Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Stalking and harassment is vicious, sinister, and can be deadly. After years of discussion, this Government has strengthened the law to put a stop to this insidious behaviour and to keep victims safe. Stalking and harassment, sadly, can affect any New Zealander. However, women are greatly overrepresented as victims by the deluded, the sexist, and the abusive. Even worse, their children are frequently exploited to surveil victims, pass on threats, or even be threatened themselves.

This bill will help to protect everyone, but especially women and their families. This bill would not be possible without the tireless advocacy and help of many people. Last year’s petitioners championed this cause, and I want to personally thank the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children for organising the petition. I’m pleased that as a Government, and indeed as a Parliament, we’ve been able to keep our commitment to pass legislation before the end of this year.

I also want to thank the more than 600 submitters to the Justice Committee. Many of them bravely shared their own stories, experiences, and the impact of stalking and harassment on their lives. The Justice Committee itself deserves special thanks: they listened carefully to those stories to improve the bill for everybody’s benefit. The committee’s work shows that when an important issue comes up, the House can work together to make a difference for all New Zealanders.

I’d like to take a moment to step through the important aspects of the bill. The bill amends the Crimes Act to create a new offence of stalking and harassment. The new offence is defined as a pattern of behaviour which the offender knew was likely to cause the victim fear or distress. The pattern of behaviour is defined as two specified acts within a two-year period. These specified acts are listed in the bill and are broad. The police notice system and relevant offences are also built into the new offence.

Supporting amendments are made to other legislation. These changes increase protections for victims and their families. Protections include allowing the Harmful Digital Communications Act and restraining orders to be made at a sentencing for the new offence, adding the offence to the Firearms Prohibition Orders regime, and preventing intimidation when giving evidence. Together, the offence and these supporting amendments provide a comprehensive response to criminal stalking and harassment.

This has all been drafted very carefully. Stalking and harassment is difficult to address because it can be done by any person in any way to anyone, and can occur through an open-ended list of behaviours making up a pattern of behaviour. The bill cuts through this problem with a solution: a wide net is drafted to be absolutely clear that a wider range of behaviours can be stalking and harassment. What really matters is the impact of that behaviour, and so it casts the net in three ways. First, the specified acts are drafted broadly; they capture many different forms of stalking. As an example, many people asked if the specific behaviour of making intimate visual recordings would be captured by the bill. I’m pleased to say: absolutely. This behaviour is captured by the widely defined specified act of tracking or recording. The specified act could also capture audio or any other kind of intimate recordings made in public or private.

Second, the bill states that a specified act is captured if it is done “in any way”, including directly or indirectly. This makes it clear that a stalker or harasser cannot work around the offence with technology or covert strategies. To continue my previous example, people asked if using spyware apps to film victims through their phones would be captured. Again, this is captured by the specified act of recording or tracking with the assistance of these “in any way” rules.

Third, the bill states that a specified act is captured even if it is done through a third party. This might include a friend, teacher, relative, or even a business. This addresses an especially worrying problem I mentioned earlier: abusing the trust and innocence of children to stalk parents. This might be asking a child to pass on threats to their parent, spy on their parent, or even stalking the child itself.

Of course, the other defining feature of stalking and harassment is its repetitiveness; in this bill, a “pattern of behaviour”. It’s been a subject of extensive debate in the media and in this House. As a result, the bill has changed through the select committee process and has a wider pattern of behaviour of two specified acts in two years. This is an important refinement of the bill.

Similarly, the mental element, the mens rea for this offence, which has also been heavily debated and just also in the committee of the whole House stage; I do remain satisfied that the current standard, “[knowing that] the pattern [of behaviour] is likely to cause fear or distress”, is appropriate for two reasons: first, that the standard does capture the many motivations behind stalking and harassment. Those opposed to the standard argue that defendants will get away with stalking through their lies and delusions, and I understand that worry, but I have every confidence that our prosecutors and ultimately our juries are not so easily fooled. In many cases, knowing fear or distress was a likely outcome will be implicit by the nature of the behaviour—for example, where threats of harm are made—but in other situations, a prosecutor might only need to show that a victim, a friend, or a family member told the stalker they were scaring the victim. Thirdly, there’s a police notice system that takes it further if it’s issued to a stalker but the behaviour continues. A presumption of knowledge is established against the stalker.

Second, as lawmakers are responsible for maintaining proportionate offences, the offence has a significant maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. If we lower the standard to such as “ought to have known” alongside the very wide net of specified acts, we risk losing proportionality. I understand why people feel very strongly about it, but I’m convinced that the current draft and legislation achieves the right and appropriate balance.

I’m mindful that laws are only as effective as their enforcement and, to give the police agencies time to properly prepare for the new offence, the bill will come into force six months after the Royal assent. Time will be used to set up the systems necessary for an effective response.

Before I conclude, I’d like to thank advocates, submitters, and members of the House who have supported this bill. It’s been a long time coming and this has been a very busy Government in the justice space. We’ve passed a lot of legislation, but I’m very pleased that we have been able to find the space and the time to get this legislation through. I want to thank the House for their support in doing this. This is a victory for the people who have argued for it for so long, for their families and for our broader society, because it sends a very clear message. It sends a message to people who think that it’s appropriate to get away with these sorts of activities that society does not accept it, will not tolerate it, and will deal quite harshly with people who stalk and harass their fellow New Zealanders. I’m proud to say that I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill is for Farzana Yaqubi. I was the Minister of Police when I was informed by officials that there would be an Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report coming out on her death, and the IPCA report found that there were significant failings in how her case was investigated and brought forward, and this legislation is the direct result of that.

