It is now Government policy to lie
November 28th, 2004 at 9:36 pm by David FarrarAs at midnight tonight, we are now okay to lie according to the Government.
Labour and the Greens have passed an Orwellian law that doesn’t wipe criminal records but legalises lying by stating “An eligible individual may answer a question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record by stating that he or she has no criminal record”.
Even better there is a $10,000 fine if you ask someone if they have a criminal record that is covered by the clean slate scheme. This even includes for example political parties, so no longer can a political party ask a potential candidate to disclose all their criminal offending.
I have some sympathy for the problems an old and minor conviction can cause people, but I think the vast majority of people and employers will look on old convictions in their context and judge accordingly. This law removes the right of people to be told the truth and encourages lying.
Luckily we have the Internet which remains immune to Government mandated lying, and I suspect that in time one will still be able to find out about old convictions merely by Googling someone’s name. As far as I can tell there is nothing at all in the law to prevent someone to enter into a web database the details as reported in the media of every conviction, as they occur.
UPDATE: Excellent press release from Stephen Franks on the issue.
No tag for this post.
November 29th, 2004 at 7:21 am
I do not see how the internet is immune from the provisions of the Act. It is a publication like anything else. I think people are entitiled to get on with their lives if they have offended in some small way long in the past. I am not sure that the Act will be all that effective. But I guess if you have never got drunk, taken drugs and read the bible each night you may have escaped getting a criminal convictions. Stephen Franks should stick to commercial law. I have seen nothing but ignorance from him on criminal matters. He displays no understanding of the realities of human nature.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 8:11 am
The Clean Slate law only applies to convictions that did not result in a prison sentence – it’s unlikely that these minor offenses would be reported on, even in a community paper, and even more unlikely that they’d be picked up by a news service and published on the internet.
Some companies have a liberal attitude towards job applicants with criminal convictions, but in my experience (hiring IT contractors for government projects) many government departments have a zero tolerence policy to this issue. If you have a twenty year old (ie pre-diversion) conviction for shop-lifting then you CANNOT work for a significant number of New Zealand employers.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 8:55 am
People should just not get convictions to start with, then it wouldn’t be an issue. If you commit a crime then you should be prepared to face the consequences – including social repurcussions.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 9:16 am
‘People should just not get convictions to start with . . .’
And yet, for some mysterious reason, they still do . . .
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 9:21 am
Yes, but because people have convictions should we be taking them away after 7 years? I think not. People should think of the consequences before they do something illegal, not conceal them afterwards. It’s taking responsibility for your actions.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 10:10 am
The Internet is not so much immune, as not covered by the provisions which apply to official agencies etc. If the details are taken from media reports, then an archive of them is fine.
Besides one could simply host it overseas, even if it was covered.
I have often got drunk, admittedly have never ever taken drugs but also not read the bible for a few years, and have managed to avoid criminal convictions.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 11:21 am
Saw on 20/20 last night a brief article about a guy with 120 convictions since 1992. c.f. me with exactly zero. I guess I’m just really lucky and he’s really unlucky. Nothing whatsoever to do with character or volition.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 11:34 am
Dim, do you mean to say that a taxi or bus firm will have to employ as a driver a fellow who has half a dozen speeding fines, a couple of DIC convictions and a little dangerous driving thrown in but was never sent to jail? Just because it all happened seven years ago?
You are suffering from sledgehammer-itis. Your problem is that you really want the Govt to change its employment policy but you are not game to go out and openly campaign for the current bunch of crooks to employ even more crooks.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 11:57 am
Gaz – people who are convicted of a crime are held responsible for their actions. The judicial system punishes them – in the case of non-imprisonment usually with fines and community service.
The issue here is that in a just society the punishment is proportional to the crime. Preventing someone from getting a job today because they were arrested for smoking pot in the early nineties seems (to me) unfair.
As for Adolfs rather clumsy and confused point: No – a taxi company will not HAVE to employ your theoretical drunk driver, who will probably have had his license revoked and served a prison sentence for repeated DIC offenses. But if someone has convictions for dangerous driving as a teenager (and let’s be adults here, how many of us can say they didn’t deserve such a conviction at some time in their youth?) they won’t be disqualified for work as a taxi driver in their late twenties.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
I’m also amused by Stephen Franks hysterical claim about this act: ‘It is about nine, ten or fifteen second chances.’
