Crimes Amendment Bill

We are being asked to support the Crimes Amendment Bill as the name for this bill. The disappointment that members on this side of the Chamber have is that this Crimes Amendment Bill, under that name, will not meet the expectations that people would have. We would suggest that the bill with a title something like “Crimes Amendment Broken Promises to the CTV Families” would be a more appropriate title, given the Government’s decisions on the committee stage of this bill.

A further possible title that would have considerable merit would be the “Crimes Amendment Bill Allow the Loophole for the Next Hundred Years”; it would be an appropriate title.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Do not try my patience, Dr Smith.

Because that is indeed—well, Madam Chairperson, I’ve seen you give speeches in this House on titles that say exactly those things about the content of the title of a bill. The reality of this bill is it’s going to allow the legal anachronistic loophole to survive on our law books for more than a hundred years for buildings that have been built this month. And, as such, we think that that should be recognised in the title of this bill.

We could also refer to the bill as the “Crimes Amendment Bill Putting Law Ahead of Justice” because what this bill does is take such a narrow view of the law, a very lawyer-ish view of the law, rather than a common-sense view of the law that we think New Zealanders would want.

A possible other title that this bill could have would be the “Crimes Amendment Allowing Another Repeat of the CTV Injustice” because, in practice, that is what—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I looked at Speakers’ rulings 114/6, which clearly state that an amendment to the title of the bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents, and I suggest that’s exactly what that member is doing.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member for that. I am trying to get their point across to the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I actually checked the Hansard, and there are many, many speeches that have been given, including by the member in the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That may be so, Dr Smith. However, you cannot bring me into the—

All I simply ask—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Dr Smith, my patience is absolutely exhausted at this point. If you challenge me one more time, I will be asking you to leave the Chamber. Now, Dr Smith, I’m on my feet, and you will not get to your feet. Is that clear—do I make myself clear, Dr Smith.

Madam Chair, it’s sometimes unclear as to when you’re sitting down.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look, I’m absolutely tempted to have you leave the Chamber, Dr Smith, because you have tried my patience. You have been trivial in terms of the matters, and you’ve been trivialising my rulings.

Madam Chair, I meant you no disrespect—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m not asking you a question—

Madam Chair, I mean you no disrespect. When I attempted to stand up—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You certainly are. Dr Smith—

When I stood up—

Dr Smith, that is enough. You can leave the Chamber—I’ve had enough. Dr Smith—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I meant you no disrespect. I thought you were sitting down, and that’s why I attempted to stand up.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You continue to backchat, Dr Smith.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Dr Smith, I’ve asked you to leave the Chamber.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair, that is outrageous, and I ask you to reflect on what occurred when you were in—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

I don’t intend to take the whole five minutes, but I would like to just probably look at one proposed change to the name that I think might be something that could be of interest to reflect, really, what the bill is about, and that is to reflect Ian McKelvie’s great amendment, which actually is the substance of something that was going to be a member’s bill and never got to that process because an arrangement was worked out between the parties. I would like to just again thank Minister Andrew Little, who did actually work well with my good colleague to make that a reality, and probably in a quicker way than a member’s bill would have done it.

So, if anything, the name of this bill should actually reflect the unity between parties in this House to actually reflect the substance and strength of that bill. It was the cattle rustling bill, or whatever you want to call it—

💬 Matt Doocey: The “McKelvo Rustling Bill”!

—the “Ian McKelvie Cattle Rustling Bill”. That’s probably not the best thing for him back in his local electorate, but there could be a number of other variations on the Ian McKelvie theme.

But, if anything, that may be an option where we reflect a really substantive part of this bill that there was common ground on and that the parties have worked together on. It is in the best interests of all New Zealanders, and especially those in the rural communities, so maybe something around that tone could lighten the evening and perhaps lead to a better result in having people understand what that bill is actually delivering.

I appreciate that.

I move, That the question be now put.

Let’s take another one or two.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just briefly on the title, it had been in my mind to do something along the lines of the Hon David Bennett’s suggestion and perhaps name it something along the lines of “Crimes (Rustle Stock) Amendment Bill”, but it occurred to me that that could be the name of an actual person or, worse still, a farmer. I know that it’s outside the rules of this House to have a person’s name other than in, presumably, a private bill, and so I’ll abandon that effort.

Just on the commencement date, however, if I may, I think that it is appropriate to have the Act coming into force on the day after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. While often I think it’s helpful to have some sort of lead time after a bill becomes law so that people can understand its effect and make arrangements to comply, in this case I’m satisfied that that’s not necessary. I don’t think that anyone would need to amend their behaviour so that they would be acting in reliance in a different manner. So, for example, to remove the spousal immunity so that a spouse or a civil union partner isn’t immune from being an accessory after a criminal act—it goes to the point we were discussing before, and I won’t intend to relitigate it. But in the manner of retrospectivity or, in this case, time enough for a person to amend their behaviour to be in line with the criminal law, a person’s behaviour shouldn’t be such that they would be doing what would be an illegal act, in any case.

So I think, in fact, it is probably appropriate to have the commencement date. I’d, obviously, happily be prepared to be convinced otherwise, but for now, for the reasons I’ve said, I don’t propose any amendment along those lines or, indeed, to the name, having tried and failed to come up with something appropriate in that regard.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.