Farzana was a young woman full of life. She knew that she was being stalked and she took every action she could do to keep herself safe. Despite her efforts and despite doing everything that we would ask of someone in her position, she lost her life. Farzana’s death is a stark reminder to us all that stalking is not a minor irritation or an interpersonal misunderstanding. It is harmful, it escalates, and without clear legal tools to intervene early, the risks can be fatal. To Farzana’s family, friends, and community, our thoughts are with you today. The best way this House can honour her memory is by ensuring others, hopefully, do not face the same failures and, hopefully, this legislation takes some steps towards achieving that.

Stalking often begins with behaviour that can appear insignificant. In isolation, it can be a message, someone waiting outside a home, an unwanted visit to a workplace, or even an online contact from someone who comes up as anonymous. But victims experience these acts as part of a wider pattern that creates genuine fear within people’s lives—predominantly women’s lives.

Too often, victims minimise what has been happening to them because they worry that they will not be believed. For many, they are right: the existing tools have not been fit for purpose, particularly with the rise of digital tracking, technology-enabled harassment, and the use of cameras, as well, as we heard at the select committee.

This bill begins to address some of those gaps. By creating a clear criminal offence of stalking, for the first time stalking will be clearly defined as a pattern of specified acts, and—after the changes made at the select committee which I will speak to later; that is two acts within a period of 24 months—the act will be directed at a victim and carried out with knowledge that the behaviour is likely to cause fear or distress.

This clarity matters. It reflects how stalking accurately occurs, and it ensures that police and the courts have the power and the tools they need to act. The bill sets out a modern list of specified acts, including tracking someone digitally, repeatedly contacting them, watching or following them, interfering with property or pets, or any act that could reasonably cause fear or distress. It also recognises that stalking can occur directly, indirectly, or through digital means such as devices, spyware, and even drones.

This bill, I hope, will incentivise early intervention and will also prevent harm. A key part of this bill is the ability of police to issue a formal notification when they believe someone has already engaged in one or more specified acts. Once that notice is issued, the individual is presumed to know that any further acts could amount to stalking. This enables earlier intervention and removes the excuse of ignorance when behaviour continues over a period of time.

I believe that this bill provides accountability and fair protection as well. The new offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment. The bill also includes reasonable exceptions for lawful purpose, reasonable excuse, or public interest, ensuring balance and fairness remain central. This is a modernised, practical approach that strengthens victims’ protection without undermining legitimate activity.

I’d like to acknowledge the process to date, and first and foremost I would like to acknowledge two women in particular, and they are Alison Towns and Leonie Morris. Their relentless advocacy in this space is probably the single greatest reason why we are here seeing this legislation pass tonight in the House. They will be aware—and I hope they are watching—that the Government clearly stated that passing stalking legislation was not a priority for this Government. When they advocated and organised and got over 8,000 signatures delivered to the front steps of Parliament, and when they worked with me to draft a member’s bill that introduced stalking as an offence and put that into the members’ ballot, we saw a change in the Government. The Government changed its position and committed to passing this legislation. It is a rare and beautiful thing to happen, and good on you, Paul Goldsmith—you got there in the end. I’m really pleased that we got this far.

There were significant changes made at the select committee and they strengthened the bill and made it more likely to be able to achieve a prosecution. There is key change that I’m proud we got. Previously, it was three of the specified acts in a period of 12 months. Now that is two in a period of 24 months. So, for those who are subjected to stalking behaviour when they celebrate an anniversary—it might be a birthday or something where it’s a common occurrence to have an annual reminder—having a period that exceeds 12 months was really important, and that was feedback that we had from victims.

The strength of submissions we received at select committee were phenomenal, and I would just like to acknowledge all those people who stepped forward and told their personal stories. That made making these changes even more convincing as to the reasons why we needed to do that. The advice and support we received throughout from advocacy groups was amazing. The level of advice and the intricate knowledge of where legislation overseas should be brought here to New Zealand and how that should work really assisted us to achieve this bill in the form it takes. This bill is not perfect. There are many areas that could be improved, but it’s a good start and it’s a lot better than the first draft we got at the first reading.

I’d like to acknowledge Andrew Bayly as the chair of the Justice Committee. He was pragmatic. He listened to victims. He understood where we could strengthen the bill and made positive changes. So I’d like to thank him for his work.

It’s important that we state why this bill matters. This bill is about real people whose lives have been disrupted, constrained, put at risk because someone has refused to leave them alone. It is for those who have changed jobs, who have moved homes or altered their daily routines in an effort to try and feel safe. It is for those targeted online or monitored through technology, and it’s for the families who have already paid a price that is too high. We cannot undo the past, but we can ensure the law is no longer silent in the face of escalating harm.

This bill brings our law into the modern era. It provides clear definitions, earlier intervention, and stronger protection for victims. It gives police and the courts the tools they need to act decisively when behaviour starts to escalate. While no legislation can change what has happened to past victims like Farzana, this bill takes meaningful steps to ensure others have better protections in the future, and that is my hope for what this bill does. This is real victim-focused reform, and I commend it to the House.

