Last week the Clean Slate Bill, legislation that wipes minor convictions from people’s records if they haven’t reoffended after 7 years, was passed by Parliament.

Well, not the Clean Slate Bill exactly. What actually passed was the Government's version, called the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. When my private member's Clean Slate Bill was introduced to the House, the Government decided it was such a good idea they had better think of it themselves!

I take it as a vote of confidence that the general approach of the law that was passed is very similar to my Clean Slate Bill, which took a pragmatic and realistic approach to concealing records, rather than trying to physically expunge the record. What it means is that, except under a few specific circumstances, someone's minor offences can no longer be revealed after seven conviction-free years, allowing people to get on with their lives and say, with all confidence, they are not a criminal.

It could have been better. My Bill would have applied to convictions that received a prison sentence of six months or less. Unfortunately the Government couldn't agree to that and their Bill only applies to non-custodial sentences. Take a look at sentencing history over the past few decades and you will see that 20 years ago people received small custodial sentences for the kinds of offences that you would receive diversion for today.

I regularly get emails from people who are affected by the minor convictions they received 20 or 30 years ago. I have a whole stack of letters from people who have written to me saying they are desperate for this legislation to pass into law so they can finally get on with their lives. One, for example, is from someone who never even offended in the first place but had, many decades ago, got caught up in an incident at a young and impressionable age. They naively pleaded guilty, resulting in being sentenced, under-age, to an adult prison for a simple disorderly behaviour charge. Even today, people such as this have to pay the penalty for some minor infringement, or for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, all those decades ago.

The Government's Bill was opposed by National, Act, NZ First and United Future. During the first reading of my earlier Bill Wayne Mapp of the National Party said he supported the principle involved and would have supported my Bill if it had applied to only non-custodial sentences. The Government's Bill does just that. It is a demonstration of the blatant inconsistency in the National Party position that they opposed this later legislation with venom, claiming it was tantamount to state-sanctioned lying. Interesting turnaround!

A similar parliamentary debate occurred in the 1980s. One Member of Parliament said then; "In New Zealand today a convicted offender bears an invisible version of the mark of Cain - his criminal record. Although he may be rehabilitated, reformed or an exemplary citizen, the offender cannot escape from his 'record prison'. He finds that a criminal record substantially decreases his alternatives in every walk of life."

Those words came from current Act leader Richard Prebble. So evidently, like National, Act employed selective amnesia in its attempts to derail the Bill. They failed. And it was lucky for the half-million New Zealanders that this legislation already affects that they did, because they can now get on with their lives.