Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6)

This title is not a fair reflection of the contents of the bill, and it is very disturbing that a Minister who purports to be in charge of telecommunications has not picked that up. I note that this bill should have been with the Associate Minister of Justice; he might have read it, but I doubt it. This bill has a terrible flaw in it: it is missing a very important part. I hope the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, will listen to this, because this is very important. A huge part of this bill deals with increasing the penalties for home invasion. That sounds great, except that this Government repealed the part of the Crimes Act that deals with home invasion last year.

I know that the Minister in the chair is looking puzzled by that, so I say to him that he should get the officials here. If he looks at clauses 3 to 7 he will find that a huge section of the bill is absolutely redundant, because sections 17A to 17E of the principal Act were repealed by this Government last year—and here is the proof. We have a Government that is asking this Parliament to put through, and to vote on, bills that are redundant.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Read the clauses.

I will list the clauses, for the benefit of the officials. Perhaps the Minister could talk to the officials about clauses 3, 4, and 5, which deal with increasing the penalties for home invasion crimes.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: You can’t amend provisions that don’t exist.

One cannot amend provisions that do not exist, and, worse than that, further on in this bill that we are being asked to vote on today are provisions dealing with sections 17A to 17E of the Act. There are errors throughout this bill, because Parliament repealed sections 17A to 17E of the Act last year. That is shoddy work from the Government.

We have looked through the bill and put in an amendment dealing with that issue. We would like it to be sorted out, because it should have been addressed in this bill. The issue of home invasion has been in and out of the bill everywhere. Moreover, if we go through to other clauses in the bill, we find there are whole clauses about it.

I would also like to talk about the concept of colour of right. This Government has said in this bill that it does not like the concept of colour of right, and it wants to change the definition to “claim of right”, because it does not want to extinguish customary rights. Instead, it wants to look at cultural interpretations. “Colour of right” is a term that has been used time and time again through the courts. It has been used in the legal system of England, and then in New Zealand, for hundreds of years. Consequently, that particular part of the bill should be left as it is. I talked to criminal lawyers about it last night, and they said it is shocking to change a term like “colour of right” by trying to make it become a claim of right. That is absolutely appalling. It is a very poor piece of drafting, which should have been fixed.

I will come back to the particular part of the bill about home invasion. That part was looked at only in May of this year. This bill had been floating around for the last 3 years, until someone suddenly looked at the issue of home invasion, and that is not good enough. It is not good enough for this Government to take 3 years to work out what it has already done. That issue occurs all the way through the bill, and the Government has not even taken the time to go and get it fixed in a proper way. That is not good enough. If we go through the bill, we see there are other clauses that need to be looked at.

The title of this bill relates to amendments to the Crimes Act. To justify that title, these amendments should improve the ability of the New Zealand justice system to apprehend and convict criminals. Some of the provisions in the bill are good; they modernise the language and description of offences. One of the main features of the bill is the inclusion of a whole new category of offences that deal with people intercepting other people’s electronic communications and hacking into their computers, or, to use the correct terminology, remotely accessing others’ computers. The bill makes it illegal to interfere with people’s conversations through listening devices, by applying that to electronic interception or computer hacking.

There would be a big privacy problem if we were to allow people to freely intercept others’ electronic communications, and it is good that the bill addresses that. For example, we do a lot on the Internet these days, and increasingly we buy things on the Internet. So stopping people from intercepting our credit card numbers as they whizz around the Internet, as part of that electronic commerce, is a very good thing. The provision against hacking is good, too. Although people sometimes glorify the successes of some hackers—there is sometimes a bit of a David and Goliath atmosphere, with some hackers treating it as a sport to try to access the Pentagon or a big Government computer—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The title is a very narrow debate.

Yes. I think it is important in this debate to see what has changed in terms of improving the ability to catch criminals in relation to hacking. Although hacking may have some popular appeal—and the people who do it for sport are usually snapped up by the security companies, and end up on big salaries—for the ordinary person it is very upsetting to be hacked, particularly if it affects one’s computer. So it is good that there is a provision here to make that illegal.

Unfortunately, the bill does give exemptions from those provisions to the police, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and the Security Intelligence Service, and that is not in keeping with the theme of the title. Instead of improving our ability to apprehend lawbreakers, we are giving those agencies the ability to affect in some way our privacy, which is a right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that should be very much upheld in our society. No good reason is given in this bill for doing that, and a lot of innocent people will get caught. Members should think about how many emails they receive in a week and in a year—it ends up being thousands and thousands—and if any one of the people who send those emails is intercepted under these provisions, then a member’s communications will also be intercepted and could end up being affected in that way.

I accept that there has to be a balance, and sometimes we may give away, to some extent, the hard-won right to privacy if there is a very clear community gain. That is the real spirit of a crimes amendment bill, but no one gave any statistics or anecdotal evidence to the Law and Order Committee through any stage of its consideration of this bill to show that we would catch many extra criminals through giving the police and the intelligence services that ability. We need such evidence if we are to give away our privacy in that respect. This bill is about the Crimes Act and about catching criminals, and everyone knows that serious criminals can very easily avoid interception using code, encryption, and those sorts of things.

I will just take a very brief call on behalf of the Minister, the Hon Phil Goff, to respond to the comments made by Judith Collins in respect of clauses 3 to 8. I suggest that the member actually gets up to speed. If she looks on the Table she will see that there are Supplementary Order Papers, and that Supplementary Order Paper 84 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff answers all her questions. The provisions on home invasion have already been taken care of in the Sentencing Act. If Judith Collins—instead of jabbering away with snide comments—looks at that Supplementary Order Paper, she will see that the issue has been taken care of already.

I want to speak against the title of this bill, simply because I do not think the title reflects the content of the bill. I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, that if he wants the Opposition to be cooperative in relation to the provisions of this bill, he should not go around insulting members who have taken the time to go through it, given that the Government has taken over 4 years to bring Supplementary Order Paper 84 to this Committee to fix amendments in this bill that should have been fixed earlier on. If the Minister looks at the Hansard record of when this bill was introduced, he will see that the promoting Minister, Mr Goff, railed against the previous Government for not having done something about the home invasion issue in its 9 years in office. In October 1999 Mr Goff said that this would be priority legislation for the Labour Government, and here we are with the bill having taken 4 years to get into the Committee.

Judith Collins was absolutely right when she said at the beginning of her speech that the title does not reflect what is in the bill. This bill would more correctly be called the “Crimes Amendment (To Cover up Ministerial Laziness) Bill”. That is the point that Judith Collins made. If that Minister thinks he will have cooperation from the Opposition to get this bill through Parliament more speedily, then he should be more respectful of members who have made an effort to identify the failings of this Government, which has taken 4 years to fix amendments in this bill that refer to repealed amendments. That is a sloppy performance by the Minister. We do not want to see the Minister in the chair behave as he did in the previous call.

I want to follow on from my colleague Tony Ryall, and basically just to emphasise what clearly is—

💬 Judith Collins: A Supplementary Order Paper.

The Government has clarified that there is a Supplementary Order Paper. It has been sitting around for quite some time, and when did the Government actually realise that? When did the Government realise there was the anomaly that my colleague Judith Collins has pointed out?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: About a month ago, after 4 years.

That is symptomatic of the Government’s knee-jerk reaction on a whole raft of things. We saw that earlier in the week, with the immigration legislation that was passed through all its stages in urgency. We see it again today. Stuff-ups occur and suddenly people think they had better do something about them, and with this bill it is the same sort of thing. The problem is that these issues are very serious, so they deserve a more coherent approach than this Government seems to be willing to give to them.

In particular, the area of crime, and penalties for home invasion, tugs at the hearts of New Zealanders. We all know that, and certainly, because of the way the public reacts when various violent things happen out there, then, yes, Parliament feels—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is a narrow debate. Could the member please speak to the title? I know it is difficult.

Of course this is about the title. What is in that title to tell anybody what the Government is trying to do? OK, this is the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6), but what is this Government attempting to do in this bill other than to react in a knee-jerk way to public reaction, and to try to give the impression that the Government is doing something, when it has taken 4 years to do anything to fix the anomalies in the bill? We have the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and Supplementary Order Paper 84 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff, but that says nothing about the way that the Government approaches a very serious area, indeed. It does not give that area its proper attention.

This bill should be called the “Crimes Amendment (Corrections In Haste) Bill” or the “Crimes Amendment (Corrections in Haste) Bill (No 6)”. The Government has been sitting for 4 years, and only now has this bill come to this Committee, when the Government knows the matters it deals with concern us, as well. It is not as though we have to suddenly go into urgency. If one approached this area in the comprehensive way that it deserves, then this bill would have been approached in a different manner.

This title, like a lot of the things that we see in this Parliament, while it gives a bare understanding of what might be covered in the bill, does not tell the public anything. The title is very innocuous. It does not say to the public that the Government has only just seen fit to address this bill after letting it sit around for so long, and that although it knows these matters are important, that was the best it could do. Well, I say that that is not the best this Parliament can do. I say that this Government should pick up its act, approach these things in a more serious manner, and stop the knee-jerk reaction kind of stuff that we have seen this week on a number of other bills. That is not the way to treat serious issues. The area of crime and penalties for home invasion is a serious issue for New Zealanders.

I will say at once that I come to this bill with half-an-hour’s reading. The Hon Ken Shirley, who took the time and was on the committee when this was first dealt with in 1999, has given me some briefing notes. Looking at the title, it is very hard indeed to see why we should have a title as bland and as innocuous as the “Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6)”. It could have been descriptive. It could have been something like the “Property Crimes Amendment Bill”. It could have been something that would give people a handle and an opportunity when they glanced through the Order Paper, or were looking through the statute book, or searching through a computer entry system, to see something that would have told them what this amendment did that others did not. In other words, a title should distinguish a bill. This is simply a label that is no better than a number. The “No 6” actually gives more information than the title that has been chosen for this bill. The number of different times that we have heard it mentioned, it could also have been referred to as the “Anti-hacking Bill”, the “Computer Crimes Bill”, or it could possibly have been the “Tidy-up Bill”, but to simply call a bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) does not tell users anything. I believe that it is bad practice. It is consistent with other bad drafting practices that we have, like the practice of having enormous single parts.

This bill actually shows all of the tawdry little tactics and the defects in dealing with a Government that subverts the integrity of the document, and its usability, to its short-term political objectives. Plainly, there must have been a short-term political gain in introducing it back in 1999.

The bill, with “No 6” in its title, means that it probably was the sixth amendment to the Crimes Act in 1999. That shows a very active Government. It shows that at the time there was a Government and a Minister of Justice, the Hon Tony Ryall, who were actually doing something in the area of crime. Now, here we are, 4 years later, and No 6 is still No 6. I do not think there were any amendments to the Crimes Act in 2003. It shows just what priority or lack of priority is given to crime.

When speaking to the title of a bill that amends such a fine piece of legislation as the Crimes Act, and considering why we would have a title as uninformative as this, we could just assume that it was laziness, or a drafting practice that does not take account of the needs of those who are looking for the label or description—those who will need to try to find the amended legislation. I am coming to the view, having realised just how long this bill has been before Parliament, that this innocuous kind of description—this kind of labelling—does serve a Government. It helps to disguise just how long something has been sitting without attention, while other more fashionable things like the enormously useful Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill went through, while the Government changed matrimonial property law and now is turning lesbian mothers into fathers. All of these things have had more urgency than the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6).

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member, Mr David Benson-Pope, has just called the honourable Stephen Franks a crook. Chuck him out of the Chamber, for God’s sake!

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

I thank Mr Mark for trying to uphold standards in the Chamber. I have managed to create a sort of filter that filters out the drivel one gets from Mr Benson-Pope. The contribution Parliament gets from the member for Dunedin South must be one of the worst from any whip. He is a whip who lowers the tone of Parliament every time he opens his mouth.

💬 Ron Mark: When he gets off his backside.

Exactly. To bring this to a conclusion—the Government has had 4 years to try to make this bill mean something. It has had 4 years in which it could have relabelled the component part to this bill in a way that would have helped the people who are going to use the legislation. The bill should at least have been called the “Crimes (Property Crimes) Amendment Bill (No 6)”.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Mark has indicated he wants a call, and we have not heard anything from New Zealand First. I am pleased to accept the call from the member.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to indicate that, like other parties, we will be supporting the passage of this bill through Parliament. That is not to say that we will agree with everything we hear from the Government on it—if we hear a jolly word other than abuse from across the Chamber, which the senior Government whip has become renowned for, outside the walls of this Chamber, as well as inside them. I put it on the record that I have to concur with Mr Franks when he says that “Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and Supplementary Order Paper No 85” is not a very inspiring title to look at, first thing in the morning. One could be forgiven for thinking that the bill deals with a whole heap of the extremely serious crimes that are currently facing this nation—such as violent crime, which has escalated.

In fact, this bill deals with surveillance issues. It was long in its gestation in the Law and Order Committee. Given the length of time it has taken to get this bill to the floor, I am bemused about why the Government has to do all of this under urgency. One would have thought we would have been debating this important bill a year or so ago, at least.

There is not a lot that I will say about the title of the bill. I simply signal that I have received a copy of Judith Collins’ proposed amendments. We will look at those from New Zealand First’s perspective and make a decision, as we progress, about whether we will support them, and we will discuss some of the finer points of the bill as we progress through it part by part. Essentially, if I were to suggest any change to the title, it would probably be something along the lines of the “Bill that Shows Quite Clearly How Labour Just Doesn’t Seem to be Able to Get its Act Together and Get Legislation That is as Important as This Through the House in a Timely Fashion”. But, of course, that is a very hard sort of statement to condense down into one title. I simply say this one time that we will support the title and discuss the bill further in the part by part debate.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.