I might get a little bit emotional giving this speech, because I think this is a bill that’s gone through this term that I will probably remember for the rest of my life. I think a lot of the people in this room right now can be so proud of themselves for being a part of history. Finally, after decades and decades and decades of advocacy and campaigning and, above all else, women experiencing stalking and harassment and abuse and discrimination and harm in real life—mentally, physically, virtually—we’re finally here passing New Zealand’s first bill that defines and acknowledges stalking as a form of abuse.

Off the back of that committee phase, I want to acknowledge the Government; that will be the only time you hear that coming out of my mouth this term. But I do want to acknowledge Minister of Justice Goldsmith for accepting our amendment to this bill, and, through accepting that amendment, strengthening this bill for survivors. I also want to echo acknowledgments to the chair of the Justice Committee, Andrew Bayly, for the way that he treated survivors with dignity and respect and believed them and heard them.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge survivors who have endured experiences of stalking. In particular, there are two women that come to mind. The first is Zeni Gibson. In the second reading of this bill, I spoke at length about her experience—it’s been well publicised—but this is the story of a young woman who interacted with a stranger one time in passing, which resulted in her being violently, graphically, sexually stalked for nearly a decade, which I think really illuminates the nature of stalking in some instances. It can seem completely unexplainable that a stranger can grow such a strong, intense obsession with someone they don’t even know. But that is very real, as we’ve learnt from submissions, and that is something that was not priorly addressed within our legislation. So I want to acknowledge Zeni and her courage to speak up about someone who did, and continues to, stalk her, who is also a free person, from my understanding. This is a person who is walking around the streets. She spoke up fearlessly, knowing that that person was walking around the street, so I want to acknowledge her and say, Zeni, your courage contributed to us being here today.

But there are other survivors who are not here today to see this finally happening. I also want to mihi to Farzana Yaqubi, and just the regret in which we come to this, today, having lost so many women, because we experience too much violence in this world and in this society, but also because we didn’t have the laws in place, or the police protocols in place, to keep her safe.

Most importantly, there have been tireless advocates who have fought for this bill, and there is nobody who has been more vocal in getting us here today than the incredible, formidable, compassionate, amazing person that is Leonie Morris. She has met with all of us in this room; she’s met with every party; she has, more importantly, met with countless survivors and made sure that their voices have the driving force. And she’s done this for a really long time. Leonie—I know you’re watching at home—this is the fruit of your labour. What a legacy to be proud of and to share with people for generations to come.

I also want to acknowledge a few other people who have been instrumental in getting this law, including Awatea Mita, who led the campaign for Auckland Women’s Centre; also, of course, our very own Jan Logie, whose work in the sexual violence space has set the groundwork for laws like this to come into place; obviously Ginny Andersen, who was a massive part of this bill’s inception; every other woman who has fought tirelessly for this bill; and, of course, allies.

This bill is unique because it acknowledges the impact of psychological harm. It’s also unique because of a point that Awatea Mita, who was an advocate for this bill, continued to lament throughout submissions on this bill, and that is that this bill establishes and recognises patterns and context. If you look at “specified act”, some of these things might not seem obvious as crimes; you know, things that could come across as innocent, or acts that could come across as innocent, if you were looking at them objectively without context. Things such as sending a message or dropping a letter in someone’s mailbox; these things might seem relatively innocent. However, this bill acknowledges that when you have a pattern of behaviour is when the psychological harm can come about, and it acknowledges the context in which these behaviours happen. Those are two things—pattern and context—that weren’t formally recognised within our laws.

I really want to acknowledge positive changes that have been made throughout the Justice Committee process, and following that. I think that this bill represents the best of our democracy. It’s an example where submitters were heard, and their changes—which were pretty substantial changes—have been incorporated. Thanks to those submitters, and thanks to the willingness of collaboration from the Government and from all parties, we’ve managed to get the threshold of specified acts down from three acts to two acts; we’ve managed to get the timeline expanded from 12 months to two years. We also tried new techniques of collecting submissions for this; Ginny and I proposed that we use social media as a way to elicit submissions for this bill. We also have been, through the select committee process, pioneering the use of anonymous submissions, which I think is something we need to do more when it comes to sensitive matters around family and sexual violence.

As we just did in the committee of the whole House, we accepted the amendment around police notification, which I’m so happy about. In June, it was pointed out that there was a gap in this legislation, which meant that when police serve that initial notification to the perpetrator, they did not have to consult, inform, or gain consent from the victim. We were really concerned about this, and here’s a quote from Leonie Morris: “One thing that we’re very concerned about is that at the moment police can notify a stalker that he has been stalking and that he’ll be breaking the law if he does it again. We’re happy with that, but we don’t want police to do that until they’ve notified the victim that that’s what they’re going to do and they’ve talked through with the victim a safety plan—because otherwise if just out of the blue he is told that she’s gone to the police and the police are now saying to him, “You need to be much more careful with your behaviour,’ he could retaliate against her.”

We worked through different iterations of this amendment to make sure it was one that everyone was happy with. We went from requiring written consent, which was just going to be too hard, was going to be too difficult, and not necessarily victim focused—so we moved from that to “consult”, and then we were informed by Government advisers that “inform” is the best language for that; another example of collaboration, democracy, and what committee of the whole House should be for.

