Crimes Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Crimes Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the committee be instructed to consider the amendments set out on Amendment Paper 436 in my name and, if it sees fit, to recommend amendments accordingly, despite Standing Order 246(2).

This Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, and ensuring victims’ interests are at the centre of the justice system. The vital part of that is making sure criminals face real consequences for crime. This bill is a wide-ranging one. It amends the Crimes Act to ensure criminals face longer penalties for coward punches, attacking first responders, retail crime, human trafficking, and further retail crime.

We know how dangerous coward punches are. People can be killed or suffer lifelong brain injuries, yet perpetrators often receive lenient sentences, and that changes with this legislation. The bill introduces two specific offences that reflect the gravity of the crime. Where a victim suffers grievous bodily harm from a strike to the head or neck, the maximum penalty will be eight or 15 years’ imprisonment, depending on the intent of the perpetrator. The bill also adds an offence of manslaughter by strike to the head or neck, which affirms that this conduct is manslaughter if it does not constitute infanticide or murder. The maximum penalty will be life imprisonment. This offence does not limit or affect the application of manslaughter under section 171 of the Crimes Act.

Our culpable homicide regime is longstanding, and there are inherent complexities of this regime. The select committee will be able to hear submissions and consider whether we’ve struck the right balance on this. Both of these coward punch offences will be added to the three-strikes regime to ensure mandatory sentences in line with that regime.

The bill also strengthens the consequences for assaulting first responders and corrections officers, by introducing three new offences. Where others may flee, the first responders and prison officers run towards danger to help those who need urgent assistance. Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for those acts of violence. Our hard-working police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and corrections officers deserve better. These offences represent two-year increases on the maximum penalties that would currently apply. The most serious offence for seven years in prison will also be added to the three-strikes regime. These new offences will apply whether they’re on duty or not, and whether they’re responding to emergencies at the time or not.

Retail crime is an ongoing challenge. All around New Zealand, business owners and hard-working New Zealanders are being victimised. About 230,000 people work in our retail sector. Many of them are young New Zealanders just trying to make some extra money and make a living, and they shouldn’t have to feel unsafe in their working environment, like many have—and, of course, the cost of retail crime borne by law-abiding citizens is costing the country billions of dollars. For too long, business owners have been left feeling helpless as thieves walk out of these stores whenever they please with stolen goods. Currently, citizen’s arrests can only be carried out if the offence is three or more years’ imprisonment, or after 9 p.m. at night.

Now, we don’t think that makes any sense. Retailers shouldn’t have to flip through a copy of the Crimes Act or check the clock before they try and stop somebody stealing from their livelihood. That’s why the bill simplifies the citizen’s arrest provisions to apply to any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day. To anticipate some of the arguments that might be thrown across the House, members of the public are not obliged to carry out a citizen’s arrest; it’s only if they think it’s appropriate in the circumstances. If they think it’s appropriate to hold on to somebody until the police arrive, then they have that option—and, of course, they must contact the police and follow all the instructions given by the police.

The bill also makes it easier for the police to swiftly punish shoplifters who are not prosecuted through the courts for theft, by introducing an infringement regime which doesn’t result in criminal conditions but sends a clear message. The Amendment Paper that I have tabled alongside the bill will introduce a new shoplifting infringement into the Summary Offences Act. The infringement will apply when somebody removes property from a retail premises without reasonable excuse. It will give the police an additional tool to respond swiftly and directly to the behaviour.

The bill also adds a new offence of theft that is done in a threatening or disorderly manner—something that retailers are often faced with, and we want to make life easier. I want to thank the ministerial advisory group for their work on these issues.

Finally, we’re strengthening the exploitation offences. Since 2009, more than 50 victims of people trafficking have been identified, but only four prosecutions have been undertaken. Just two of these prosecutions have led to a conviction, and we believe it could be the tip of the iceberg. The bill increases the penalties for two offences in dealing in slaves and in dealing with people under the age of 18. This aligns them with the 20-year maximum imprisonment penalty for people-trafficking. We’re modernising our trafficking offence for both international and domestic trafficking and making the offence more consistent with international standards. We’re also ensuring that child trafficking is easier to prosecute by vote by removing the requirement for a child to have been deceived or coerced. It clarifies that a trafficked person or child cannot consent to any part of the offence. I want to thank my colleague Greg Fleming for his work on the member’s bill that advanced this penalty change, and to all the submitters and advocates for change in this area.

