Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation 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 Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Our society abhors sexual violence in all its forms. Our justice response to this and to all forms of serious violence is to be clear about our denunciation of it, through real consequences in sentencing and by protecting our society from the worst offenders, combined with a wider effort to provide programmes to treat offenders and to change attitudes. Our focus as a Government is on the victims of crime, and these two proposed changes will help ensure victims of crime are put at the heart of the justice system, so I’m very pleased to present this bill to the House.

Victims of sexual violence are particularly vulnerable because of the invasive and traumatising nature of this kind of violence. The violation of a person’s body, mind, and spirit causes long-term damage to their sense of self and wellbeing. The court processes can cause further harm, and we’re committed to improving this experience.

The bill addresses two longstanding issues with current legislative settings for sexual violence: the relevance of consent in cases where the child is a victim, and barriers that name suppression presents to victims speaking out about their experiences. In short, the Government has amended the bill at the select committee stage to ensure that convicted adult sex offenders will not get name suppression unless the victim agrees.

The first part of the bill is focusing on amending the Crimes Act to stop, in most cases, child victims of sexual violence being questioned about their consent. The Crimes Act includes sexual violence that is applicable to the general population, as well as some that are specific for offending against children and young people. For example, the core offence of sexual violations can be charged no matter how old the victim is. The offence of sexual connection with a child, on the other hand, only applies to a victim under 12. These two offences are where this bill makes necessary changes to better support child victims.

Under the offence of sexual connection with a child, consent is not relevant. In fact, the section clearly states consent is not a defence. Under sexual violation, lack of consent and lack of reasonable belief in consent are key elements that must be proved. This means consent is highly relevant in the courtroom, and children can be cross-examined about what they wanted, asked for, or even enjoyed in the sexual activity. Most would agree that this is unacceptable, but that’s how the current law works.

The bill addresses an unintended consequence of a previous amendment that created a discrepancy between the charges. We’ve heard heartbreaking stories about the impact on some of the most vulnerable victims. Sexual offending against children should be subject to the same penalty as offending against adults; certainly not a lesser one. To address the issue, the bill makes two complementary changes to the Crimes Act: it amends the sexual connection with a child charge so that the maximum penalty is 20 years, and it amends sexual violation—where consent is highly relevant—so that the offence does not apply if the victim is under 12 years.

These changes, together, will stop in most cases, child victims facing harmful lines of questioning when giving evidence or being cross-examined. Asking, suggesting, or even implying that vulnerable children consented to sexual activity is not what New Zealanders expect, and that’s why this law should be changed.

The second part of the bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, to clarify and strengthen name suppression settings for complainants in sexual violence proceedings. Name suppression plays a role in supporting and protecting a victim’s privacy during a deeply personal and difficult time. It’s crucial for the law to continue protecting victims of sexual violence, and it’s also important to recognise that not everybody wants protection in this way. Silencing victims who wish to speak out publicly can lead to increased isolation and exacerbate existing trauma through the further removal of control, and denial of personal agency. Some victims want others to know what happened to them; providing victims with choice and autonomy can empower victims.

The bill supports this autonomy in three areas. It specifies in law both the importance of protecting complainants’ privacy and of supporting their autonomy, and it broadens victim automatic name suppression to include all offences of a sexual nature. Thirdly, it requires the agreement of victims for permanent name suppression to be granted to persons convicted of sexual crimes.

So let’s just go through them. First, the bill clarifies the process of lifting automatic name suppression. The Criminal Procedure Act allows eligible adults to apply to have their automatic suppression lifted, and complainants have the right to know what their options are in this regard. Unfortunately, very little information is available about how this actually works. A lack of information is disempowering. We know that some victims have paid for expensive independent legal advice to help them through the process, which is an additional burden to them and their families. This bill addresses that burden. It creates a simpler, streamlined, and accessible process. The bill requires all applications to lift the automatic suppression to be made in accordance with the criminal procedure rules, which set out a new step-by-step process for doing that.