Which, by my calculations, covers offenses committed over periods of 63, 70 and 105 years respectively. Mr Franks seems to have great confidence in the future of the New Zealand health service.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 12:34 pm
Dim – I think Stpehen is referring ot the fact that on average you can committ nine crimes before being sent to jail. So someone could commit 15 crimes from 1993 to 1997, and bang today it is not illegal to ask him or her about them.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 12:47 pm
Dim, thank you for your patronising answer in which you essentially concede the point while trying to cover your argument’s intellectual deficiency with waffle and bluster. If the guy did not do time he can’t be questioned. Fantastic.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
is it 100% correct that employers aren’t allowed to rty and find out if a perspective employee ahs had convictions and if the employer does make these attempts that the employer can be fined? If so then I must say that as an Employer it makes me a bit concerned that I have to make a decision without full disclosure and a lack of information. Smells of a Nando and Bradford kind of idea to me
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
Good on the Clean Slate Bill. It is welcome as a balance to all the crap, hoops and drama that it takes to endure job applications.
The focus has shifted from whether a person is able to do the job well or shows trainable potential. Nowadays it’s all about psychometric dogma, credit reports and piss-testing with the recruitment agency pimps.
The difficulty of firing someone makes employers insanely risk-averse when hiring. Once someone has been employed, it is damned near impossible to get rid of them. Planting child porn on their computers is the only sure way.
The Clean Slate Act should stick around as long as there are high fences around the job market.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
David – that’s a more sensible way to read it. Killjoy.
Adolf – I think your hypothetical petty serial offenders who stop for seven years in order to lull prospective employers into a false sense of security are about as realistic as Nandors imaginary pensioners who are still being discriminated against because of shop-lifting offenses in the fifties.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
Dim,in your short life, how many people have you employed? A simple answer, just a number, will do.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
Not a viable direction Adolf – like I said earlier, I used to be involved in IT contract recruitment and found roles for maybe fifty or sixty people over a two year period.
As previously stated I found it frustrating when I couldn’t put a good candidate in a position because of a mis-demeanor they’d committed decades earlier.
On reflection it seems to me that there are two problems with this bill. I think the ‘latency’ period should be slightly longer: ten years instead of seven; and I think the crime committed should be taken into account more than the severity of the sentence. It’s notoriously easy to avoid a prison penalty for white-collar crimes, and it seems unjust to prevent a prospective employeer from finding out about convictions for fraud or theft as a servent even after seven (or ten) years.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
Good on the Clean Slate Bill. It is welcome as a balance to all the crap, hoops and drama that it takes to endure job applications.
The focus has shifted from whether a person is able to do the job well or shows trainable potential. Nowadays it’s all about psychometric dogma, credit reports and piss-testing with the recruitment agency pimps.
The difficulty of firing someone makes employers insanely risk-averse when hiring. Once someone has been employed, it is damned near impossible to get rid of them. Planting child porn on their computers is the only sure way.
The Clean Slate Act should stick around as long as there are high fences around the job market.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 3:09 pm
Oops, doublepost
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 3:56 pm
David, in your post you mention “googling” the persons name, but according to the act NZ media (where most convictions, other than the most spectacular, will be listed) can not archive news stories that would allow you to find out thier prior convictions:
17.Offence to unlawfully disclose information required to be concealed
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 3:58 pm
I was just wondering how the law was ‘Orwellian’?
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 3:58 pm
Dim, what an interesting non answer. So you haven’t actually paid salay or wages from your own hard earned but you would foist onto real time employers, people who have convictons for fraud or theft as a servant and clipo their ticket on the way past! Need I say more? Just another piece of lunacy which will be repealed at the first opportunity.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 3:58 pm
I can’t see any reason why, when you have done the time for your crime, there needs to be a record of it that can be held against you for the rest of your natural life (and beyond). Once you have repaid your debt to society, the slate should be clean, as in spic and span clean.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 3:59 pm
Maybe the “no prison term” provision was a blunt instrument. Perhaps we could have separate categories of crime (misdemeanour vs felony).