In conclusion, this bill puts victims first and cracks down on people-traffickers and people-smugglers. We’re restoring law and order and continuing our efforts to reduce the number of victims of crime. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was trying to imagine how this bill, with so many changes, might have come about in the shape of what it has. In all my years working on justice policy as a public servant, as an adviser, have I ever seen such a hotchpotch of different measures all jammed into one bill? I wonder whether Paul Goldsmith was maybe sitting at his desk late one night and the phone rang and Christopher Luxon gave him a call and said, “I just want to say one thing to you, Paul. I’ve been looking over my key performance indicators and you’re not up to scratch. You’re not really measuring up, here. There’s a whole bunch of deliverables that you haven’t done.” So this bill was basically Paul Goldsmith sweeping his desk of all the work he was meant to do over the course of the year and putting it into one bill, and giving that over to officials to legislate into one omnibus bill, which we’re debating here today.

There’s a whole range of things in this bill. Some of the things are actually not such a bad idea, some are sort of in between, and some are just plain dangerous, so I’ll focus on the dangerous ones in my brief speech today. The dangerous one that we like the least is the citizen’s arrest provision. The reason we say that is because the Police themselves say that this is dangerous. Officials, both from the Ministry of Justice and from Police, have warned the Government that this is a dangerous piece of legislation. They say, in advice, that it would escalate low-level theft into more violent situations and potentially endanger the lives of those people who were the business owners. It even suggests, in some of the Police advice that we received, that there will be a situation—if a business owner had detained and restrained an alleged offender, and if they were there for a period of time, that business owner might even be able to be charged with kidnapping if they were held in certain ways. Police has acknowledged that it actually exposes those very people that this legislation is trying to protect to even greater harms, from not only being arrested themselves but also from violence that’s escalated in their shop premises.

The second group of those people that spoke against this—some are on the Minister of Justice’s own retail crime advisory board; that would be the head of Retail NZ, Carolyn Young. She was very concerned that this legislation, and she actually states that she is concerned that retailers could get hurt or even killed as a result of introducing this measure; that front-line retail workers, who are often young people in their first job, do not go to work to do law enforcement. That’s, essentially, what this bill is doing: it’s requiring retailers to act as law enforcement officers.

The third group of people I’d like to refer to, who also said that this was a real concern, are small-business owners themselves. There was commentary within ethnic media and communications about the concerns of those small-business owners, that offenders would be preparing themselves with weapons more so than they are now, and that this would escalate situations where they already found themselves in a dangerous situation. This begs the question: if the Police don’t support it, if the Ministry of Justice don’t support it, if Retail NZ don’t support it, and if small-business owners themselves don’t even support it, who does? The answer to that is the committee of one: Sunny Kaushal, who’s given this as an idea to try and fix it. That’s the only person we know who actually has supported this.

I’m going to refer to one of my favourite quotes, out of all those I’ve just referenced. The best quote actually comes from a police officer, a detective. The police detective says, “The real solution was more police staff.” But that is, unfortunately, what this Government has completely failed to deliver on, because they promised New Zealanders in two years they would have 500 more police by 27 November—that’s just passed—and right now they have 240 police officers. They didn’t even make the halfway mark. The real solution to this problem that’s being addressed is by having our front line resourced, and having enough police officers to respond to crime. What is going to happen is there will be retailers calling the police, restraining someone, and there won’t be someone there to come out and attend the job. That is the real problem.

We look forward to the select committee. We invite New Zealanders to all come and submit on Christmas stocking number one, a grab bag of focus group records that have been put together in this Christmas selection by Paul Goldsmith, to submit your ideas on the variety of different ideas.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to oppose the Crimes Amendment Bill, because, to be honest, this is a shocking, shocking bill. Are there things in here that are potential options? Do you know what? I think that a good analogy is just because you are making a muffin for someone and you have a component of muffin being poisonous, it doesn’t mean that the entire muffin is OK to eat, and this is a really good example of what we’re seeing here with this bill. There are some good components to this bill, for sure. However, I want to focus my attention and my contribution on the things that are more concerning.