Name suppression can be a useful tool to support victims. However, it’s only provided to victims of a small range of specified crimes. This means that other victims of crimes of a sexual nature are not automatically protected. Crimes that relate to intimate visual recordings offences fall into that category. This inconsistency means that some victims of sexual violence crimes have to apply to the court to have name suppression. This can sometimes cause distress and worry that they may be publicly named without their knowledge or agreement. The bill seeks to change section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 so that victims of all types of sexual offenders will be given automatic name suppression.

The third area is a change to the bill that will provide autonomy to victims in relation to permanent name suppression. Data shows that in 2023, permanent name suppression was granted to 76 individuals convicted of one or more sexual offences, and of course many more fought long and hard during the courts to achieve that and didn’t succeed but in the process added substantially to the trauma for the victims. Permanent name suppression for perpetrators can provide victims with privacy. However, it can also further traumatise victims. Currently, the court decides whether to grant permanent name suppression orders for convicted persons, although they must take the views of the victim into account.

We know that sometimes these permanent orders are made even though the victim does want to speak out. Permanent name suppression of convicted sexual offenders does not enable the victim to talk about what happened to them with other people, for fear of breaching that name suppression. It doesn’t enable them to warn others, and victims and their advocates have told us that not being able to talk about what happened to them and to warn others is a terrible position to be in. It makes victims feel silenced, it imposes a stigma that they have to carry, and it can drag on for years.

I acknowledge that this is a significant change and may be perceived as limiting judicial discretion. However, we believe it’s justified and we believe that we do need to do things differently in this space. If we’re serious about being a victims-focused justice system, I think this is the sort of thing that we need to consider and do. This bill places the power in the hands of the victims to decide whether name suppression will be allowed.

We’ve heard from victim advocates that placing this autonomy in the hands of victims will help with the healing. It will empower victims by putting their views first and ensure the openness of court proceedings and hold people convicted of sexual account offences to account. Now, a number of people have raised the concern “Well, would this put unwanted pressure on victims to have to make such a decision?” So we’ve been very clear in this legislation, as it’s drafted, that no victim has to do anything if they don’t want to. If they don’t want to have to make that decision, they don’t feel comfortable about it, and they don’t respond to questions about it, that’s fine. Then it will revert to the current process where the court decides on name suppression. So it’s only for those who want it. But we think it’s an important message to send that if you’re convicted of a serious sexual offence, part of the punishment is that people will know about it and you’ll have to face the consequences of doing that. It is only if the victim has actually agreed with the idea of permanent name suppression.

I’m proud to bring this bill to the House because I think of what it means for victims. I want to acknowledge those who have provided their input, particularly victims, their families, and advocates who have shared their stories so we can improve our system. I want to thank the Justice Committee for all the hard work that it’s done. Thank you very much.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Labour stands in support of this bill because it aligns with our fundamental commitment to protecting victims, particularly children, ensuring that they’re not subject to further harm or distress within our criminal justice system. This bill will fit squarely into our view that we need to continue to strengthen the rights of victims in New Zealand, particularly victims of sexual violence. It builds on our strong track record of making sure that we have those supports in place for victims of crime. We boosted the Victims Assistance Scheme, providing 10,000 more grants to victims of serious crime; we doubled the funding of Victim Support; and we also established Te Aorerekura, New Zealand’s very first action plan to get rid of or reduce family and sexual violence. Along with this, we also increased legal aid access for over 93,000 people, removing some of those barriers to accessing justice.

This bill started out as a Labour bill and it’s had some add-ons in it as it’s moved through the Justice Committee, but it is another bill ensuring our justice system serves and protects the victims of crime and does not, hopefully, retraumatise them through the justice process.

The bill makes two big amendments that I will speak to briefly. The first one is protecting child victims from further trauma. This was an issue that was raised by members of the women’s caucus in the last parliamentary term when it came to light, through a court case, that the defence of consent could be used where there was a sexual violation trial that involved a child—someone 12 or under. We found this absolutely abhorrent and took action to make changes so that the law did not enable this defence to be used in New Zealand. Currently, the offence of sexual violation under the Crimes Act 1961 requires the issue of consent to be considered even when the victim is a child under 12 years. We consider this to be unacceptable and we commend the Government on continuing to pass this legislation. This bill amends the law so the offence is instead classified as “sexual connection” with a child, eliminating any requirement for the child victim to be questioned about consent. It’s quite alarming that our law still had this in it, to be frank. This change ensures that the focus remains where it should be: on holding offenders accountable without subjecting young victims to unnecessary and traumatic cross-examinations throughout the court process. Additionally, the bill increases the maximum penalty for this offence to align with that of sexual violation. This sends a clear message that offences against children will be treated with the utmost seriousness, and we support this strongly.