Fraud could be felony, so even if there was no prison term, the Clean Slate Bill wouldn’t cover it. Shoplifting (etc) could be a misdemeanour, so even if it got a prison term, it would be covered.
Or, alternativley, the judge could decide on sentencing if an offence is to count as a misdemeanour or felony.
This would give the Clean Slate Bill context, rather than blunt-instrument inflexibility.
Any thoughts?
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 4:13 pm
‘What about those books containing sex offenders lists that do not restrict themselves to just those “specified offences” that you can’t conceal?’
Maybe I’m being naive but I like to think a conviction for a serious sexual offense would result in a prison sentence.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 4:13 pm
‘What about those books containing sex offenders lists that do not restrict themselves to just those “specified offences” that you can’t conceal?’
Maybe I’m being naive but I like to think a conviction for a serious sexual offense would automatically result in a prison sentence.
Vote:November 29th, 2004 at 4:20 pm
Yes Adolf a Taxi owner could in ignorance employ John Tamihere (3 drunken driving convictions and numerous speeding charges, as a driver. A Logging contractor could employ the young lout who owes $43,000 in traffic fines to drive a fifty ton rig.
Vote:Kapiti people recall the long running saga of “Burglar Bill,” who over almost a decade eluded Police identification and capture. While much is made of the term ‘Minor Offence” Prison is never imposed for first offences of burglary, car theft,assault, etc and as Stephen Franks says offenders are hardened and have appeared many times before the court before prison is even considered. An offender with a clean slate over seven years has seldom been inactive over that time. With burglars and fraudsters especially expertise comes with experience. The Annual Police clearance rate is less than 20% and it is usually only the mugs that get caught..
November 29th, 2004 at 7:12 pm
As I said David you have been lucky not to commit an offence while you have been drunk or more likely you have not been charged. You are also lucky that your friends and family are not a member of the criminal class especially your family. Many many people of good character slip up usually when they have been drinking, that is the realities of human nature unless you are a Stephen Franks. I like Stephen but I think he should stick to Law Reform issues.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 8:15 am
“I can’t see any reason why, when you have done the time for your crime, there needs to be a record of it that can be held against you for the rest of your natural life (and beyond). Once you have repaid your debt to society, the slate should be clean, as in spic and span clean.”
Well Hans, that
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 8:29 am
” lucky not to commit an offence ”
FFS! Drunk driver? Indecent public exposer? Chronic D&D’er? Not your fault mate! You have just been unlucky.
Nothing is anybody’s damn fault, is it?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 9:10 am
Yes I repeat lucky because everyone slips up or at least most do. That is based on my experience knowing professional people and business people and coming from a family that is similar. I agree I do not know nuns and other totally pure types, just good average kiwis. Kimble your day of getting caught breaking the law is coming and I cannot wait to see you ask for mercy, unless of course you do not drink at all (I do not). I bet you have one weakness which exposes you to risk. For most people it is drinking too much and then driving. I do not know one person who has not done that (but they have not got caught).
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 9:39 am
Tim your comment seems to be rather poorly thought through – if ‘everyone’ ‘slips up’ then the social stigma associated with a minor conviction wouldn’t exist, and therefore the bill would be entirely unnessary.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 9:48 am
There are people like you and Stephen Franks who have a prejudice against people who may have a minor conviction. Or possibly poeple can use it as an excuse to discriminate against soemone because they have another unspecified problem such as racism, or they are homophobic. For instance they suspect soemeone is gay but they decline their job application becuase they have a conviction for excess breath alcohol and use that as the excuse. Many maori have convictions for instance and that can be used as a way to discrimiinate against them.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 9:58 am
People know that if they are caught for doing a crime they get a permanant record. So people should not have a way to hide their past. I would be most upset if I employed a thief for a cashiers job because his 5 shoplifting offences had been hidden and he hadn’t been caught in the last 7 years. People like that shouldn’t have jobs where they are responsible for cash, it’s as simple as that.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:01 am
In yet another assault on the norms of a stable society, the iron fist of the state has removed a perfectly valid form of social stigma. Stigma is useful for establishing norms of behaviour; breaking the law ought to have consequences. It is better to have a policeman in peoples heads than secret police on every street corner.