The first thing kind of goes without saying, which is the retail climate aspect of this. Again, I do believe that the inclusion of more and more into this smorgasbord of a bill is very much an indication that either the Government wants to rush things further along and make things look like they’re tying more things into one bill to try to get as many things over the line as possible before they are kicked out of Government, or it’s simply the fact that in the bill itself, they want to package some nice things in here just so that they can say, “Look, other political parties have decided to vote against this because of our having this really horrendous aspect of the retail crimes in this as the main focus of this bill. But do you know what? We’re going to chuck some other stuff in here, as well.”

I do want to start by focusing on the citizen’s arrests, which, like I’ve said, is the big focus in this bill. It is astonishing—it is absolutely astonishing—to see a Government that cares so little about genuine evidence that they are willing to go against the advice of the Police and they’re willing to go against the advice of the Ministry of Justice in order to do something that nobody really wants, except for, as we have pointed out, one person.

Rima Nakhle: Except for the victims—that’s all.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I love the fact that the other side of the House—I was going to say “the opposition”—talks about victims. You know, there is actually no evidence—no evidence—that suggests that this is going to be better for victims. What this is going to be is a race to the bottom for people to be more and more armed, and members on that side of the House need to deal with the fact that more and more people are going to be getting hurt as a result of this bill, because that’s what is going to happen if this bill is introduced.

Do you know what? Even Retail New Zealand have said, “Oh, this is not something that we wanted. Actually, we don’t agree with the chair of the ministerial advisory group on this. We don’t agree when it comes to the use of force.” Why? For Retail New Zealand to say something like that, it means that they also need to consider their responsibility to their employees, including the people who are just coming out of school and having their first job, and who are now having to deal with the fact that they themselves may be compelled to do this by their work. What’s that going to do for insurance, what is it going to do from the perspective of health and safety, and what is it going to do for the general safety of all individuals involved?

With something like this, the other really astonishing thing—and we are more than happy to tease this out in the select committee—about this bill, and particularly about the citizen’s arrests, is that there is no safeguard and no provision for children. There is nothing in this bill that says that that person—at least, not that I can see—has to be over a certain age, and so what this Government has done is it has introduced a bill that allows for the use of force on children. Let that sink in. That’s what this bill has the potential to do.

Ironically, then those members come back and talk about other aspects of this in terms of how they are going to be victim-focused. Well, they may tell themselves that they are victim-focused to get them through the night and to help them sleep, but the fact is that we’re going to be seeing more children hurt, and the Green Party will not stand for that. We will not support this bill.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise in support of the Crimes Amendment Bill. It’s been two years, and the Opposition still don’t get it. They didn’t listen to New Zealanders; they didn’t hear what people’s concerns were in the community; and, again, they’re not listening to New Zealanders and learning the lesson.

The Hon Ginny Andersen tried to grade the great Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith; he’s actually doing an excellent job, supported by Minister McKee. We’ve got the amazing Police team—I see Minister Costello supporting Minister Mitchell—and we’re actually making a difference. New Zealanders can just go on to the website and actually see what we’re doing on our targets, and we can actually read “Target 4: Reducing violent crime”. What do we think that’s doing, people? Well, it’s on track. There has been a reduction of 38,000 people facing violent crime. I would call that a success, and Minister Goldsmith can hold his head high.

We’re very pleased to support this, because ACT actually cares about focusing on what matters, and that’s making Kiwis safe in their homes, their shops, and their communities. We’ve already seen the successful three strikes; we’ve seen a toughening up of sentences, and this bill is, again, listening to the concerns of the community and delivering it. We’re going to see some more clarity around retailers’ citizen’s arrests—yes, we can work through the issues, but that’s great that that’s in there.

We’ve got the protection of front-line workers: police, paramedics, corrections officers—they deserve to be looked after, and that’s what we’re doing. Coward punches have been a real concern in our community; again, we’re going to have a look at that area. There might be some more work to do around maybe minimum sentences and making sure that that coward punch law is actually effective, but we’re going to do that in the Justice Committee, because that’s what we do. These reforms are necessary, particularly around the ones for human trafficking and also making sure that vulnerable children are looked after. Look, we’re very proud to support this in a Government that’s actually listened and is getting on with dealing with crime.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill. The word “astonishing” was raised several times by the Green Party member Lawrence Xu-Nan, and it is astonishing that the party that is advocating for defunding the Police now does not want anybody to have power. They don’t want the Police; they don’t want individuals to have powers to protect their own property. I’m not quite sure where they’re sitting. I would agree; it is astonishing.

