Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12575] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous speech highlights the importance of a short and succinct minority report that cannot possibly be distorted because there was a clear distortion on that previous speaker’s part in so far as the National Party minority report was concerned. I will leave it to National Party members to take that issue up. 
My concern is about clause 15 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill and how originally in the clause there needed to be a police vetting under the Education Act 1989 where a position was required to be carried out through the New Zealand Teachers Council. That requirement has been removed by the Labour Party minority Government supported by the Greens. The Labour Government and the Greens do not want police vetting for people who apply for registration by the New Zealand Teachers Council for jobs as teachers. Today it is mandatory in I think every school in New Zealand for a teacher to be registered. Teacher registration is compulsory. As part of getting a teacher registration there should be a police vetting as to one’s character. As I see it that provision has been removed from the bill and now anyone can become registered as a teacher without that vetting taking place. I think that is a weakness in this legislation. 
 I see that Mr Worth will move an amendment in that regard and New Zealand First will support that amendment because there is clearly a defect in the bill as reported back by the minority Labour Government and its supporters the Greens. I am not too surprised at the Greens supporting something like that but for the Labour Party which has a lot of support from teaching groups to allow an alteration to the bill that allows primary teachers secondary teachers and people who would normally be registered as teachers not to be vetted for registration purposes in this day and age is absolutely appalling. 
Stephen Franks 
: They’re thinking of their caucus. They’re thinking of the future. 
DAIL JONES 
: It does require the commission of an offence and that is too much of a long bow for me. Broadly speaking how can the Labour Party allow this to happen? How can the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association and all those other bodies that want to maintain high professional standards allow a situation to exist whereby people can say: “Yes you registered as a teacher but you were not properly vetted were you?”. 
Anyone can become a teacher these days. People may have committed all sorts of offences and they can still become a teacher these days as a result of the way in which the Labour Party does things. Under new clause 14A it is an offence to require someone to disregard this scheme. One can be fined $10000. I think that any school—not just private schools—wants to make sure of the character of people applying for jobs. If principals chief executives or employing officers of schools say they do not care what is in the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill and that they want to know whether someone has a criminal record they can be fined up to $10000. I hope the various schools will make the point known to employing staff that now in trying to make sure that the quality of staff is beyond dispute they can end up with a fine of $10000. 
That is absolutely appalling but it shows the standard of this minority Labour Government and standard of the Greens. How low can they possibly go in this day and age? The Labour Party and the Greens are showing just how low they can go. 
The other issue I mentioned earlier was with regard to the trustworthiness of staff. Speaking as a lawyer I know that lawyers have to deal a lot with trust account money and we want to make sure that people’s money is safe. When lawyers are employing people they cannot now ask applicants whether they have committed an offence. We want to make sure that lawyers’ money is not stolen by either lawyers or their staff and in this case staff involved with lawyers are not allowed to ask people who are coming for a job whether they have ever had a previous criminal conviction especially for theft. 
That affects lawyers’ insurance policies. When lawyers take out an insurance policy they have to talk about the trustworthiness and honesty of their staff. Now the overseas companies that give insurance to law firms in New Zealand cannot rely on the information that is given to lawyers and lawyers’ insurance premiums will go up as a result. No one can be certain when dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars whether staff are honest or dishonest.