Any law that denies or hides the truth is poor law. People do suffer, but that is life. Why not legislate to make IQ and physical ability illegal criteria to judge job applicants? Many people suffer poor physical and intellectual abilities. The vicissitudes of life are unfair to them also!
But criminal behaviour is a result of a free choice. Just like much of Labour’s weird legislation, morality is inverted making it a crime to tell the truth.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:10 am
JFhC Tim! Do you realise what you said?
You implied that this law is needed so that white men can no longer use a minor conviction to discriminate on the base of race or sexuality. So to avoid this discrimination you think it is ok to pass a law banning discrimination based on minor criminal convictions. If your cat pees on the carpet do you kick your dog in the nuts?!
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:12 am
tim, the term ‘prejudice’ is incorrect when examining people who have already been convicted and judged by the legal system.
‘post-judice’ would be a more accurate term and sounds like a perfectly sensible approach to deciding whether a job applicant is suitable.
Your caricature of employers as racist/homophobic is an idiotic attempt at mind reading your opponents and creating a conspiracy theory. Nobody is out to ‘get’ you.
I think contributors on this forum are concerned that people should take responsibility for their actions. Your smear tactics are tiresome.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:15 am
Hey Tim! Just found out something disturbing I thought you should know about. Employers discriminate on the supposed basis of qualifications! I applied for a job last week that requires a HT licence. I dont have one, but I found out today that a Maori woman got the job ahead of me! White males just cant catch a break in this unjust universe, dammit!
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:24 am
The government estimates that about 1/2 a million New Zealanders will be affected by the law, suggesting that minor criminal offenses are not as rare or difficult to be arrested for as some posters may think.
I also think that anyone claiming that they’ve ‘never done anything wrong’ either have shockingly selective memories or are largely incapable of enjoying life. Imagine being a teenager and never making any spectacularly stupid mistakes! No thanks.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 10:59 am
God I have done many things wrong, and will probably continue to do on a regular basis.
Whether they are criminally wrong is another issue though.
Also remember Police give diversion for one off minor offending.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 11:20 am
Jeezus Tim what a load of utter shite – its the blame someone else, its not our fault, they are out to discriminate against us menatality that is the reason that we (I’m Ngati Raukawa) are in the position that we are in. As an employer I don’t care if a prospective employee is a Pakeha, Maori, Coconut or a Chinaman or straight or a homo as long as he or she does the job and fits in with the rest of the people working there and is going to make our firm dough. I do care though if they are going to try to rip me off – and if they have tried it in the past then I am going to be pretty suspect of them. What next – are we not allowed to use Baynet checks to assess credit risk?
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 11:22 am
Now that the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the liberal do-gooders has subsided slightly, let me say again that this ridiculous law is an excuse for those who really want to change the employment policy of a few employers, one of which is Her Majesty’s Govt. It is far wiser and more practical for applicants to be required to disclose their records if asked. The fact is, most employers are practical people and will still employ the hapless person, provided the past behaviour does not give the employer fear of damaging repetition. Is that a sufficiently ponderous explanation for Dim, Tim, Sim et al?
Question. If I employ a person who has concealed convicitions for fraud or theft as a servant and my new employee proceeds to do me for a few thousand dollars, can I sue the dickheads who voted for this law? No? Oh well, that’s a few hundred more small businessmen who will flee across the Tasman to a saner clime.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 11:35 am
Looks like I have provoked a reaction. Oh well all you perfect types who have never done anything wrong continue to live your perfect lives. Do you ever imagine how difficult it is in our over-regulated society just how difficult it is to keep within the huge body of law we have and ignorance is no excuse. Where are all you people who have made toll calls at your employer’s expence. Or taken home that employers’ pen or paper, stolen time by taking a sickie, or put a boozie lunch with your friends and booked it as an business luch or taken something from the Hotel you have stayed in. Oh well none of you have done that, you are all angels yeah right, you have not got caught thats all and when you get caught, you will want mercy.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 11:52 am
Tim, your a dolt. Nobody here has claimed to be perfect. When was the last time ANYONE pulled a sickie and it ended up in a conviction without jail time?
