as Chroma back which in this day and age is not an end to the in, and therefore remove the stigma and shame associated with it. If I could turn to the Christian rise by the honorable Chris far fully in history contribution, which is the definition of representative under clause for, and he is right, the definition of representative goes through a number of steps, these the legal agents that a person may have. And then there are other family members. And that combined to your spouse, civil union patterns and what have you, then there are family means appeared, sibling, or child. And the question quite legitimate question is why not a grandchild? Given that the bill will apply to offenses that go back to the fourth of August 19. And if there was somebody who has a conviction on 99, and this day and age, it is most likely going to be a grandchild who will want to make the application. But I think he also touches on the answer to the question, which is that cross D, your paragraph date of the definition of representative allows the secretary of justice, to exercise a discretion to allows somebody who does not fall into the deep definitions, and paragraphs A, B and C, to also make the application in the way of the application considered. And I think that is the basis on which a grandchild or some other appear and nephew or grandnephew or green based might make the application I think what the Secretary of justice will look for, as a familiar link, I proximity of the person making the application to the person who is that conviction on the on the basis that a conviction of this nature, and a dynamite and an unenlightened age when these convictions were happening is as much a source of shame to the family, as it is to the individual itself. And when the individual has passed on to seize the family, it is possible for their family to continue to where the embarrassment of the shame of that conviction, which they should not. And so I think the the members should be reissued, if I can do so that the Secretary of justice will be expected to take a fee a large and liberal interpretation of his or her discretion, and the paragraph D to ensure that this bill is a value to those who suffered the ignominy have a conviction for conduct, which today is not a word regarded as criminal. So I think I mean for bringing that issue to the attention of the house, but I consider that it is covered off by the the other provisions and I call Barbara, I move that the Christian be now poor. I call Tom tea coffee. I think you Mr. T, I think the opportunity to talk on this particular bill, and it's like it up here, and I have listened to a few of the contributions from some of the members in this house, I just want to remind the house that we, we were once part of the problem, actually, we were the ones that make the laws that everybody had to follow. And so as we praise the work that we do, and I just caution that we also praise that will remember that we were actually once part of the problem. And for that reason, I'm I'm happy and I'm set a standard and take a call on this. I'm standing on behalf of all of those people that can't be here today, of course, but who have had to live with the guilt and the shame of having a conviction under this particular under this particular Act of Parliament. And it's for that reason that I I said proudly supported the marriage equality bill back in 2014. so that people could understand that things were changing, the times are changing. And I'm happy to say that Parliament through this particular bill here is also changing as well. If there's somebody in particular that needs some things, just in relation to this particular bill, it is the petition of wouldn't move him check, and the 2111 people that signed his petition that came before the house and and I just want to just read it out that in the manner of those who were convicted of conceptual, consensual, homosexual x price of the homosexual Law Reform Act 1986, that the house properly issued an official apology to those convicted, and be passed legislation which sits out a process for reversing their convictions of those convicted, but living and deceased in a manner which upholds the manner in the dignity of those convicted. I would like to commend with a move and all of those people that signed this particular petition to bring this bill before the house, if anybody needs thinks it's actually them. I want to I want to also just raise a point about the the, what I see is, is is very necessary, the ability for somebody to apply somebody else's behalf. And I just wanted to touch on that weak point because there are many people who have had convictions against the name for a long time now, who has since passed on. And for that reason, it is only right, somebody be able to apply for this experiments on their behalf. So I commend the committee and and, and also the Minister for making sure that that's a key part of it. So that we can have representatives, they can stick around on behalf of the the the family member, the friendly fire know, to be able to make things right 1000 people they say 1000 people may be eligible to apply it under the scheme based on based on data that has been given by the Department of Statistics. And for that reason, I look forward to to monitoring the process and seeing the names of people coming out of the shadows, who have been firmly standing on the shoulders for quite some time for those prosecutions that will help with 1965 and 1986. I did want to just ask the minister one question about the compensation question. I know that I've been spoken to buy some members of the of the community of the rainbow community in particular, I just asked him that question around compensation. I understand firmly that that's not part of this. But I did want to know, so that I can report back to the community about why there wasn't a question of compensation raised plan. And also the difference between management and a pattern to because to normal people out there that don't sit here in the hallowed halls of Parliament, and they may not understand the difference between those two particular tools. So just a bit of clarification around that would also be very welcome. I'm happy to understand this is part of a of a of an international news movement of countries that are that are undertaking this process. I understand that our scheme is particularly mirrored on on the scheme that was put through in Australia. And we've gone aligned to a particular bill that way. Of course, it has been done in England and Wales too. So I was just trying to understand what exactly the differences were in those two, as I've only recently come come before this particular piece of legislation. So if we could just have a you have a wee bit of an explanation as to what the difference was between the England well situation and why we chose to align ourselves with the Australians. That'd be great. Thank you. Michael, the Honorable Alfred narrow. We should be now put. I call Gary. Thank you, Mr. Chairs want to take a very quick cool, and in fact, just a couple of questions, or supplementaries, I guess to me with that just sit down how many coffees questions, because they were all we're all we're on the same topics. The first was the representative and most important quite a number of times and you have answer questions when it's the physical I think it's actually is one of the most important causes, it's in the air because it actually allows the family members to be able to get some reconciliation for the past loved ones. I know that the staff, we asked if they should be some consideration about one scope for the family members. And I know that you asked that question, sir. But I'm wondering if there's been any consideration in specifically talking about clothes 15, three, and