This NZ Law Aims To Give People With Criminal Convictions A ‘Clean Slate'. It's Not Working
Article – The Conversation
If you own a business, would you be willing to hire a person who has been convicted for a crime? Give them a chance when a background check shows they have a criminal record?
The answers matter for both individuals and communities. For people who have paid their debt to society, rejoining it can hinge on getting a second chance without being judged on their past.
It is not something they can really hide. Employers often conduct criminal background checks as part of the hiring process. People with criminal records face high levels of stigmatisation, making it harder to reenter their communities and make money legally.
The thorny question of what to do with people with convictions when it comes to employment has been considered by policymakers and justice campaigners around the world.
In the United States, more than 27 states have introduced ' Ban the Box ' legislation. While each law is unique, by and large they have eliminated the requirement to provide criminal background information in job applications.
And a number of countries, including New Zealand, have implemented clean slate initiatives which help conceal criminal records for people who meet certain criteria.
Our new research looks at whether New Zealand's clean slate scheme increases the job prospects for eligible people.
The clean slate reform was introduced as the Criminal Records Act in 2004. People who were previously convicted of minor offences can now have their criminal records automatically concealed if they can maintain a conviction-free record for seven years after their last sentence.
The regulation excludes people who were involved in a serious offence (such as sexual misconduct) or who received a particularly punitive sentence (such as incarceration or an indefinite disqualification from driving).
Clean slate and the labour market
Our research started with the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), hosted by Statistics New Zealand (StatsNZ). This is a repository of records provided by different public and private agencies, including court charge data from the Ministry of Justice and tax records from Inland Revenue.
StatsNZ uses specific characteristics of individuals (such as name and birth date) to identify them across the different datasets. This enables researchers to track the same individual's data footprint across different administrative records.
We used court charges data on all men convicted between 1992 and 2003 who had fulfilled the clean slate eligibility criteria. We then linked this pool of people with their Inland Revenue records to measure their employment and earnings.
To identify the labour market impact of the clean slate policy, we compared the employment and earnings of those who completed their seven-year rehabilitation period (the treatment group) with individuals who become eligible some time later (control group).
Limited benefits of clean slate scheme
Our analysis found the clean slate scheme has no relevant impact on the likelihood of eligible individuals finding work. This could result from the length of time required between sentencing and being eligible for a clean slate. Seven years could simply be too long.
But the clean slate scheme did create at least a 2% increase in eligible workers' monthly wages and salaries – equivalent to a NZ$100 hike for an individual with an average monthly salary of $5,000.
The increase in monthly earnings appears to be greater for workers with a stronger commitment to working and for those who remain with one company for longer periods.
Global patterns
The labour market effects of concealing past convictions have also been explored in the US. Recent research looked at a policy enacted in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Bexar County, Texas. Mirroring our own results, the authors do not find any relevant impact on gaining employment.
Our findings indicate the concealment of past convictions through New Zealand's clean slate scheme might happen too late to make a huge difference. But there are changes that can be made to improve work outcomes for people who have completed their sentences.
This could include following the example of countries such as Finland, where access to criminal histories is much more restricted. In Finland, the background check has to be directly relevant to the job requirements. For example, the law allows checks for someone applying to work in the financial sector who was convicted of fraud.
There would also be benefits from looking at the eligibility criteria for New Zealand's clean slate scheme.
Currently, it only applies to people who committed a minor offence. But policymakers should consider whether it makes sense to expand the policy to people who committed more serious crimes but managed to turn their life around. Making this change would allow people to reap the benefits of working without stigma.
All that said, the government's current 'tough on crime' stance makes change unlikely, with a focus on the cost of crime rather than what happens after punishment has been completed.
Disclosure statement
Kabir Dasgupta is affiliated with the Federal Reserve Board. The opinions expressed in this article does not reflect the views of the the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Reserve System.