Under Part 2 of this bill—in the current law, complainants of sexual violence cases are automatically granted name suppression to protect their privacy. While this is important, it’s also of note that some victims do not in fact want this protection. And as the Minister of Justice has noted, for those who want to speak out, the process of lifting name suppression can be slow, difficult, and costly. This bill proposes to give complainants more autonomy by making it easier to lift name suppression if they chose to do so. It also extends automatic name suppression to all victims of sexual offences, including victims of intimate visual recording offences, to ensure consistency and to prevent further distress. It also requires the views of the victims to be paramount when the court considers suppressing the name of a convicted offender.

Currently, the court makes the final decision on whether to suppress the name of a convicted sex offender, taking into account the views of the victim. However, this bill changes that and it essentially, almost, gives a veto right to the victim on that name suppression. We do have some reservations about that because we hear from victim advocates that there are some concerns about the weight or the pressure placed upon a victim, particularly given the bill doesn’t have any minimum age for that, so it could be quite a young victim of a sexual violence offence who has then been given the ability to choose on name suppression. There have been concerns raised within advocacy groups that this potentially places too heavy a weight on a victim of crime.

Also it’ll be interesting—and I hope things go well—particularly in cases where there are multiple victims of sexual violence. We know, through the courts, there can be one sexual offender and multiple victims. Those victims can even be from the same family group in a small town in New Zealand. There may be instances where some of the older victims wish for the offender to have name suppression lifted, but some of those younger victims may not, and it is unclear in this bill whose views preside and how we work through those issues, if it’s unclear. It’s important to put victims at the centre of our justice system, but not to put undue pressure or weight upon them in a process that is already incredibly traumatising for victims of crime.

Despite these concerns, we believe that the positive impact of this bill far outweighs any potential drawbacks, and we support the bill because it prioritises victims’ rights while addressing the most urgent issues in the legal framework.

I’d like to conclude by saying that the best way to reduce victims of both family violence and sexual violence is to make it as easy as possible to report crime. We know that roughly 20 percent of family violence and sexual violence currently gets reported. The best way to increase reporting is to make sure that when someone reaches out for help, it is there and available. Currently, we have defunding of some front-line services that provide those supports. We also have police stepping back from attending family violence unless there’s a risk to life or it’s at a very high risk. The real problem with the approach taken by the Government is it disincentivises people to report, it disincentivises more help to be provided to people who need assistance, and it stops families from getting early intervention in situations that may potentially escalate further. Also, just having a blind target of reducing victims of crime without providing support services is not a great way to go about reducing victims of crime. It essentially looks at sweeping things under the carpet instead of actually providing the adequate and needed support services to increase the 20 percent reporting rate that we currently have now.

So while we commend the Government for passing a bill that started with us, there’s a long way to go from those on the opposite side of the House before we actually start addressing some of the core drivers of family violence and sexual violence that continue to exist within New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support this bill in its second reading, the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. I would like to acknowledge the fact that this particular bill was introduced by the previous Government and has been taken up by the current Government as well because it is an important thing to address.

I know that quite a few people have already mentioned—in terms of the context of this bill, but just to reiterate—that this bill has two broader components to it. The first part is around amending the Crimes Act 1961 to address issues relating to children and consent, and the second part is to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to modify provisions relating to automatic name suppression for complainants.

In terms of the select committee process—I know that this is a second reading, so we do tend to talk about what happened during the select committee. During the select committee stage, we received 50 written submissions and also eight oral submissions, and I would like to thank the Justice Committee for their continued sensitivity around really emotional, really traumatic topics such as this. Broadly speaking, we have received a lot of support for this bill. We received 43 submissions that support this bill, and a number of people have commented on the specific details of the bill as well, which we can address in due time.