I’ve only got a minute left, and it’s so hard to wrap up the last year working on this bill in a minute. But there’s still work to do. I think the online space, where a lot of stalking and harassment takes place, is an area that we really have to cast our minds to. I know there are some bills that will be coming through the House that address some forms of this around deepfakes, and we look forward to supporting that. But there’s still massive gaps in the way that people can use social media and online websites to stalk and harass other people, so we need to address this. We need police to get this right, and that is why we put our amendment forward. We need more funding for things like the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre, who deal with people who have got the psychological illness of obsession with people and abusing them through their obsession.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, thank you to everyone in the House today; we can be really proud of ourselves when we go home tonight. To all of the survivors, we hear you, and we’re here because of you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in strong support of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill. I agree with the previous speaker, Tamatha Paul. There are moments in time that we will look back at and see this as a massive win for victims of a pretty horrible crime that has been ignored for far too long. For years, stalking has fallen through the cracks in our laws. For me, this is rather personal, and I’ve spoken about this before, but I don’t think it can be said too many times. The effects that this has on not just the person who’s been harassed and stalked but on their family, their children, and their wider network, who are constantly worried about their loved one and whether their loved one is going to be safe that day; whether their loved one got home safe; whether their loved one is at home, scared and crying and worried about what’s going to happen to them that night. It changes a person. It takes away their life force. It takes away everything within themselves that sees the world as a good place, and often the light disappears from that person. I don’t think, until you see the extreme end of what harassment and stalking can do, you can fully comprehend the damage it does to a person.

I myself have witnessed this where I have seen a person who I really care about not be able to put a sentence together, because their brain had shut down through years of fear—to the point where their brain could no longer put a sentence together, they couldn’t say their name, and they could not look after themselves. This is not a crime that should be taken lightly, and I am grateful for these changes because now it won’t be. It will be seen for what it is. It is destructive, and it needs to stop.

This is a crime that is not just about a single moment in time. Instead, it becomes a lived experience. It changes how people walk to their car, it changes where they shop, it changes how they’ll organise their day, and it also changes the way they think when they go to bed at night. It changes the amount of times that they check the locks on the doors and make sure that the windows are closed through fear of somebody entering and harming them. It changes the way family members look when they are visiting the person who is going through this. It changes how everybody behaves in their everyday lives.

This is something that has been very close to my heart in making sure that this is done right. This is what fixing matters truly looks like when it comes to law in this place. We often talk very technical; we often talk about crime with statistics and numbers, but we often forget that there are names, faces, and families behind the statistics that we’re speaking to. I feel really privileged to stand here today and know that women and men will get justice when it comes to this horrific crime.

I listened to some of the stories across the time that this has come through the House, and I heard some of the stories that were brought to select committee. Those stories were gut-wrenching and heartbreaking and sadly showed that this happens far too often. They’re everyday New Zealanders who have lived through months and years of suffering only to be ignored or brushed aside, and that’s not OK. Victims have often been told that the creepy, obsessive behaviour that they face didn’t meet the threshold of the offence. What this could mean in practice is that you may have had an order that that person cannot come on to your property, but that didn’t mean that they couldn’t stand at the top of your driveway and stare down the top of your driveway to let you know they’re there. But they weren’t breaching any rules. It was intimidating, it was scary, but there’s nothing that you can do about it. You can ring and ask for help, but on the other end of the phone, you are told that they are actually not breaking any laws, and unless they step on to your property, they are not breaking the rules back under the old law. Under the new law, they will be.

The new charges under this bill will, hopefully, mean that women and men will feel like they can share the problems they are facing. It’ll bring some sunlight to this issue, take the shame away, and allow people to actually have a really open conversation about what this looks like. Hopefully, it will deal with other issues that come alongside harassment and stalking, where isolation, fear of leaving the home, and fear for your children will also be helped under this new legislation.

Last off, I would just really like to thank the brave people who came forward, shared their stories, were involved in the process of the select committee, and helped to shape this law to be better and to make sure that it really did make a difference. Without those voices, we may not necessarily have a bill as good as it is right now. Again, I think this is an excellent piece of work. When we come into this place, as a member of Parliament, I often used to think: how can I help everyday people to make their lives better? I would say that this bill, in particular, is one I will be proud of for a very long time. I hope that I have made the person that I spoke about today, and who went through this, proud, too, so that what they went through wasn’t for nothing and so that their story that they shared with me and the journey I went through with them has also made a difference in this country for the betterment of all the victims of this crime. Thank you, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill. There has been much said in this House already around the importance of this legislation. One of the things that I know and appreciate strongly about victims and the reality that they face is that the ability to be heard and seen and understood is a big part of a healing process. I think what was achieved through both the bringing forward of this legislation and the select committee process was providing an opportunity for those who have been so badly affected to be seen, heard, and understood.

The specified acts defined in this legislation have been worked on to develop a robust piece of legislation that ensures that it’s not just recognising what the acts are but how they can be done and through a third party to ensure we capture all of the components. This is an important piece of legislation, and I would applaud the Justice Committee on how well they work together to ensure that this is the best piece of legislation it can be. I can appreciate it would have been challenging and difficult to hear a lot of the submissions, but at the end of the day, we have reached a piece of legislation that is effective, it is timely, it is important, and it shows that when the Government and this House come together, we can achieve some very positive outcomes. On that basis, I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of Te Rōpū Kākāriki, with sincere gratitude in my heart, to tautoko the speeches tonight. I reflect particularly on our Minister Chhour’s kōrero tonight because, as wahine, you can affiliate with what has been shared, particularly the intergenerational ripples of the impact of stalking and harassment, not just on the mother but also on the children and mokopuna. I agree that there is a change—a change in the family, a change in the way in which they behave—and there are the constant stress levels that ripple through a home and through the lives of loved ones.