Alexander Plum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
One Bad Rainstorm Away From Disaster: Why Proposed Changes To Forestry Rules Won't Solve The ‘Slash' Problem
Article – The Conversation Even when forestry companies fully comply with current standards, slash discharge and erosion can happen. New rules must set size and location limits on clear-felling. The biggest environmental problems for commercial plantation forestry in New Zealand's steep hill country are discharges of slash (woody debris left behind after logging) and sediment from clear-fell harvests. During the past 15 years, there have been 15 convictions of forestry companies for slash and sediment discharges into rivers, on land and along the coastline. Such discharges are meant to be controlled by the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry, which set environmental rules for forestry activities such as logging roads and clear-fell harvesting. The standards are part of the Resource Management Act (RMA), which the government is reforming. The government revised the standards' slash-management rules in 2023 after Cyclone Gabrielle. But it it is now consulting on a proposal to further amend the standards because of cost, uncertainty and compliance issues. We believe the proposed changes fail to address the core reasons for slash and sediment discharges. We recently analysed five convictions of forestry companies under the RMA for illegal discharges. Based on this analysis, which has been accepted for publication in the New Zealand Journal of Forestry, we argue that the standards should set limits to the size and location of clear-felling areas on erosion-susceptible land. Why the courts convicted 5 forestry companies In the aftermath of destructive storms in the Gisborne district during June 2018, five forestry companies were convicted for breaches of the RMA for discharges of slash and sediment from their clear-fell harvesting operations. These discharges resulted from landslides and collapsed earthworks (including roads). There has been a lot of criticism of forestry's performance during these storms and subsequent events such as Cyclone Gabrielle. However, little attention has been given to why the courts decided to convict the forestry companies for breaches of the RMA. The courts' decisions clearly explain why the sediment and slash discharges happened, why the forestry companies were at fault, and what can be done to prevent these discharges in future on erosion-prone land. New Zealand's plantation forest land is ranked for its susceptibility to erosion using a four-colour scale, from green (low) to red (very high). Because of the high erosion susceptibility, additional RMA permissions (consents) for earthworks and harvesting are required on red-ranked areas. New Zealand-wide, only 7% of plantation forests are on red land. A further 17% are on orange (high susceptibility) land. But in the Gisborne district, 55% of commercial forests are on red land. This is why trying to manage erosion is such a problem in Gisborne's forests. Key findings from the forestry cases In all five cases, the convicted companies had consents from the Gisborne District Council to build logging roads and clear-fell large areas covering hundreds or even thousands of hectares. A significant part of the sediment and slash discharges originated from landslides that were primed to occur after the large-scale clear-fell harvests. But since the harvests were lawful, these landslides were not relevant to the decision to convict. Instead, all convictions were for compliance failures where logging roads and log storage areas collapsed or slash was not properly disposed of, even though these only partly contributed to the collective sediment and slash discharges downstream. The court concluded that: Clear-fell harvesting on land highly susceptible to erosion required absolute compliance with resource consent conditions. Failures to correctly build roads or manage slash contributed to slash and sediment discharges downstream. Even with absolute compliance, clear-felling on such land was still risky. This was because a significant portion of the discharges were due to the lawful activity of cutting down trees and removing them, leaving the land vulnerable to landslides and other erosion. The second conclusion is critical. It means that even if forestry companies are fully compliant with the standards and consents, slash and sediment discharges can still happen after clear-felling. And if this happens, councils can require companies to clean up these discharges and prevent them from happening again. This is not a hypothetical scenario. Recently, the Gisborne District Council successfully applied to the Environment Court for enforcement orders requiring clean-up of slash deposits and remediation of harvesting sites. If the forestry companies fail to comply, they can be held in contempt of court. Regulations are not just red tape This illustrates a major problem with the standards that applies to erosion-susceptible forest land everywhere in New Zealand, not just in the Gisborne district. Regulations are not just 'red tape'. They provide certainty to businesses that as long as they are compliant, their activities should be free from legal prosecution and enforcement. The courts' decisions and council enforcement actions show that forestry companies can face considerable legal risk, even if compliant with regulatory requirements for earthworks and harvesting. Clear-felled forests on erosion-prone land are one bad rainstorm away from disaster. But with well planned, careful harvesting of small forest areas, this risk can be kept at a tolerable level. However, the standards and the proposed amendments do not require small clear-fell areas on erosion-prone land. If this shortcoming is not fixed, communities and ecosystems will continue to bear the brunt of the discharges from large-scale clear-fell harvests. To solve this problem, the standards must proactively limit the size and location of clear-felling areas on erosion-prone land. This will address the main cause of catastrophic slash and sediment discharges from forests, protecting communities and ecosystems. And it will enable forestry companies to plan their harvests with greater confidence that they will not be subject to legal action. Disclosure statement Mark Bloomberg receives funding from the government's Envirolink fund and from local authorities and forestry companies. He is a member of the NZ Institute of Forestry and the NZ Society of Soil Science. Steve Urlich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Taxes will have to increase to cope with ageing population, government spending
The IRD has warned government spending needs to change or taxes will need to increase in the future. Photo: RNZ Inland Revenue is warning that unless what the government spends its money on changes, taxes will need to increase in the coming years to cope with an ageing population. It is currently seeking submissions on its latest long-term insights briefing. It notes that in the coming years, if the current settings are maintained, government spending as a proportion of the economy will rise. "A core driver of these fiscal pressures is that New Zealand's population is ageing." By 2060, a quarter of the population will be older than 65. "This means that the amount the government needs to spend on superannuation and health care will increase if the government maintains current policy settings. "In its last Long-term Fiscal Statement, the Treasury predicted that government expenditure will exceed government revenue by 13.3 percent of GDP by 2061 if the government takes no response to rising fiscal pressures," IRD said. That would mean either that existing taxes would need to be levied at a higher rate - such as higher levels of income tax or GST - or there would need to be new taxes implemented. It said New Zealand taxed a more limited set of capital gains than most other OECD countries. It could be possible to broaden that scope. "The absence of a general approach to taxing capital gains can provide an incentive for individuals to reduce their tax liability by undertaking activities that are not taxed rather than those that are taxed. "This can reduce government's ability to raise more revenue in a way that is progressive." It pointed to an estimate for a Tax Working Group report in 2019 that, if a capital gains tax took effect from the 2022 tax year, it would raise about $3 billion in the 2026 tax year. Revenue would increase over time. IRD said this was in line with revenue raised in other countries from capital gains taxes. "Revenue from capital gains could therefore make a meaningful contribution to addressing long-term fiscal challenges. "However [as noted above] the last Treasury LTFS projected an operating deficit of 13.3 percent of GDP by 2061 under current settings. "Therefore, even with more comprehensive taxation of capital gains other tax or expenditure measures would be needed in the longer term. "Therefore, Inland Revenue considers that it is also important to consider how to increase the flexibility of the tax system to changing revenue needs." It said capital gains taxes could also have relatively high compliance costs. Inland Revenue said GST was a substantial source of tax revenue. But if it were to be increased, there would be concerns about the effect on lower-income households. While wealthier households pay more GST overall, poorer households spend more of their money on GST. IRD said GST could be applied at a lower rate on some goods and services that were bought by lower-income households, or there could be assistance via the welfare system to help those households. "Several international and New Zealand-focused studies have shown that using cash transfers is a more cost-effective way to target assistance to lower-income groups compared to applying lower rates to certain goods and services. "Several countries have implemented permanent GST-offset schemes for this reason." The report used modelling of GST at 18 percent. It also considered how other taxes such as payroll tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax, land and property tax could be used to add further tax bases to the New Zealand system. But it said there were difficult trade-offs with each of these. "Payroll taxes provide a means of shifting the balance of taxation away from capital income and onto labour income, but they are likely to have some disadvantages relative to GST and income tax. "Wealth taxes are likely to impose higher distortionary costs than a broad-based income tax, and they face similar challenges to those that would make an idealised income tax that includes accrued capital gains impractical. "Inheritance taxes are likely to have similar distortionary costs to income taxes when people are intentional donors, but they will have much lower distortionary costs when people are unintentional donors. "Land taxes are widely seen as one of the least distortive taxes, and they impose fewer distortionary costs than property taxes or stamp duties. "However, they would have a significant impact on certain groups. As with any tax, providing preferential tax treatment to certain groups or in certain situations would tend to increase efficiency costs and reduce horizontal equity on some margins." IRD said this underscored the importance of income tax and GST being designed in a way that was as efficient and fair as possible while having the flexibility to adjust to changing revenue needs. "New Zealand faces difficult choices in designing a durable tax system in the face of long-term fiscal challenges. "In Inland Revenue's view, a priority for future work should be on how to make New Zealand's main bases of income tax and consumption tax more flexible to changing revenue needs over time." It said, with different personal and company tax rates there was an incentive for people to "shelter" their income in companies. "This incentive is likely to increase the wider gap between top personal tax rates and the company rate, however, in the context of rising fiscal pressures, a system that requires alignment of the company rate and top personal rate is unlikely to be a durable tax system." Economist Shamubeel Eaqub said IRD had a clear message that either tax rates would need to increase, or the tax base - or both. "There are some difficult choices to be had in the future, if spending choices don't change then our revenue choices have to. "And we can either tax more using the same instruments that we have on the same bases that we have or we can increase the bases, and there are no easy answers. "There are always trade-offs, there will be winners and losers. And we're going to have to make a considered decision of what we're going to do - no tax is easy. "No one likes paying tax. I think it's about finding the least disruptive system given the public services that we want." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Taxes will have to increase in 2060 to cope with ageing population, government spending
The IRD has warned government spending needs to change or taxes will need to increase in the future. Photo: RNZ Inland Revenue is warning that unless what the government spends its money on changes, taxes will need to increase in the coming years to cope with an ageing population. It is currently seeking submissions on its latest long-term insights briefing. It notes that in the coming years, if the current settings are maintained, government spending as a proportion of the economy will rise. "A core driver of these fiscal pressures is that New Zealand's population is ageing." By 2060, a quarter of the population will be older than 65. "This means that the amount the government needs to spend on superannuation and health care will increase if the government maintains current policy settings. "In its last Long-term Fiscal Statement, the Treasury predicted that government expenditure will exceed government revenue by 13.3 percent of GDP by 2061 if the government takes no response to rising fiscal pressures," IRD said. That would mean either that existing taxes would need to be levied at a higher rate - such as higher levels of income tax or GST - or there would need to be new taxes implemented. It said New Zealand taxed a more limited set of capital gains than most other OECD countries. It could be possible to broaden that scope. "The absence of a general approach to taxing capital gains can provide an incentive for individuals to reduce their tax liability by undertaking activities that are not taxed rather than those that are taxed. "This can reduce government's ability to raise more revenue in a way that is progressive." It pointed to an estimate for a Tax Working Group report in 2019 that, if a capital gains tax took effect from the 2022 tax year, it would raise about $3 billion in the 2026 tax year. Revenue would increase over time. IRD said this was in line with revenue raised in other countries from capital gains taxes. "Revenue from capital gains could therefore make a meaningful contribution to addressing long-term fiscal challenges. "However [as noted above] the last Treasury LTFS projected an operating deficit of 13.3 percent of GDP by 2061 under current settings. "Therefore, even with more comprehensive taxation of capital gains other tax or expenditure measures would be needed in the longer term. "Therefore, Inland Revenue considers that it is also important to consider how to increase the flexibility of the tax system to changing revenue needs." It said capital gains taxes could also have relatively high compliance costs. Inland Revenue said GST was a substantial source of tax revenue. But if it were to be increased, there would be concerns about the effect on lower-income households. While wealthier households pay more GST overall, poorer households spend more of their money on GST. IRD said GST could be applied at a lower rate on some goods and services that were bought by lower-income households, or there could be assistance via the welfare system to help those households. "Several international and New Zealand-focused studies have shown that using cash transfers is a more cost-effective way to target assistance to lower-income groups compared to applying lower rates to certain goods and services. "Several countries have implemented permanent GST-offset schemes for this reason." The report used modelling of GST at 18 percent. It also considered how other taxes such as payroll tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax, land and property tax could be used to add further tax bases to the New Zealand system. But it said there were difficult trade-offs with each of these. "Payroll taxes provide a means of shifting the balance of taxation away from capital income and onto labour income, but they are likely to have some disadvantages relative to GST and income tax. "Wealth taxes are likely to impose higher distortionary costs than a broad-based income tax, and they face similar challenges to those that would make an idealised income tax that includes accrued capital gains impractical. "Inheritance taxes are likely to have similar distortionary costs to income taxes when people are intentional donors, but they will have much lower distortionary costs when people are unintentional donors. "Land taxes are widely seen as one of the least distortive taxes, and they impose fewer distortionary costs than property taxes or stamp duties. "However, they would have a significant impact on certain groups. As with any tax, providing preferential tax treatment to certain groups or in certain situations would tend to increase efficiency costs and reduce horizontal equity on some margins." IRD said this underscored the importance of income tax and GST being designed in a way that was as efficient and fair as possible while having the flexibility to adjust to changing revenue needs. "New Zealand faces difficult choices in designing a durable tax system in the face of long-term fiscal challenges. "In Inland Revenue's view, a priority for future work should be on how to make New Zealand's main bases of income tax and consumption tax more flexible to changing revenue needs over time." It said, with different personal and company tax rates there was an incentive for people to "shelter" their income in companies. "This incentive is likely to increase the wider gap between top personal tax rates and the company rate, however, in the context of rising fiscal pressures, a system that requires alignment of the company rate and top personal rate is unlikely to be a durable tax system." Economist Shamubeel Eaqub said IRD had a clear message that either tax rates would need to increase, or the tax base - or both. "There are some difficult choices to be had in the future, if spending choices don't change then our revenue choices have to. "And we can either tax more using the same instruments that we have on the same bases that we have or we can increase the bases, and there are no easy answers. "There are always trade-offs, there will be winners and losers. And we're going to have to make a considered decision of what we're going to do - no tax is easy. "No one likes paying tax. I think it's about finding the least disruptive system given the public services that we want." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
