IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO WIPE SLATES CLEAN

The potential to erase indiscretions from the record book is a strong
incentive for treading the straight and narrow. Drivers with demerit points
against their names know only too well the wisdom of obeying the law until
road rules' equivalent of the sword of Damocles no longer hovers over them.
Given the obvious psychology at work, it seems logical that the clean slate
principle could be usefully extended.

Such, indeed, is the meritorious thrust of Nandor Tanczos' private member's
bill, which on Wednesday was referred to Parliament's justice and electoral
select committee.

The Clean Slate Bill, if enacted, would see minor convictions wiped from
criminal records if a person had not reoffended for seven years.

While the demerit points system works across society, this expunction would
undoubtedly have its biggest impact on the young.

The bill effectively suggests that people should be able to put the
mistakes of their youth behind them. The common tendency to offend between
the ages of 15 and 25 would no longer be held against people for life, a
welcome development for those for whom maturity has wrought a lifestyle
change which renders earlier convictions irrelevant.

That transformation is, unfortunately, not recognised by the Customs
authorities of many overseas countries.

A youthful indiscretion, whether it be the non-payment of a fine,
shoplifting or the possession of a small amount of cannabis, is enough to
see the offender boarding the first available flight back to New Zealand.
In other instances, a youthful mistake may count against a person's job
prospects.

Such hurdles are not placed before young Australians and Britons, who enjoy
the benefit of clean slate law. Seven years, says Mr Tanczos, should be
long enough to carry the criminal stigma for a minor offence.

Critics of the bill suggest that individuals should be able to judge for
themselves whether they forgive and forget another's indiscretions. An
employer may find a particular relevance in a prospective employee's
indiscretion, given the nature of the job. However, the bill applies only
to those offences for which the sentences were less than six months in prison.

In laying down and persevering with that sentence, society has deemed the
offence to be no more than a misdemeanour.

It surely makes sense to provide an incentive that reduces the chances of
the offence being repeated.

And seven years is a lengthy period to stay within the confines of the law.
It could yet be, however, that the non-reoffending period is stretched to
10 years.

The Greens have effectively beaten the Government to the punch by securing
the introduction of the legislation. A year ago, Justice Minister Phil Goff
said he was keen to see such a law. It would be based on legislation first
proposed by Labour in 1990 and dropped when National took power a year later.

That legislation dictated that people would have to keep out of trouble for
at least 10 years, a point that may have been in Mr Goff's mind when he
indicated that amendments to the Clean Slate Bill were likely.

If that appeals more to the doubters, it will do little to undermine
youthful applause for Mr Tanczos' initiative. For him, the bill is as
shrewd politically as it is a welcome improvement to the justice system.

The puff has gone out of his pet projects - amendment of the legal status
of cannabis and decriminalisation of possession of small amounts of the
drug. Likewise, the tide is running against the Greens' justice policy,
which favours rehabilitation centres and diversion schemes and reserves
prison terms for the most violent criminals.

The likes of Paul Dally and Taffy Hotene have ensured that wherever there
is doubt, far greater emphasis will be placed on the protection of society
than any notions of rehabilitation. For Mr Tanczos, however, the Clean
Slate Bill is a means of keeping the youth vote gravitating his way.

In the wake of the Mark Middleton saga, there is potential for this
legislation to be painted as a measure that too readily excuses criminal
behaviour.

That would be a shame.

There is a world of difference between youthful misdemeanours and violent
crime.

People should not continue to be penalised for behaviour that they have
left well behind them.