It is also astonishing that the party that has repeatedly advocated or presented themselves as being the ones who are advocating for oppressed workers just completely glossed over the fact that this bill represents a modernisation of our legislation in terms of the laws around trafficking, recognising the seriousness of the offences, recognising the need to standardise the penalties, and actually doing some proactive steps to deliver the things that that party claims they represent.

In amongst this discussion that we’ve had, repeatedly, about putting this burden on businesses because—what was the word? Low-level theft will escalate into serious violence? Have we not seen the news lately? It is already escalating into serious violence, committed by young people. This is providing a tool to give protection to small businesses, should they choose, to be protected if they have to take power into their own hands, and that can only be seen as a good thing.

Next, I would highlight the protection for our first responders. New Zealand First was ensuring that this was part of our coalition agreement commitment, because it is our first responders across the board that we rely upon to protect the public from serious offences, and from harm generally, and when they’re racing into the fight, they need to be protected across the board for the great work that they do, again glossed over by the parties on the other side of the House.

Finally, something that New Zealand First has campaigned for in 2020 and 2023 is the “coward punch” legislation. This is an incredibly horrible crime that has cost the lives of innocent people and has to be addressed, and we are grateful that this piece of legislation is addressing it. I am astounded— astonished, I would say—at the fact we were actually being criticised for doing too much in this piece of legislation. That is why we are here: to do too much; to make sure we get the stuff done. We will deliver, and I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

We just had the Hon Ginny Andersen question the value of the focus and the work of the retail crime advisory group. I’m not sure that any member of the Opposition turned up to any of the forums that were held across the country, so I’m not sure how they can comment on the value of those forums. However, I did. The attendees at the Whanganui retail crime forum—the retailers, the small-business owners, the local government representatives, the business associations, the staff of the large retailers—were all overwhelmingly supportive of what’s in this bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and, if it’s not too early to say so, merry Christmas. I may not look like the candidate who would be thinking about what I get the Government for Christmas this year, but I have been and I think I’ve landed on an Oxford English Dictionary, so the Government can look up the term “urgency” and understand when it should truly be used. It feels like I begin my speech like this almost every week, but it is important—it is important—because I did note the Hon Chris Bishop’s comments about urgency earlier in the week. So I went to the lovely people at the Parliamentary Library, to let me know how many hours under this Government we’ve been under urgency, compared to how many hours under the previous Government had been under urgency, and just for the information of the public: 30.4 percent of parliamentary hours, to date, under this Parliament have been under the use of urgency—

Hon Member: Stick to the bill.

VANUSHI WALTERS: —this is a bill that’s being heard under urgency—15.7 hours in the previous Parliament. That is almost double. That’s extraordinary. So I will continue to remind Government members that urgency is for actual urgent things.

Now, my colleague Ginny Andersen did speak about the patchwork bill. The complaint is not so much about getting a lot done; it’s about putting very different things into one bill. The reason it’s a problem is because any Government should be striving for cross-party agreement, and when you put in a set of things that are extremely controversial, with a set of things that parties can agree to, you, essentially, set the House up for an improper process. That is the complaint. I will speak about the last-minute amendment later, but it is a problem.

I just wanted to highlight two issues with the section 7 vet—or it’s actually legal advice because the bill was deemed to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) at the time that it was reviewed, and noting that changes have been made. But in terms of the citizen’s arrest powers, it absolutely is a problem. We’ve heard that from the Police Association, as well, who say that the bill is flawed; from the manufacturers association; from retailers New Zealand; and from the people that we talk to.

But what I was troubled by was the very light analysis of that power in the legal advice. I’ll read it out to you. It says just this: “The bill does limit freedom of expression in the new requirement for citizens who make arrests, to contact the police and that that compels speech. However, this is readily justifiable under section 5 of NZBORA and, therefore, not inconsistent with NZBORA.” That is it. That is not analysis, is one point. The second point is that it doesn’t look at the fact that this bill empowers citizens, the public, to, essentially, perform a public function. This is our new free police service, as some have said to us—I think it was First Union—and, therefore, potentially, you could argue that there should have been a broader analysis of that issue, in terms of the legal advice provided, but there simply wasn’t.

Also, in terms of the attack to head or neck, the analysis says that it doesn’t directly touch on the BORA issue. However, the bill would have the effect of adding the new offence responding to strikes to the head or neck to the list of qualifying offences in respect of which extended supervision orders can be made under the Parole Act. And you’re all, at this stage, saying “Ah ha!”, especially Justice Committee members, because we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency come to the committee on this issue. So if there are powers being added that would, in effect, extend the impact of this, then, yes, it does have a direct impact.