Considering the content and context of this bill, I would really like to acknowledge our first Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, the Hon Marama Davidson, as well as the introduction of Te Aorerekura: National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence, as an important step to address this incredibly serious and actually quite systemic and endemic issue in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’d also like to thank our colleagues in the Labour Party and also Te Pāti Māori for the support around this strategy in the last term. Also, we look forward to the reiteration and the continued improvements of Te Aorerekura by the current Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence.

In terms of the context of this bill, the first part is around the Crimes Act. It is a concern right now, particularly when we’re looking at a victim-centred approach around how we do not traumatise and retraumatise complainants. I think, in the first part of this, the bill is aiming to address, in terms of section 132 of the Crimes Act, the offence of sexual violation: that it cannot be charged if the victim is under 12 years old. Instead the charge will be sexual connection with a child. This would reduce the risk that the child must undergo questioning about sexual consent while giving evidence in a court. I think this is an incredibly serious issue for the right of the child and also in terms of our international obligations as well.

But I would like to speak predominantly around the second prong of this, which is the automatic name suppression for complainants. As we’ve heard from some of the speakers already, we’re looking at—particularly in the case of domestic and sexual violence—a case of power dynamics as well, not only in terms of traumatisation but how do we empower the victims to be able to do what they need to do.

I think, as we see in the departmental report, that this particular automatic name suppression under the Criminal Procedures Act 2011 wasn’t done as intended. It was with the very best of intentions; it’s supposed to be a mechanism that protects the complainants, but instead it actually has the counter effect of people who would like to go through the process of lifting name suppression being burdened by some of the processes and bureaucracy that we see in the current system and the implication when it comes to lifting such name suppression.

As we’ve seen in other cases in this House, particularly when it comes to family and sexual violence, there’s been a number of pieces of legislation that the Greens have actually supported because we genuinely believe they take a very victim-centred approach. For example, in the bill that came up last year around litigant abuse, this was something that the Green Party very much supported because, again, we understand that when a complainant makes a case, particularly towards domestic or sexual abuse, often there is a power imbalance with that. That particular legislation around addressing litigant abuse is a very important step towards ensuring that we have the same equitable access to justice as required, basically, by our rule of law and the very basis of our judiciary system.

But, just again, on the automatic name suppression, I think that in the context of this, although this was brought to the House for its first reading in 2023, we have seen global movements around the empowering of complainants when it comes to them being allowed to waive that name suppression. I really want to highlight and acknowledge Gisèle Pelicot from France in terms of the case that went through the French court last year, as someone who has faced horrendous abuse by her ex-husband—you know, severe abuse—and the courage and the bravery it took for her to waive that name suppression, for her story to be told, for her to regain her dignity. I think this is the crux of the bill that we are looking at here, which is why this is something that we support and we think it is important to address.

Finally, I think that when we’re looking at this there are definitely parts of this bill that we are looking forward to engaging with the Minister of Justice on, during the committee stage, in terms of some of the specificity. Again, these are some of the areas that came up in the select committee process. We would like to sort of look at and have that genuine discussion with the Minister around ways of clarifying, but also elucidating, the intent of the bill and how some of the things are going to be working in a way that ensures that by removing one layer of barriers to a victim we don’t unintentionally bring in another barrier to the victim again. The original purpose and intent of this bill that was brought forward was because the original intent of automatic name suppression—which has the best intents and purposes—didn’t perform as intended. So we just want to make sure that something like this has those kind of checks and balances in place so that we don’t have to come back in a few years’ time to relitigate something like this because we have found that the processes that were put forward have somehow inadvertently traumatised or retraumatised complainants.