four. So first of all, the Secretary must decide as soon as regional practical, whether the person can represent the competitive person. Now I know that there's the consideration, but with the family and the other considerations as well. But is there any situation where they do lie, Miss Lisa, say, within that framework, and be a direct descendant, I a child or a grandchild, or a brother or a sister, that wouldn't necessarily be in a enable reps into the of that individual. And I guess that moves on to that fourth clause. Where it says the Secretary's decision must be based on with a representation concerned will be in the interests of the deceased convicted person. So I'm what circumstances and I know that the the, the circumstances of those individuals and their families would be quite varied and unique. So whether that comes down to an individual, looking at them Secretary look at them as individual separate from unique circumstances or whether there are a few boundaries, rules or regulations or considerations that are existing now, that will be applied and felt and used to filter before it got to the unique individual stage says the first question for the minister. And the second one also revolves around the non entitlement to compensation. And that question has been for a couple of times in the most of his answered and from what I can recall the most there his explained it by saying that it's the main reason if not the only reason is because it's quite problematic and not disagreeing with it at all. But I'm wondering if there has been consideration through the stick me face. We're the guidelines around compensation that already exists from the Ministry of Justice were used and or considered to justify no compensation or, and I know one of the clear Well, from what I've read of the what was on the on the Minister of Justice websites was the clear difference. I think one of the differences between the situation that we're talking about in this bill to normal compensation was that a, an individual was imprisoned because they broke the law. And and they found that they didn't break that law. Whereas in this situation, the law itself was expanded, even though they did break the law. So I know this sounds a little bit ambiguous. But I think that if they must have could explain whether or not that part of the concern of the Ministry of Justice guidelines were used or not, or whether it was just simply because it was problematic. And that was the end of the conversation. So those are the two questions and put them to the max. Thank you. Michael, the Honorable Andrew, thank you, Mr. Cheer. If I could just never respond to the lady set of queries. So to you want to remember time to coffee? Who has raised couple questions, one about compensation, effectively, why not? And perhaps I'll take the opportunity and answering those two coffees Christian. And also they are Paul's question. It was considered, as I understand it, occupied a significant amount of the committee's time to consider the issue of compensation. submitters raised it, and it's a legitimate question to ask, given that the law changed, people have been tagged with a criminal sanction for conduct it certainly is not criminal today, and we would argue should never have been criminal. But there was at least enlightened Agent 1986 we became enlightened. The difficulty with compensation is that they will be different circumstances for different people that might call for varying levels of compensation. And that being makes it very complex and very complicated. And so the decision was made, not to provide for compensation, it would be equally unfair to say, right, everybody gets the same amount of effort with the government reminded to do that. But that would not be to take into account the circumstances that some faced, for some, the humiliation I've been graded because of the nature of the erase the circumstances in which they were detained, the length of time they were incarcerated, and whether or not they were subjected to further prejudice and discrimination, wildlife and the state's custody. So huge complexity about a formula to achieve compensation. And in the end of judgment was that it was just to paint. I think Mr. Ball makes a very important point, which is that right now, we have compensation for those who are imprison wrongfully. And it is deemed discovered that the offense for which the prison they actually never committed, and never committed the act, which leads to the conviction that be to them being in prison. And they should be for never have been detained at all in prison, and are compensated for that. What we're doing here is saying that it was conducted was regarded as criminal conduct at once upon a time in our history, whether we agree with that or not now, we clearly disagree with it. Now, because of 1986, we passed a law saying that contract is no longer criminal. And now we're going to tighten the food this deeper saying those who were criminalized by their conduct, who are otherwise innocent, we are going to expand the record of that, that criminality. But the egg happened to conduct. And we can't, we might be able to change the criminal record, we can expand the exit and fake took place. And if I could turn to segues nicely into the second question asked by Mr. Coffee, which was the difference between an expansion into pattern, the experiment is of the criminal record, it sees, this record should not exist. We made the enlightened decision that even though you were convicted, because of the conduct that you engaged in, at a time in their conduct was criminal, it is no longer criminal, you should not continue to carry the shame and humiliation of a criminal record. Because in this day and age, we don't regard that conduct as criminal. So we will expand the record upon applies where you were accused of conduct, which was criminal, but your life discovered to him never committed their conduct, and therefore should never have been criminalized and it sort of way. So that is why we talk about punishment. And the circumstances, we don't talk about a partner, because the conduct in fact happened even though that conduct happening today, you know, would not would not be criminal would therefore not a trick criminal sanction. But but there is that difference. So, on that basis, I think the committee has done a very good job in distilling out what is the appropriate action to take. It is an experiment. And it gets us to where we are, I know Mr. Coffee referred to the petition that also called upon the parliament to make an apology to those convicted. And the honorable Amy Adams. He was a minister or she was the minister who took out this legislation originally sponsored it brought it to the house. And in the first reading, she provided the apology that was called for the petition. I think when we get to the third reading or night at underscore that because I think that is a legitimate thing to do. Hi, Michelle. I'm over the question been output. The question is that the question the now those are their opinion will say I will say no. The is heaven. The question is that parts one into shape yours one and two, and clauses one and to stand part. All those in favor say Aye. All those against say no. The eyes have it. I will report the bill with me. Members the house his resume. Metal speaker the committee is considered the criminal records expunged moment of conflict times for historical homosexual offenses bill and reports without amendment. I moved it to report be a doctor. Okay. If the question is that the report be adopted, as their opinion more Say hi to the country know, the eyes habit. The bill is sit down for food reading an exciting day. A call on government order of the day number two

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors.