Crimes Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was here for that previous part, and I just have a final question on Subpart 5 for the Minister in the chair, Karen Chhour, around the first responders changes that are being made. In the Minister of Justice’s amendment that has been put to the committee, there’s a substantial change around corrections officers, and, as has been traversed—and I won’t go over this again—there were a number of other suggested professions that were advocated to be included in this. So I just wanted to know for what reason was the corrections officer—why did the Minister decide to bring that particular amendment to the House to include that group, and his reasoning for why that was. I know he said that he was correcting some errors and everything, but it’s quite a substantive change that has been put in as part of his Amendment Paper 660.

It may be that some colleagues still have questions on Part 5, but I’d like to move on to Subpart 6, which is the part around theft, which we haven’t touched on at all today in the committee stage. I have to say that when I first saw all these provisions and we were considering them in the Education and Workforce Committee—and I am aware that this was something that was brought up by the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, and I know that the provisions in here, as I understand, are slightly different from what the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime had recommended, and so I wanted to ask the Minister the reasoning around the selection of the changes.

We’re changing the upper level of punishment in terms of a fine for theft; and, also, we will be—and this is, I think, the most important point, and it’s not a point that I picked up at first reading, but it is something that’s come through select committee and, also, through the subsequent release of the projected prison population through the Ministry of Justice. From time to time, they do release that, and I’m not sure, actually, if it was even available at the time of the first reading, but the point is that replacing three months with a year as the punishment for theft is predicted to have an absolutely enormous impact on the number of prisoners in New Zealand. I know that there is a talk around that in the preliminary information, in the regulatory impact statement and in the documentation that was taken to Cabinet. It’s important to note that reflected throughout that documentation is the fact that there was not extensive consultation before these changes were brought in. There was not the opportunity to consult more widely than internal Government organisations. So I want to know whether this was brought to the Minister.

I don’t know if the Minister can see—I might actually hold this up [Member holds up a graph]—but the woman’s prison population, based on mainly these changes to theft, is expected to increase by 63 percent. I’ll hold that up, if the Minister can see that, but this is the women’s prison population here, and you can see how it’s increased significantly as a result of these changes. It’s not easy to see that from the written words in this—

💬 Carl Bates: Don’t worry, the Greens will close the prisons.

Please just take a call, my friend. It’s not easy to see this in clauses 25 and 26, because it just, obviously, increases the punishment for those who are convicted of theft at the lower level from three months to a year, which is a significant increase. That is going to lead to a significant increase in the women’s prison population. I think that, on its own, is worthy for the Minister to address, in terms of the impact of this bill and the justification for that, because we all want to see people who are dangerous no longer in the position where they can hurt other people. But, in this instance, we’re talking about theft. Of course there are victims of theft, there are shop owners, but there are also people who will be severely impacted by having a member of their family in prison. It’s not only the person who is in prison who is punished for that; it’s, additionally, the members of the family.

Committee of the whole House

There was quite a bit in there, so I’ll try to cover everything, and if I’ve missed anything just let me know. Talking about the increased prisoners, it’s an outcome the Government is willing to accept to ensure tougher consequences on offending. Approximately 250 additional prisoners per year resulting from this bill is what’s estimated. The reason behind front-line corrections workers being included in this is that front-line corrections workers take lots of risks and they should also be protected. Some of the key facts around that and some of the reasoning behind that is that between 2023 and 2024, there were 38 serious assaults, 311 non-serious assaults, and 499 no-injury assaults on prison staff. Prison officers are often first on site in emergencies and go towards danger to help others, and this bill includes them for that reason.

How did the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime influence the proposals in this bill? The ministerial advisory group engaged with victims, workers, business owners, retail experts, and advocacy groups in relation to amendments to the citizen’s arrest and theft provisions. The Ministry of Justice officials liaised with the ministerial advisory group to come up with a workable and pragmatic proposal to help deter shoplifting and low-level retail theft. Some of the changes we’re making to address retail theft: New Zealand retailers are doing it tough, with an increase to retail crime and escalation in the behaviour of offenders. This bill includes a new infringement regime for shoplifting in retail premises, strengthens the penalties for low-level theft, and creates a new theft defence for targeting aggravated behaviour.

There was another question, I think, around lowering the penalty for theft between $1,000 and $2,000. It simplifies the theft penalty framework, strengthens penalties for lower-value theft under $500, and it also reduces the complexity in determining penalties based on the value of the stolen goods.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to also remind the Minister that just before we broke on this bill previously, I asked a question to the Minister regarding clause 21, “Section 2 amended”, and especially amended section 2(c)(ii), which is around designated services. I asked about whether, under section 6 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017, section 6 only covers Fire and Emergency New Zealand, not necessarily the New Zealand Defence Force or civil defence. In the event of emergency, they’re also on the front line, so I just want to check with the Minister if that was something that’s considered or potentially is captured by another relevant legislation.

I do want to move on to Subpart 6 around theft, and I want to start with clause 25, “New section 219A inserted”. I do have a couple of related questions. The first one is—section 219A of the Crimes Act is on theft, and you have section 234, which is on robbery. I want to check with the new section 219A(1)(a), particularly when we’re looking at the words “offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner”: what is the threshold when one shifts from theft in an offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner into robbery, which is, essentially, theft, but potentially with threat of violence? That is one possible interpretation of robbery, if you’re looking at, I believe, section 234(1). That’s my first question on clause 25.

My second question is that theft, particularly with the recommendation from the ministerial advisory group, is in the context of retail crime, but theft is much broader than simply just retail crime. You know, say you accidentally take your neighbour’s lawnmower; that’s technically theft. You break something that doesn’t belong to you, and you cannot return in the same state; that, technically, can be considered theft. I just want to check, in terms of this, whether there has been any sort of consideration, because I don’t believe this is something that we’ve touched on in close scrutiny in select committee, around what some of the broader manifestations of this new part are when you’re looking at something that’s beyond theft in a retail setting.

My final question around this is how this new section 219A would potentially interact with section 66 of the Crimes Act around party liability. For example, if you have two people, one of them potentially could be considered as committing theft in an offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner under the new section 219A; while the other person might simply just be looking at theft under section 219. Since, as we see with party liabilities, sometimes you can be charged with similar offences, how would, for example, party liability be considered under this new offence? That is my one question for clause 21, and three questions for clause 25.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in response to the Green Party member, the threshold is for courts to determine between aggregated theft versus robbery, and the courts, I’m sure, will take a common-sense approach to what constitutes as theft, and it does not change party liability. Also there was another question around defence force and civil response. The simple answer is, no, defence force and civil response would not be covered by the assault offences.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I just have a couple more questions around this theft part of the bill. Thank you to the Minister for engaging on these questions. I just have a follow-up question in relation to your response on the question that I had around the prison population. I think you said that there would be 250 prisoners—

💬 Hon Karen Chhour: Per year.

—per year, but, specifically, I think the overall increase is mainly in the female prison population, so I did wonder if it would be possible just to get a breakdown of that estimate. Obviously, there’s been something published by the Ministry of Justice indicating that there would be a disproportionate impact on female prisoners. That is because more women are charged with lower-level theft. If it’s possible to find it out, that would be good.

Also, in terms of facilities, has there been a corresponding exercise that has been undertaken with this bill? You said that the Government accepts that there is a consequence of implementing these tougher theft laws. That obviously has a financial cost, too, in terms of where they will be housed or where the prisons will be and whether that was a consideration as part of this bill. Obviously, if it wasn’t part of this bill, you’re welcome to say that, but I do think that that is important.

You did respond in relation to the difference of the ministerial advisory group, but I don’t think I heard—and this is my last question on this particular section—the reasoning for the change in the recommendation. You said that there was a consultation that took place with the ministerial advisory group and that it was changed, but not the reason why it was changed. I don’t know if officials are aware of what that reason might be, but those are the remaining questions I have on Subpart 6.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to the reason for the change and speaking to the ministerial advisory group, they would have engaged with victims, workers, business owners, retail experts, and advocacy groups, and the changes would have been made through those conversations and through their engagement with those people. In regards to women in prison, I’ve been informed that that’s correct around women. I don’t have a breakdown in front of me, but you can see the Ministry of Justice’s published analysis.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 660 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments deleting clause 4(1) and (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4(4) inserting new subsection (5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 8 and 9 stating “if the arrested person is over the age of 18” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Casey Costello’s amendment to clause 19 set out on Amendment Paper 650 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 19

ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Todd Stephenson’s tabled amendment replacing clause 19 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 19

ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment deleting clause 19 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 20(2) replacing “15 years” with “14 years” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 20(2) replacing “8 years” with “7 years” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Casey Costello’s amendment to clause 24 set out on Amendment Paper 649 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 19

ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 26(4)(b), 27(3)(b), and 28(3)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation, and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 29 to 31, “Amendments to other legislation”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.