As I listened to the speeches tonight, I reflected on the stories of our wāhine who have endured many years of this type of violence, where they were never taken seriously and they were muzzled or muted in the way in which they could go to the authorities and seek help because there was just not enough evidence for it to be taken seriously at the time. Providing these levers legislatively now unlocks an opportunity for us to put some boundaries in place as wāhine in relationships but also for children to hold parents to account, as well. We can now see that a door is open for conversations for whānau to provide safeguards for their loved ones.

I just want to refer to the amendment that was agreed to tonight. It also ensures that the victim is at the centre of decision making, and when the police do make approaches to the offenders or to those who are suspects, yes, notify them that “We know, and we are watching.” But the victim, ultimately, needs to know what is happening around them and about the incidents that are being followed up on, because follow-up is so important, but we also need to protect the voice and the safety of the whānau of the victim as the police go about their work. So the agreement made tonight by the Minister of Justice and by members of this House is not something to be ignored, because we’re trying to provide a suite of tools so that the authorities—those who are tasked with implementing this legislation but also all the support networks that try and wrap around the family as they grapple with these challenges—have a decent set of tools whereby they can start dealing with this type of behaviour.

I do want to also bring to the House the consideration around treatment, around rehabilitation, and around support for the victim but also for the offender. What is the pathway to support all of those impacted by this? I’m not sure that this legislation provides room for it, but maybe it’s an “and, and” so that we start looking at that side of the continuum too, because at some stage the offender will come out and they will need to be supported to be a good parent, a good spouse, and a good whānau member in the future. But the victim, the whānau, the children, and the mokopuna also need to have the relevant safeguards in place so that the behaviours and the experiences that they have seen, shared, listened to, and witnessed are coped with, but they are also supported so that they have the ability to not take on some of those behaviours that they may have fallen victim to over time.

We’re paying tribute to the victims and whānau, and the victims who were strong and who came forward in the Justice Committee to be the voice of those who are the voiceless, as it is a silent issue within whānau and communities. This is a silent issue. It is spoken about quietly amongst friends and amongst whānau. Shame still exists within this space, but with the way that this House has united, in a sense, tonight, it lets us know that we can do these things together, and this is providing safeguards, not only for the victims of today but for our mokopuna and those to come in the future. Kia ora.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the privilege of being able to speak in the third reading on this bill as we pass it this evening, in this House. During the process of guiding the legislation through the Justice Committee and through the House I had the opportunity to meet with a group of women in my electorate who advocated for a change to the number of specified acts and the period of which those acts covered.

I just want to thank the coalition partners I worked with in ACT and New Zealand First as we worked out how we would respond and ultimately land on the amendment that was made to the piece of legislation that has been passed this evening. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been quite gratifying to listen to the speeches from around the House as we come together, for a change, on this Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

As many people have said, the credit does go largely to the women who have advocated for this change for a long time, and their persistence; persistence, above and beyond. It crosses the line sometimes, but at the end of the day, it brings results, and that’s what’s happened. Even when the bill was introduced, they didn’t see their job as done. They continued to advocate for what they saw as the best outcome. I know that, even now, they’ll see what we’ve done today and they will think that we haven’t done everything we should have, but that’s what this place is. I do think we’ve landed in a pretty good place.

I do want to recognise Ginny Andersen, who spoke earlier, who’s been working very hard. She did have a member’s bill on exactly this topic. I want to put it on the record that, but for that, I don’t think the Government would have been spurred into action. The Government was spurred into action, and good on Paul Goldsmith, as the Minister of Justice, for doing that. It was also good to see him here looking genuinely at the Amendment Papers that are on the Table and adopting one of those which he was of the view was good.

In the Justice Committee, we did hear a lot of personal stories that talked about the very significant impact that stalking behaviour can have, and we’ve heard others in this House do that as well. I don’t want to dwell on that, but I do want to just put on the record some observations about this new offence. It is an offence, and the reason it’s a challenging offence in some ways—unlike the kinds of crimes that we think of—is that it’s not a crime of physical violence; it’s a crime of mental intimidation, if you like. Where the harm occurs is, in fact, inside someone’s head, and as the Minister Karen Chhour said, that harm is still real and can have very significant impacts but it’s not visible and it’s hard, from the outside, to understand that. That’s the first thing; we’ve got to have that effect: that someone does feel intimidated. Then the other thing, the critical second aspect of this offence, happens in someone else’s head—in the perpetrator’s head—because they have to know that their behaviour is likely to cause this effect: “to cause fear or distress”, in the words of the legislation. That’s a challenging area for the law to seek to intervene in.

Now, there are tools to assist with that. There’s a list of kinds of behaviour, almost presumptively specified acts, such as the traditional ones that come to mind: watching, following, loitering—that’s the kind of visual image we have of stalking—but also acting in any other way that would cause fear or distress to a reasonable person. Here’s the interesting thing: it is essentially recognising cyberstalking. A specified act might be done by or through any means whatsoever—for example, tracking devices, digital applications, spyware, drones, or the use of artificial intelligence. This offence which we have created is not just that offence of visiting someone’s workplace or following them home, or whatever it might be; it’s a whole plethora of possible activities, and I think it’s really important that we understand that.