So there’s absolutely a lot to unpack at select committee. I look forward to hearing from a number of submitters who have already expressed the fact that they have concerns about these two parts of the bill—but I do look forward to them bringing their concerns directly to the Government members, who I hope will be listening at that stage to some very serious rights-based concerns that they will, no doubt, raise. Thank you.

What saddens me to my core is that we’re having philosophical conversations across the House about the use of urgency. There is urgency for victims, and that’s the reason why this bill is what it is, and that’s the reason why we’re talking about it in urgency: because, to us, the rights of victims and protecting them is absolutely urgent. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I’m going to pick the challenge up there and talk about victims, because I’m quite concerned about how many victims will come out of a piece of legislation that actually puts shopkeepers in serious danger. I want to tell one story from my electorate, and it is absolutely true. I went in to talk to a guy who runs a liquor store in my area; he had had someone come into his store and take things, and it was incredibly frightening—and he is expected to make a citizen’s arrest? I think that would be crazy.

We discussed it, and he thought it would be absolutely crazy for him to do it. He lives in that store, and his family live upstairs. There will be blood on the hands of this Government if it allows that process to be the one that is a choice for people, because, actually, even if you arrest someone in that situation, you’ve got to hold them there until the police get there. Guess what! We haven’t got enough police to get there at the moment, because we’re actually not even getting the police promised by this Government. We’re not even getting the officers on the ground, so who’s going to come and sort out the situation? It is a very dangerous little pathway that this Government is going down.

However, I want to throw a Christmas bouquet in my speech here, because I am very pleased to see the changes in terms of trafficking. Those are really good changes. Now, the devil will be in the detail. I have talked to a group called End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT), who did a really good report on this area, and they are looking at what is going on, and it will be very important that we listen to people like that who are experts in this area. So far, it is a very important change we’re going to see happen, because what we’re going to have is a definition of “trafficking”, and we’re going to have children treated as children in that situation, and we might see more prosecution under this piece of law and stopping behaviour that is coercive and power based. That’s a really important thing. It needed its own piece of legislation, in my opinion, because it’s a really important piece of work. It would have meant that the Greens would probably have voted with the Government on this one, if it had been separated out, because it is extremely important, and I’m pretty sure there’s consensus around the House about this piece of work.

This is an important piece of work. I am pleased to see it here. I look forward to being able to debate it further. I think it is incredibly important when we start to take away the idea of consent when we’re looking at children like that. ECPAT have done a report on this, and I went to the ECPAT launch, and they were talking—there were people who had been through the process of being exploited as children, and they were talking about this phrase; it was called “a box for a box”. It was a phrase where people were being given a box of alcohol for their sexual use, basically. It was utterly exploitative, but people who are doing that sort of thing in this country are not being held to account in the way that they should be, and they weren’t being prosecuted before, because it was too hard, and, hopefully, they will be prosecuted under this law.

What it will mean if they are prosecuted under this law is that we start to see the problem and how widespread it is, because it’s no longer a definition of “trafficking” that’s all about people being brought into the country—yes, that happens—it’s also a definition that’s broader. It’s about that exploitative factor; it’s about the abuse of power. It is incredibly important that we start to prosecute so that we can see the problem for what it is. Presently, there’s just very few—it’s very, very rare to prosecute under the law as it is.

That’s my bouquet for the day, but I want to return to the issue of citizen’s arrests. That itself is a very, very difficult thing. It has already existed in some form, but it’s a very difficult process to work through, and it’s not being given enough time and attention. It may have consequences for people like my liquor store owner. I know, having had that conversation with him, that he won’t be going near it with a barge pole. He’ll be doing the right thing and staying out of the way in that situation so he doesn’t get hurt. Others might not be as wise as him, and they’re being encouraged by this Government to take their lives in their hands and the lives of their children in their hands—and that is absolutely not acceptable. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. What an absolute disgrace it is to see members on the other side who are completely soft on crime. Have they not learnt anything in their two years in Opposition? That, actually, this is a country and Government that is focused on putting victims first. The speeches they presented have been weak, they have been soft, and it is demonstrated in the lack of contributions they’ve actually made to this debate. This is a good thing because it puts victims first. I commend it to the House.

The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee