relation to activities that today would not attract a criminal
sanction. Those things are covered off. Once again I thank members
for their questions. I
look forward to the ongoing discussion.
I
the ongoing discussion. I call the Hon Clare Curran.
Thank
I call the Hon Clare Curran. Thank Madam Chair. I feel
proud and hum to take a call on this bill,
such
hum to take a call on this bill, such a necessary piece of
legislation
such a necessary piece of legislation in the healing process
which
legislation in the healing process which continues around this stigma
that
which continues around this stigma that has persisted despite the
1986 piece of legislation but the
stigma that has been suffered by people who
are
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.
being themselves by previous criminal convictions. I feel proud
of the whole of
criminal convictions. I feel proud of the whole of this Parliament and
the Parliament of New
of the whole of this Parliament and the Parliament of New Zealand
that we are taking this step. I've got
some
we are taking this step. I've got some specific questions around
section
some specific questions around
which was inserted at the select committee process,
committee process, around the offence to require or request that
individual disregard expungement.
offence to require or request that individual disregard expungement. I
note that again the
individual disregard expungement. I note that again the purpose of the
bill to reduce
note that again the purpose of the bill to reduce prejudice,
still ma and all the other negative effects
arising
and all the other negative effects arising from a conviction for
historical
arising from a conviction for historical homosexual offence, but
the
historical homosexual offence, but the select committee obviously felt
concerned enough
the select committee obviously felt concerned enough to want to insert
a new clause. I don't know whether
that was
new clause. I don't know whether that was as a result of good
work just by the select
committee members, thinking
members, thinking of the unintended consequences or whether this came
from
consequences or whether this came from submissions,
from submissions, the 37 submissions, but the concern that
in some situations even if a conviction
had
some situations even if a conviction had been successfully
expunged that people might be
required to disclose the fact of the conviction. So the
insertion
the fact of the conviction. So the insertion of clause 13 (a) makes it
an explicit
insertion of clause 13 (a) makes it an explicit offence to require or
request
an explicit offence to require or request an individual to
disregard the effect of expungement under
this bill. So my question to the chair,
to the minister in the chair is around the problem definition around
that
around the problem definition around
circumstances where in actual cases where it was concerned this kind of
behaviour
where it was concerned this kind of behaviour would occur and
also what would be the process for actually
enacting
would be the process for actually enacting that
would be the process for actually
thought that went into that and I will remind the House that clause
13 (a) has two parts to it
and the first part, the person commits an
offence if that person
first part, the person commits an offence if that person requires or
requests that
offence if that person requires or requests that an individual
disregards
requests that an individual disregards the effective expungement
under the act, when
disregards the effective expungement under the act, when answering
a question about
question about the individual's criminal history or disclosing
information
criminal history or disclosing information concerning convictions
of the individual or both or that they disregard
they disregard the effective expungement under this act. So it
sounds
expungement under this act. So it sounds as if it is blatant disregard
for
sounds as if it is blatant disregard for this legislation, what it stands
for and there
for this legislation, what it stands for and there is still the
prejudice that exists partly in
this community, where there are people
who
community, where there are people who would disregard and if they did
p then, as
who would disregard and if they did p then, as point two, that a
person commits an offence, is liable to a
conviction
commits an offence, is liable to a conviction on a fine not exceeding
into how that would be enacted and what would the recourse be. If they
wanted
what would the recourse be. If they wanted to get their conviction they
have
wanted to get their conviction they have to apply, am I correct, to the
minister and how
have to apply, am I correct, to the minister and how do you
get that offence
minister and how do you get that
through the minister to be referred to the court or is there some other
question I have for the chair on this bill. I certainly am not
disagreeing
this bill. I certainly am not disagreeing with clause 13
(a), it obviously showed good thinking by
the
obviously showed good thinking by the select committee members, but
I, on reading through it, and
of course not having been at the
select committee, am unsure about how
that actually played out. Other
than that, this is t
other than having that question answered, this is an
extremely important piece of legislation, part
legislation, part of the healing process. I commend it to the House.
I
process. I commend it to the House. I call Dr Duncan Webb. Madam Chair
it's a short point I would like to put to the minister. It is around
clause 5
put to the minister. It is around clause 5 of the act which defines
historical homosexual offences.
clause 5 of the act which defines historical homosexual offences. My
concern is that
historical homosexual offences. My concern is that there are a
number of offences which may have been led
to
of offences which may have been led to conviction but which don't fall
within