Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister. If I may just indulge you for a couple of seconds to reiterate what my colleague Mark Mitchell has said about the officials and the work and advice that they have given us for this bill. We were hearing this bill at the same time as hearing the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, and at times it got quite confusing, so I’d just like to acknowledge and thank the officials for the work and advice that they gave.

Minister, I too would like to ask a question about clause 5, which inserts new section 308A. The amendments made to this section relate to threatening acts in relation to dwellinghouses and persons in dwellinghouses. We introduced new section 308A, “Discharging a firearm to intimidate”, and I have to ask, Minister, why is this clause here? If the Minister’s answer is that it introduces intimidation and harsher penalties, then, again, I ask: why introduce this and tell the country that you’re doing something about the drive-by shootings when, in actual fact, you already have legislation in place that will take care of that, and that is under section 48 of the Arms Act, “Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place”, which reads “A person commits an offence and is liable [for] conviction [of] imprisonment for a term [of] not exceeding 6 months, or … a fine not exceeding $10,000, if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to (a) endanger property; or (b) endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.” The only difference here is that we don’t have the word “intimidate” and we have, just as per section 198, a difference in the tariffs or the consequences.

This Government has shown that we’ve got no qualms in introducing harsher penalties into the Arms Act, so adding intimidation to section 48 and adjusting the penalties could have been a simple fix. Instead, we have a clause that is lesser than the clause in the Arms Act because it doesn’t address endangering property, annoying, or frightening people, nor does it address drive-by shootings away from a dwellinghouse—those that are attacked, say, in a park, for example, unless we’re using section 198, which has different penalties, which my colleague Emily Henderson spoke to. So, Minister, can you explain whether a drive-by shooting not near a dwellinghouse is captured by this clause, or would that type of incident revert to section 48 of the Arms Act or section 198 of the Crimes Act, where a much lesser penalty for a drive-by shooting would apply? And is this an attempt to signal to the community that the Arms Act, as amended by the Government and New Zealand First, doesn’t work, or is it virtue signalling to the community that the Government is on top of drive-by shootings by creating more unnecessary legislation where legislation already exists?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for those two contributions—first from Harete Hipango, and I’ll just respond quickly to Ms Hipango’s contribution. The reference to threatening behaviour or intimidating behaviour is, I think—and can be—widely understood, and it goes beyond physical threats. It can be the use of voices, it can be a mere presence. And I’m confident that the courts have considered enough of these matters to be very clear about what can constitute intimidation in those particular circumstances and, indeed, threatening behaviour.

To Nicole McKee’s question, and I think we do have to be careful sometimes that when we come to this House with axes to grind that sometimes we don’t cause those issues to get in the way of, I think, a reasoned and reasonable debate. I disagree with the member’s analysis on the application of section 48 of the Arms Act. It does not apply in the sort of circumstances that the law has been found inadequate to cover, when it comes to drive by shootings. Section 48 of the Arms Act is very much focused on what happens around a property or a dwelling. It focuses on the largely accidental or unintended discharge of a firearm, and where there is some intent and damage to property or buildings. It is not intended to deal with the situation where somebody is openly in the public, on a public street, on a high road, and acting like a galah by discharging a firearm with the intent to intimidate people around them. And the reason why this has been added into the law is not because of any inadequacy of the Arms Act—the Arms Act is very good now, thanks to the good work of the Hon Stuart Nash—but this is an inadequacy in the Crimes Act that needs to be addressed so that the police dealing with antisocial behaviour by those who would use firearms in a public place to intimidate others can be dealt with, and the penalty reflects that. That is the material difference between these matters.

I move, That the committee report progress and sit again presently in order to progress the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill.

The committee has considered the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill and reports the bill with amendment. The committee has also considered the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill and reports progress in order for the House to progress the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill and for the committee to sit again presently. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.