This NZ Law Aims To Give People With Criminal Convictions A ‘Clean Slate'. It's Not Working
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
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Tariffs and Kiwisaver
Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER New Zealanders have withdrawn more than $1.3 billion from KiwiSaver for hardship in the past five years. The growing withdrawals could result in over $5b missing from retirement funds by 2045. New Zealand is being hit with 15% tariffs, and Stats NZ is set to release unemployment rates next week. New Zealand Herald business editor-at-large Liam Dann is here to break it all down. Liam Dann Photo: Eleanor Dann
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
I've got cancer so how should I invest my KiwiSaver?
True, you miss out on higher average returns. But you don't need the worry that the markets might be down at the very time you might have to withdraw. If anything, you should perhaps move all your money into a lowest-risk defensive fund. These funds, sometimes called cash funds, typically invest in bank term deposits and the like. Investors' balances usually just keep growing steadily. It's slow but smooth sailing. But if you want to be 'in the market' to some extent, your current mix is fair enough. And perhaps you could encourage other family members to take a bit of risk with their KiwiSaver choices. Note, though, that you may not be able to withdraw your KiwiSaver money when you want to. Inland Revenue says your health reason has to be either: 'An illness, injury or disability that permanently affects your ability to work or poses a risk of death. 'A life-shortening congenital condition that lowers your life expectancy below the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation (currently 65).' Some people have been turned down because they don't quite fit the criteria. You can read about a woman in a similar situation to you on the Financial Services Complaints website, here: You might want to ask your provider about your eligibility before you count on it. I hope the time ahead of you goes as well as possible. Yes, but what about mortgages? Q: We hear much about the need to increase retirement savings, compulsory contributions to KiwiSaver etc – often from obviously self-interested providers. Have you seen any analysis about whether more people are retiring with mortgage debt who wouldn't have previously, or more debt than they would have had if they hadn't been contributing so much to savings? Is everybody truly better off at retirement? It's always presented as if it is a pure win. A: You raise an interesting point. It must be true that at least some contributions to KiwiSaver would otherwise have gone into reducing mortgages or other debt. While it sounds good to reach 65 with, say, $100,000 in KiwiSaver, nothing is gained if the person owes $100,000 more on their mortgage. Actually, that's not quite accurate. Because of the extra KiwiSaver input from the Government and employers, our person's KiwiSaver balance would probably be higher than the extra mortgage debt. But still, encouraging people – or forcing them by compulsion – to increase their KiwiSaver contributions would probably make people better off at retirement only if there are added KiwiSaver incentives. And they need to be genuine incentives, not increased employer contributions – as in this year's Budget – that Treasury assumes will largely come out of people's future pay rises. There doesn't seem to be any research specifically on this issue. NZIER says 2022 research shows 66% of people 65 and over own their homes mortgage-free, 13% have a mortgage and 20% rent. It adds: 'Less than half of Māori seniors and about one-quarter of Pacific seniors own their homes outright.' It also says: 'The number of people 65 and over with mortgage debt has grown from 118,000 in 2018 to 134,000 in 2022.' Associate professor Susan St John, of the University of Auckland's Pensions and Intergenerational Equity (PIE) research hub, doesn't link that trend to KiwiSaver. 'While I think that we see more people coming into retirement renting, or with a mortgage, I don't think there is evidence to attribute that to KiwiSaver contributions.' However, Treasury seems to disagree. It assumes about 80% of the 2025 Budget increase in employee contributions to KiwiSaver 'will come from a redirection of other forms of saving (eg, lower mortgage repayments or contributions to other investments)'. Either way, St John sums up the situation: 'Saving for retirement should not be viewed as an alternative to home ownership. It may mean that homes have to be more modest. It may mean governments have to increase attractiveness with subsidies rather than reduce them.' Hear, hear! Tax break for homeowners? Q: In a Q&A last week you pointed out that the mortgage interest rate was, say, 5.5% and that the return on savings is 'unlikely to be anywhere near 5.5%' – after tax and fees. True indeed. However, the equation is probably even worse. Mortgage interest is paid with tax-paid money – so if the person's top tax marginal rate is, say, 33%, the 5.5% mortgage rate is really 8.2%. You need to earn $8200 to have the $5500 after tax to pay the interest on $100,000. The mortgage interest rate is always way worse than it looks. Unfortunately, mortgage interest is a case of the miracle of compound interest – but in reverse. A: I think your point is that mortgage interest is not tax-deductible in New Zealand. A 2023 OECD report on tax relief for home ownership lists 17 countries as giving some kind of tax relief for homeowners' mortgage interest. They are Austria, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United States. Should New Zealand do the same? Wikipedia points out: 'Most economists believe mortgage interest deduction is bad policy and is counterproductive. They note that it increases inequality, is an unnecessary market distortion, and contributes to housing unaffordability.' While the idea has strong appeal for homeowners, New Zealand doesn't really need to further encourage home ownership, which is already overrated as the only way to do well financially. Nor do we need more tax dollars flowing towards generally better-off people. So I'm afraid I'm not on that particular bandwagon! Your final comment is really a different issue. But you're right – interest on any debt compounds in the same way as interest on savings. It's not uncommon for people to take out, say, a $400,000 mortgage and end up paying more than twice that over the years. It's always a great move to cut any debt as fast as possible to reduce the compounding. Go with lowest fees Q: With so many index funds tracking the same index, such as the S&P500, why don't investors just invest with the fund offering the lowest fees? What other points of difference do funds offer? A: I reckon the lowest fee should be the main basis on which you choose a fund. However, if you're investing in KiwiSaver, there's also data on which providers offer better services and that could sway your decision somewhat. Here are the KiwiSaver providers that have told the Retirement Commission, in its regular services survey, that several or all of their funds are 'passively managed in their entirety and track an index': AMP, InvestNow, Kernel, Koura, Sharesies, SuperEasy and SuperLife, Also, NZ Funds' Balanced Fund is passive. Of these providers, NZ Funds got the highest score for services. Then came AMP, SuperLife, Koura, Kernel, Sharesies and, in a draw for the bottom slot were InvestNow and SuperEasy. But of course many of their services might not interest you. If there's a particular issue for you – perhaps ease of deposits or withdrawals – you can always ask providers if they offer it. Email or phone them, and if they don't reply within a few days, cross them off the 'good services' list. You can compare the different funds' fees using the Smart Investor tool on Or use Sorted's KiwiSaver Fund Finder to get an estimate of the total fees you will pay in each fund until you retire. What if you want to invest outside KiwiSaver? Many of the above providers also offer non-KiwiSaver funds. And Smart Investor also ranks fees on non-KiwiSaver managed funds. Another option is to use overseas-based funds. But that introduces complications with tax, settling estates and so on. It's much simpler to use a New Zealand-based fund that invests in overseas indexes. Many baskets? Q: Interesting stuff in last week's column about low fees and index funds. I note you do though also emphasise diversification. I recently switched from a major bank to a fund that allows me to split my KiwiSaver over several providers. So I can invest with Generate, Milford, Pathfinder and Nikko to name but four, and can do so in a mixture of conservative, balanced and growth funds. Thus my eggs go into many baskets. The trade-off is of course higher fees. Would it be better to go with a pure index fund that has low fees? I like Buffett's idea of 20% bonds and 80% index funds for people like me who are total amateurs. Which KiwiSaver provides this option? A: Several KiwiSaver providers enable you to invest in a range of funds run by other providers. And it's true that would give you further diversification. But that comes at the price of simplicity. And you won't necessarily get a higher total after-fees return, or less volatility. The providers you name tend to offer actively managed funds, as opposed to the passive index funds discussed above. And their fees are almost always higher, sometimes a lot higher. In any given year, some actively managed funds will perform better than the always middle-of-the-road passive funds, while some will do worse. But over time, it doesn't tend to be the same ones that outperform. Looking at what has done well so far doesn't guarantee their success will continue. Passive funds, with their lower fees, tend to be the best bet. Choose one that follows an index with many shares in it, such as the MSCI world share index, and you will have wonderful diversification. Rentals in retirement Q: I was surprised when you stated that most people invest in rental properties for the capital gain. We purchased a two-bedroom, cross-lease property in 1986 only to provide extra income on retirement. If we sold the property now for the Auckland Council capital valuation we would receive more income from a term deposit at 4% than we do from our rental, even before deducting expenses, rates, insurance, agent's fees, maintenance etc. A: At the risk of sounding mean, why don't you sell then? I don't really understand using rental property as a retirement investment – unless you are wealthy and enjoy being a landlord, or regard the property as your children's inheritance. But if you're having anything less than a financially comfortable retirement, it doesn't make sense to tie up all the money in a property when you could be gradually spending the proceeds from selling it, along with returns earned on that money in the meantime. On your first sentence, I've looked through recent columns and I don't think I've said that. I have, though, written that many new landlords find their expenses exceed their rental income, so they have to top up mortgage payments. Presumably they hope this imbalance will ease over time. But my guess is that many also hope to sell at a gain. Exempt employers Q: The Financial Markets Authority administers the register of exempt employers of KiwiSaver. The full list is available to view on the FMA website. A: You're right. You can see the list here: However, that list includes only employers who had qualifying employee superannuation schemes back in the early days of KiwiSaver, before November 2009, says the FMA. 'A scheme offered to employees by the employer had to have a minimum contribution rate of 4% of gross base salary of the member, which could be from either the member or the employer or a combination of both. 'Today only a new employee who joins the employment of an employer who holds exempt employer status and who is not already a KiwiSaver member would be covered by these provisions.' The FMA list does not include employers discussed in last week's Q&A, such as an employer that is not a New Zealand resident or does not carry on a business 'from a fixed establishment in NZ'. Mary Holm, ONZM, is a freelance journalist, a seminar presenter and a bestselling author on personal finance. She is a director of Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) and a former director of the Financial Markets Authority. Her opinions do not reflect the position of any organisation in which she holds office. Mary's advice is of a general nature, and she is not responsible for any loss that any reader may suffer from following it. Send questions to mary@ Letters should not exceed 200 words. We won't publish your name. Please provide a (preferably daytime) phone number. Unfortunately, Mary cannot answer all questions, correspond directly with readers, or give financial advice.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Auckland cafe chain Little and Friday racked up sizeable tax debt before liquidation
Earlier this year, Evans was trespassed from her Takapuna premises by her landlord over outstanding rent. Little and Friday was placed into liquidation on June 27, with the Official Assignee appointed liquidator by the High Court. According to the first liquidator's report, Little and Friday owes Inland Revenue $639,389.19. Unsecured creditors, including ASB Bank, are owed $763,391.76. The Official Assignee's liquidator's report said attempts to contact Evans had so far been unsuccessful. 'The cause of liquidation appears to relate to a failure to account for tax obligations. The liquidator has made attempts to contact the director, Kim Evans, but to date has received no response to any correspondence … 'The liquidator will seek to interview the director and obtain the company's records, including a completed statement of affairs, to assess the company's assets and liabilities.' The liquidator expected its investigations to be completed with 12 months. Evans is the sole director and shareholder of Little and Friday, according to Companies Office records. The Insolvency and Trustee Service (ITS), or Official Assignee, acts as the court's default liquidator when no other firms take on an appointment. The ITS has experienced a significant jump in its workload as Inland Revenue ramps up its debt enforcement. The tax agency accounted for 70% of all winding-up applications in May and June, according to insolvency specialist firm McDonald Vague. The hospitality sector has faced significant challenges in recent years, in part due to reduced turnover and rising costs resulting from Covid-19 lockdowns and recession. Last month, Auckland cafe Kind closed its doors, citing spiralling costs and excessive rent. The cafe was a favourite of Dame Jacinda Ardern, who inspired the name. Recent Restaurant Association data showed total industry sales for the first quarter of the year were flat, rising just 1% compared to the same period last year. Restaurant Association chief executive Marisa Bidois said the summer trading period was softer than expected for many operators. 'Long-standing challenges like high fixed costs, wage pressure and staff shortages continue to weigh heavily. 'While inflation may be easing on paper, our members are still feeling significant cost strain on the ground.' Cameron Smith is an Auckland-based business reporter. He joined the Herald in 2015 and has covered business and sports. He reports on topics such as retail, small business, the workplace and macroeconomics.