Of course, I think the other thing to recognise is that whilst some people who engage in stalking behaviour know exactly what they’re doing, one of the other challenges that we recognised in select committee, and the Police recognised, was that there’s a large portion of people who aren’t quite wired the same way as a normal person. They don’t understand that, when they are rebuffed, to send someone flowers at their workplace is creepy and disturbing and distressing to them. That’s why the ability of a constable to notify a person—essentially, to sit someone down and say, “Hey, what you’re doing is creepy. It’s stalking behaviour. It’s really causing distress to the other person. You’ve got to stop.” Of course, now they can go to that next step and say, “Look, if you do it again, you’ll be committing an offence.” That’s why we needed that extra measure to allow constables to, essentially, put someone on notice. Tamatha Paul’s amendment, which I referred to earlier, is a good one, because it does make sure that, in doing that, the victim of the behaviour is aware of what’s going on and can participate in that decision-making process.

Having said that, the warning isn’t a necessary part of it, and, of course, the other thing that really cropped up that we struggled with and made some changes to is the number of incidents and the span of time needed. There’s no perfect solution here. The danger that was identified was that if you have a strict limited period—two stalking behaviours in two years—you’ll get two stalking behaviours in two years and one day, and by dint of that day, which does seem arbitrary, the offence isn’t committed. I think, in having a limited period, we’ve probably landed at a reasonable position. The two incidents: again, you could say, “Why do you have to have more than one?”, or “Should it be three?” Again, I don’t think that there’s a perfect solution there, but we’ve probably landed at the right place.

I guess what I’m saying is that this is a good addition to our criminal law, but at the same time it’s not a straightforward piece of legislation. I’m sure that operationally—and I think this will be the actual challenge, more than legally, operationally—the police will need some time to work through exactly how it can assist them in both keeping people safe and also keeping people feeling safe, which is, in many ways, what stalking is about. Of course, stalking can lead to genuine violence, but in many cases it’s just, essentially, harassment and intimidation, which equally people—especially women—deserve to be protected from. As I said before, it’s going to be a challenge. The legal questions will roll out, and I think the mental element—what it means for someone to know that it’s likely to cause fear or distress—will need development.

My sense is that sometimes it’s so blindingly obvious that what you’re doing—following someone, following an ex-partner home at night—is going to cause fear and distress that saying, “Oh, I thought she wouldn’t mind.” is not going to hold any water. There will be other cases where it’s perhaps not quite so clear cut, but it’s good legislation. Again, to those people who have for a long time advocated for this to become part of our law—to go alongside harmful digital communications, the harassment Act, and our other family protection legislation—I think, well done. I do think there’s space to get a more uniform approach, because it’s very patchwork, and there’s always a danger, when you’ve got a patchwork, that something falls between the cracks.

This is a good legislation, and once again, congratulations to Ginny Andersen for the work that she’s done, and also the select committee. It gets a bit feisty from time to time, but we actually did knuckle down on this one, and whilst we had good discussions, we worked cooperatively. I think, at the end of the day, we’ve got a pretty good outcome for everyone, most importantly a good outcome for women, predominantly, who will feel safer and be safer as a result of the work that we’re doing tonight.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The only shame about passing the legislation right now is that it is 10.40 p.m. on a Wednesday night, and ensuring that people have an understanding that this legislation is being passed—it’s coming into force next year; and it’s got the support of every political party in this place—it says we take it seriously, particularly for women across New Zealand. They are not the only victims of stalking, but they are predominantly most of the victims of stalking across New Zealand. To say we’re doing something about it; it’s not about a particular political party taking a win, but it’s actually about this Parliament saying that we’ve listened to the victims across New Zealand who came and spoke to the legislation, who’ve numerously shared their stories with many, many members of Parliament. Finally, Parliament has come together and said we’re going to do something about it. It is a really good day; therefore, I’m going to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to start by acknowledging that this week is a week that we remember how violent New Zealand society can be, and that children have paid the price this week for violence being not addressed in our communities. I wanted to make a case for the correlation of things like stalking with that violence. Sometimes I think it gets a little bit lost; it’s seen as something lighter. In fact, it’s a precursor. The people who end up in women’s refuges, I think 75 percent of them are recorded as having been stalked before they left the relationship, and 65 percent afterwards. I suspect, actually, that is an underrepresentation of the number, because there are also, now, new methods of stalking people, and there is an incredible use of things like spyware. It is quite shocking. These kinds of things just weren’t available before, and we have a culture which has changed in some ways so that children are being taught that it’s OK that their parents know where they are all the time, etc., and it’s one of the issues that’s raised: that we’re actually changing our norms and values in our society so that we think that knowing where somebody is all the time is our right. It is a method of control and it is an addiction to control.

We also have a wave of misogyny out there; an absolute wave coming to our shores. It is everywhere on social media. It is a violent space on the internet, and people are learning new violent behaviours and thinking that they are acceptable. So it is an important time for a piece of legislation like this, and it’s important not to see it as a lighter form of issue but see it as a precursor and a form of violence, because that’s what it is.

So it’s important, I think, that this legislation recognises how important fear is in people’s lives. We all have a right to feel safe, and being afraid erodes our actual sense of being. We’ve had some of the other speakers tonight talk about how they’ve seen that happen, but I think it’s just really important that we acknowledge that that form of safety, that is the right of every woman in this country. It is under attack; they are under attack. We have to get to the root of that and say it is completely unacceptable. We are seeing it in leaders in other countries, we are seeing it out there being seen as an OK thing to do, and it is never going to be.

I wanted to say that and I wanted then to just talk about the collegiality of this House on this issue, because I think that’s a wonderful thing. That’s not something that we see a lot of; it’s really great that it’s happened over a bill like this. Thank you to Ginny Andersen, who was the person who started this process. Thank you to the activists who were involved in bringing this issue relentlessly to every party in this House.

But I just want to say that it’s actually significant that it’s over an issue like this; that this is something that is moving beyond any issue that is party political, in some ways. But it needs to be recognised that we face a crisis. We are seeing more of this violent behaviour, and we’re seeing a normalisation of it. So this is a kickback against that. This says, “Actually, those behaviours are controlling, manipulative, violent, and totally inappropriate in New Zealand society.”, and so I am extremely pleased and relieved to see this House on the same page with regard to this.

Thank you for passing this bill tonight—the entire House. Thank you to Ginny Andersen for bringing it here. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand and speak to the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill on its third reading. Stalking can be randomly triggered and escalate quickly to dangerous levels. This bill seeks to clearly define the elements of stalking and harassment. By doing so, it also recognises the vulnerability of victims and the real harm and risk they face. The bill will also enable timely and effective interventions and prosecution of offenders. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start by acknowledging the advocates and stakeholders and family members who will be watching tonight, after having advocated for this law change for years. To Ginny Andersen, who championed this issue so early, but also to the House, just reflecting on the comments made across the House, it’s clear that members all across the House recognise how important this is. I was thinking of the comments made by Minister Chhour about the all-encompassing impact that stalking can have on people’s lives and the importance of this change we’re making.

The Hon Ginny Andersen talked about being the Minister of Police and receiving the Independent Police Conduct Authority report when Farzana Yaqubi had passed and there was the inquiry into it. At the time it happened, I was the member of Parliament for Upper Harbour, and I still remember getting the call about that happening and how extraordinarily traumatic it was for Farzana’s family. Ibrahim Omer and I went to visit her family the following day, and the grief that they were steeped in was just incredible. I remember speaking to Farzana’s sister, and we talked a little about what had happened but also the criminal prosecution that would follow. She continued to say, “But it won’t bring her back—it won’t bring her back.” This won’t bring her back either, and I’m very, very acutely aware of that, but I do hope, as the Hon Ginny Andersen said, that it will do some justice to her memory in terms of what it will prevent.

Farzana’s funeral we also attended several days later, and the impact on her community more broadly was also extraordinary. She was a law student at Auckland University of Technology, very well respected. We spoke to some of her friends as well as her family, but it was just a huge number of people feeling that grief. Comments have been made about the ripple effects when things like this happen, but also those early stages of stalking and how much they impact families. That was certainly the case.

I think what’s striking about her case, though, is that as others have said, she did everything right. She did report it, and I wanted to walk through some of the timeline of her reporting to demonstrate that, because I do think it’s absolutely appalling. She made her first complaint on 25 October 2022. She made a 105 online report to the police. She took screenshots of the messages that she was being sent; she sent them through. On 3 December, she updated her online report. She told police that she was extremely fearful for her life. On 6 December, she made a formal statement in person at the Henderson station and she was told the file would be moved on, and just a number of days later, on 19 December, she was murdered. So, yes, it is important that we change the law, but it’s also important that we change the way we listen when complaints are made, and that is in many ways a bigger problem.

Some of the submitters who wrote to select committee made submissions in that regard, and as I was reading some of their submissions it occurred to me how the submissions that related directly to proposed legal changes instantly got recognition but some of those equally important other changes they were arguing for didn’t. One such submitter was the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ submissions. They argued against some specific parts of the bill as it was then, including the link to three separate occasions within a period of 12 months; they argued it should be broader. They then made a whole set of recommendations about policy, behavioural change, including developing sector guidance and educational resources for police, justice, and mental health services to ensure front-line staff recognise stalking behaviour and respond appropriately. They made a recommendation about developing a specific support framework for victims of stalking to ensure appropriate psychosocial support is available.

This is also something that Kim McGregor has spoken about in the past, our former Chief Victims Advisor, and Ruth Money has spoken about as our current Chief Victims Advisor; that need for more comprehensive support for victims. They both speak about a victims’ commission and actually having an advocate who’s funded well enough in the system to be your advocate at those very early stages of a complaint. While we do have places like Community Law, and certainly you can access lawyers, often that happens after the fact, and I do think there is real merit in us looking at some sort of framework like that.

We also had submissions from others like WAVES, the Waitakere Anti-Violence Essential Services. One of the points that they made which I think is absolutely valid is that, while the bill as it is now is excellent, we need to consider how people can be manipulated through a broader set of relationships. Their argument was that the definition of “family relationship” as is outlined in the Family Violence Act 2018 is too narrow and you need to look at the other relationships that can be used to really target someone. I think this is, interestingly, also relevant in a political context where many of us have electorate office staff who are very regularly dealing with people who do frequent the office because they’re frustrated about certain issues, etc. I do think that’s one area where we will need to monitor whether the bill is as effective as it can be.

Several people have spoken about how broad the Acts are that could fall within the framing of this new offence, that it isn’t existing criminal offences; it is about looking at the context, and that is hugely important. Something that came up several times was the idea of gifting and whether it was problematic to include gifting as one of the potential Acts, but in fact this is something that frequently does happen when you get an obsessive relationship, particularly where you have a relationship breakup that then results in stalking behaviour.

There were some interesting studies done, one of which was quoted in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and it gave us a table of victims of intimate partner stalking and the types of behaviour that those people were engaged in. It was things like sending dozens of text messages, sitting outside their school or home or work, phoning them often, asking friends to follow them. Often dropping off gifts and notes was almost 60 percent, so a really significant thing in terms of what can seem innocuous subjectively but really does have an impact on people.

The other thing that stood out to me in the RIS when I read it was the table that showed the difference between stalking behaviour of members of Parliament between 2014 and 2022. On every measure except for alarming behaviour at an electorate office, the percentages in terms of how that had been experienced have gone up—some quite considerably so—including inappropriate social media contact. This is absolutely a live issue. Changing the law is important; changing behaviours must also follow, so we do need, as a Parliament but as Governments—regardless of which Government is in place—to put in place education and other policy measures to ensure that there’s a culture shift.

I’d finish just by recognising the folk who came in for the glass prison exhibition here this week from Massey University, talking to people about their experiences of harassment and stalking. These were alarming quotes to read. We do need more of this research. Unfortunately, that might not be the case for them, but, again, this is an important piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a little bit difficult to articulate the feelings that a lot of us are feeling tonight as we progress with this bill. It is, in a matter of minutes, going to become a law. I remember during the campaign, in 2023, seeing the now Minister Paul Goldsmith on the news announce that we will be implementing a law which makes stalking illegal, makes it a new offence, and I reflect on that as I reflect on how with the conversations we had and we’re lucky to have with our Ministers, as the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children were approaching the steps of Parliament, he made the decision that, yes, we are definitely going to do this as a matter of urgency. I’m so grateful to the Minister—and Ministers Upston and Mitchell as well—for the conversation to progress this. I’m grateful for everyone that’s participated.

I want to say that whenever I look at a picture of Farzana Yaqubi, my heart weeps. It weeps. It weeps for the life lost; it weeps for her mother and her father. What I’ve learnt is that for a mother and a father, the worst nightmare is to lose a child. But through the loss of this beautiful girl, we can say, really, it was the catalyst for us to move fast with this bill. So I’m thinking of her parents today. I’m thinking of the loss of life. I’m thinking also of David White, who gave a submission because he also lost a daughter, and he said that stalking is a psychological weapon, wielded with purpose by the perpetrator. It is a mind game that can reduce a victim to fear and tears in a crowd when the perpetrator is seen, and so I’m really proud of what we’re doing here tonight.

Nothing will take away the pain that every parent has endured when their child is lost because of crimes like this, but I’m glad that we’re commending this bill to the House.

I guess I will start, Tom, by saying I will say good things because this is a good night to say good things. The good of it is that there is a combined thinking and feeling and heart for this particular piece of legislation. So I tautoko mārika i te whakaaro, ngā kōrero katoa [I absolutely support the idea, all of the comments.]

This bill won’t bring back those that we’ve lost, but going forward, what it will do is it will continue to remind us and have the lives that have been lost matter. I recognise the number of stories that have been shared tonight. I think, sometimes, we might get a bit like, “It’s another story, and people say certain names often.”, but what is critical about it is telling the story, lest we forget. I want to acknowledge all the women that have stood in the House tonight to say the names, to repeat those stories, and to keep the reality of these things front of mind. So e mihi atu ana ki ngā wāhine katoa i te Whare [I acknowledge all the women in the House.]

Then, probably, I might say that I want to acknowledge the men in the House tonight and just acknowledge tāne mā. Keep speaking up. Please, keep speaking up, speaking into the circles—the men circles, the male circles, and the tāne circles—because I think that’s a critical space where only men can influence men in your own way. I just want to acknowledge that.

This is the final stage of this bill, and it is a pleasure and a duty to stand and speak to it. This bill tackles one of the most insidious forms of violence: stalking and harassment. This is merely not just theory; this is about real lives and real harm. It is about accumulated harm. It is about accrued harm. It is important that, tonight, this is settled. It seems to me that it is recognised well across the House.

I want to acknowledge Tamatha Paul and her kōrero tonight. She started by saying she thought it was going to be quite emotional for her, but she held the line in telling the story, I think, in a very powerful and young wahine way. Again, I think it’s important to acknowledge Ginny Andersen for her efforts through her own member’s bill. Persistence is omnipotent—particularly for women with this kind of issue—because too often, I’m sure everyone would agree, when women speak out against things like this, we can often be, for some crazy reason, called crazy or neurotic. Unfortunately, those things, those attitudes, are pervasive, and it’s hard to get rid of those things. Again, I just acknowledge all the good men in this room for working hard to get rid of those attitudes that need to change.

I’m probably there, now, in just saying that I support this bill. A lot of it, I guess, for me, comes from working in family harm and the family harm and family justice sector for some years before coming into this role and then also working in rape crisis when I was 17 or 18. I understand the enduring journey that is carried, in the harm that is carried by women and their families. I just acknowledge the work to get the bill to this point. Tom, I hope those were good things. To all the men and the women in this House tonight, tēnā tātou katoa. Tautoko mārika [absolutely in support].

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.