Franks Stephen: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12578] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am very glad to follow the member for United Future. I heard the passion in his voice when he said that people are sick of a Government that not only condones lying and not only ignores offending but in this case is getting Parliament to instruct Government departments to lie. This Government is a lying Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is a longstanding member of this Parliament and he knows that that was totally out of order. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Chairman I draw your attention to the provisions of this bill. This bill requires the Government to lie. I will not withdraw that statement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member referred to the Government as “a lying Government” and that is totally out of order. It is a reflection on all members of the Chamber and therefore it is out of order. I ask the member to withdraw. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Government is not the legislature; the Government in this case is the executive. This bill requires the executive to lie. I was referring to what this bill does. I did not say “the members of this House”; I said “the Government” and I meant the Government. I am quite happy to make it clear that in this case this bill requires the Government to lie to anyone who asks about these criminal records. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that referring to the Government is the same as referring to a member. There is a Speaker’s ruling on this situation. I now ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am very clear on what Mr Franks is trying to say because we have been debating for the last hour what this bill actually does. This is a Government bill. This is being promoted by the Government and when he is referring to the Government he is referring to the way that this bill is being presented. It is not a slight on members of this Committee; it is a very clear statement that this bill being a Government bill falls into the category of a bill that promotes and allows for lying—that is what the essence of the bill is about. I believe that Mr Franks is correct in what he is asserting. There is no defamation and no slight on any member of this Committee. He is making a very clear statement and he should be able to proceed with his debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I understand exactly where the member is coming from but implying that the Government was acting improperly and using the terminology that Mr Franks did is a reflection not only on the Government but also on every member in the Chamber and that is far from the truth. I am asking Mr Franks to give serious consideration to that because he is a longstanding member and I am sure he is aware of that. I now ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I withdraw and apologise. This bill requires the chief executives of Government departments that hold or have access to criminal records—in the cute words of the drafter of this bill—to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they conceal the “criminal records of eligible individuals when requests are made for their disclosure” and to not use the criminal records. This bill would mean that Work and Income New Zealand would not even be able to use its own knowledge to prevent the woman who recently got away with several million dollars of the department’s money—who had previous convictions which it turned out were known to the department—from being re-employed. The chief executive would have to take steps to make sure the department lied even to itself. Can members imagine anything more fatuous? 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff knows that this bill requires lying. The drafting changed between the introduction copy of the bill and the draft that we are now looking at but the effect is still the same. The effect is that when people are asked about their criminal record this bill states that they should say they do not have one. There is a penalty of $20000 for anyone who corrects that and a penalty of $10000 for somebody who tries to go behind that. This bill tells New Zealanders that the past never happened. 
This bill is from a Government that pretends to be worried about harsh sentencing. What can a community do when all the informal sanctions against offending such as reputation—the very first line of defence for most communities—are gone? 
We want young people to know that truth will out that honesty pays that cheats do not prosper—all of those things that depend on reputation—but the Government is now saying: “Don’t worry about your reputation we’ll hide it for you. Not only will we hide it for you we will instruct you to hide it and we will punish people who try to find out the truth.” This is not compassion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with compassion. Compassion is the act of people who say: “We know about your past and we forgive and forget.” This bill states that the Government will now decide people do not get that chance.