You continue to fail to address a single complaint about this idiotic law. Reread every post again before responding with an intelligent counter point for a an argument put forward.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
Tim, your ears are blocked. My first real employer was Shell Co of Australia. I joined in 1970 and every six months of the seven years I was there, every employee of all ranks was required to sign a declaration acknowledging that falsification of any document would result in summary dismissal. It was great training and I saw some spectacular dismissals, all of which were completely justified. No, I have never actually done any of the naughty things you mentioned ecause they are all so petty and small minded. So, I suggest you grow up a little, rethink your muddled set of ethics and recognise that one’s actions can have far reaching consequences.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:07 pm
‘that’s a few hundred more small businessmen who will flee across the Tasman to a saner clime.’
Australia has already enacted very similar legislation and it’s economy has – thus far- failed to collapse in an orgy of looting and embezzelment. Ditto for Canada and the UK.
‘I have never actually done any of the naughty things you mentioned . . .’
I find it unlikely that a guy who chooses to go by the name ‘Adolf’ has lived a life entirely free of blame.
I’d also like to distance myself from Tims argument that all criminals should have the slate wiped clean after they’ve served their prison time – this is not desirable nor practical. And it’s not what the Clean Slate Bill is trying to do.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:07 pm
‘that’s a few hundred more small businessmen who will flee across the Tasman to a saner clime.’
Australia has already enacted very similar legislation and it’s economy has – thus far- failed to collapse in an orgy of looting and embezzelment. Ditto for Canada and the UK.
‘I have never actually done any of the naughty things you mentioned . . .’
I find it unlikely that a guy who chooses to go by the name ‘Adolf’ has lived a life entirely free of blame.
I’d also like to distance myself from Tims argument that all criminals should have the slate wiped clean after they’ve served their prison time – this is not desirable nor practical. And it’s not what the Clean Slate Bill is trying to do.
Vote:November 30th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
Dim, did I say I am blameless? No, simply that your list of misdemeanours is a bit puerile. If you are going to pinch something you might as well go for the Crown Jools as stuff around charging up a personal lunch to the firm. I recall in some service stations, staff would almost insist that they added a few bob to the receipt “for the cheat sheet” at the end of the month. It was a matter of pride never to do it. I saw the internal auditors walk into a senior manager’s office, with his superior in tow, and dismiss the manager for falsly claiming twice the cost of a regular grease and oil change for his company car. The man’s superior could not intercede and the man was fired on the spot and driven home. Why would you be stupid enough to risk your career for a lousy twenty buck lunch? What angers me is the phlosophy which says this is OK and worse still, legislates to tolerate it. Shell had the view in those days that if its staff would defraud the compnay on a small scale then the company could have no confidence the same staff would be honest with its clients. I must say the same company had an unwritten rule about female staff. “Thou shalt only employ dogs.” Then the blokes will get on with their work and the gals won’t spend all day preening themselves. You could recommend that to your public service mates in Wellington, or have they already cottoned on?.
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 8:14 am
I think people need a second chace if they have lived a blameless existence. It is simply recognising the realities of human nature. It is not uncommon for someone to grope someone while drunk at a party. If they are unlucky the victim presses an indecent assault charge. An unwelcome kiss is an indecent assault and people have been convicted for that. Now should that stay on the books forever? Believe me it is easier than you think for people of good character to get a criminal conviction.
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 9:35 am
Tim, you should really wait for other people to say that you have good character. It doesnt look good if you go ahead and do it yourself. FYI.
Vote:December 1st, 2004 at 7:22 pm
Not sure I understand your point Kimble. I was using you in a general sense. I find the use of “one” to be rather pompous. But I presume you have no sympathy for the point I was making. Oh well we will see won’t we, the Xmas season is coming up and I guarantee someone will grope someone at an office party and then we will see if they are charged with indecent assault. As I said it does not take much to be an indecent assault: a kiss, pinching a bottom, groaping tits, and more. The law reports all have cases holding these actions to be indecent assaults.
Vote:December 7th, 2004 at 5:26 pm
Last word!
Vote: