Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12572] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that today we are debating a Government bill and the only contribution from Government members has been to stand and move a closure motion on what I would have considered from a Government’s point of view to be very important legislation. This is the first Committee stage debate today after the House has resumed following a 3-week adjournment and what do Government members do? They do not stand and debate the merits of the bill because they know in their own minds that this bill is flawed. Previous speakers have said that this bill is about lying. This bill encourages lying. It does not do away with the conviction. It does not expunge the conviction someone has. 
Judith Collins 
: Read the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If members read the bill as my colleague says they would realise that there is no expungement provision. All it does is wipe the slate clean hide the conviction under the carpet for a little while and then hope that everything will be OK. The important thing to remember is that New Zealanders are not as gullible as that. At the end of the day people who will be employing staff will want to know exactly what the position is. But with a clean-slate recipient as an employer can I ask that person whether he or she has any convictions? He or she will be able to say: “No” because under Part 2 when we get to it an employer cannot ask those sorts of questions. 
I will talk about that when we get to Part 2. The point is that clause 3(2) and this is the point where I finished in the previous debate states: “If an individual satisfies the relevant eligibility criteria—(a) he or she is deemed …”. One would expect that that meant that the individual was able to hide behind the clause and say “No” on the basis of clause 3(2) and that by saying that a conviction no longer existed. Of course in a legal sense that is absolute nonsense. We will be discussing that later on in Part 2. An employer asking the question: “Have you ever had a conviction?” is faced with a dilemma. After 7 years if a prospective employee has a clean slate he or she will be able to say: “No I haven’t.” 
When I employ people I am interested in honesty. I want to give an example of somebody I employed who took advantage of me. Because I was going away I wrote out a cheque that my employees would be able to use in an emergency and I signed it. I was probably wrong to do that but I trusted the people who worked for me. I should be able to do that. When I came back the cheque had gone. It was not until I got my bank statement that I saw a cheque had been written for $932. There was no account to justify a cheque for $932. When I went to the bank to find out who had presented the cheque I found it was one of my employees. What had the employee done with the money? That person had moved into a flat and paid a bond. The person had paid rent in advance and paid the current rent— 
Mark Peck 
: In your flat? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: In a flat that the person was renting. The situation here is that that person took advantage of me and of a privileged position. I had put the person in a position of trust and that person had lied about it to me. It was only through my going to my bank that I was able to discern it. Under this bill after 7 years that person will be able to hide the fact that he or she had his or her fingers in the till and was able to deceive somebody. That is why National is opposed to this bill.