Finally, I would like to touch more broadly on some of the elements when it comes to access to justice and the way that we address issues of domestic and family and sexual violence more broadly within our criminal justice system. I think there’s been a lot of really important work that’s been done recently both by legal academics and researchers but also by grassroots community organisations around the fact that we do need to look at the way that we address this. Because our current legal system may not be fit for purpose and may not provide the kind of protection for victims and does not necessarily have the right settings to actually ensure that offenders and perpetrators understand generally our pathway for rehabilitation without actually seeing it as something—and being defensive about their actions and actually worsening a situation. This is something that we have seen in our court system as a concern by complainants in the way that they make those complaints in the first place.

I also just want to finally touch on the fact that we are still seeing that there is this inaccessibility to justice through things like sufficient support to legal aid, because a lot of the complainants in these situations may not be in the financial situation to actually go through the incredibly expensive court system.

So there is definitely a broader conversation to be had, but we are really happy to support this bill and we look forward to the committee stage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise, for the ACT Party, in support of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. It’s not often that we are all on the same page in the House, but today is one of those days. Firstly, I’d like to thank the Labour Party for bringing this bill forward in the previous Parliament, and it’s here today. Not always do they cuddle criminals; sometimes, there are actually times when we’re wanting to put the victims first.

The main provisions of this bill—I guess, one of the first main provisions that stands out for me—is that we are actually amending the Act to include or to have a maximum prison time of 20 years, which actually brings it in line for that of sexual offending against an adult. I don’t know about you, but I’m actually horrified and I can’t believe that sexual connection with a child was considered potentially a lesser sentence. I’m absolutely appalled every time I open up the news and I see some kind of sexual offending against our children, if not some of our most vulnerable people.

I just want to highlight some headlines, and this is a bit of a dark side of New Zealand, in a way, you can say. Five days ago: “Palmerston North man jailed for sex abuse, sentenced to seven years”. Two days ago: “Serial sexual predator jailed for child sex abuse in Auckland after acquittal in a dog indecency case”—then sentenced for sexual abuse of a six-year-old child; two years’ imprisonment. This person is a registered sex offender with 45 years of offences—two years is absolutely disgusting, and it must stop. A couple of years ago: “Northland man jailed for 13 years of historic abuse of six boys”—six boys, and only 13 years. Imagine those six lives that are completely and utterly changed for ever. A man jailed for sex crimes in Timaru last year—for two brothers—3½ years only. I know Mr Meager is in the House, and I remember actually forwarding this to him and being outraged at the time. Yes, this happened when this offender was in their youth, but 3½ years—for those two brothers, that is their lives that are completely changed for ever.

So, firstly, I think the fact that we are now going to be sentencing based on a maximum penalty of 20 years is a good start. But we want to actually see those sentences. The New Zealand public out there want to know that the victims are actually being put first, and we want to make sure that they’re relevant for the crimes. So it’s a really important piece of this bill and how it actually works.

Broadening the automatic victim name suppression to include all offences of a sexual nature—and I think this part is really important, too—because there are times when a victim may not be identified and actually that part of evidence may be used and they may not even know that they are involved with this, which is actually quite scary. I think about the case that Lawrence Xu-Nan was talking about earlier, in France. Imagine if you didn’t know that you were one of those victims and you didn’t have any name suppression and you’re watching the news unfold and it turns out you know that person and you are potentially one of those victims. The fact that, at the moment, you actually have to go and be granted, or apply, if you are knowingly a potential victim is absolutely outrageous. I think to do that automatically is a really good change to the law.

Look, I think this has been well litigated. My point here would be that the ACT Party always supports the victims first when it comes to crime. Yes, there is opportunity for rehabilitation, for prevention, but when we’re talking about sexual offences and we’re talking about our kids, as a parent and as a person, I cannot think of anything more damaging that could happen to one person in their life and that would just carry on throughout. So I think we need to really think about our sentencing and how we actually take that into account—the whole picture, the whole damage, the whole lives that are actually affected by this type of offending. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. I think first we have to pause with a degree of tragedy and sadness that this type of offending is not only prevalent but it is victimising younger and younger victims, and our ability to stop it is requiring us to be a lot smarter, a lot stronger, and a lot more decisive in our policing actions.

It highlights, again, how important our police service is, because anyone who deals with this type of offending, you are forever traumatised by it and it takes a special level of skill and compassion and capability for those police officers to have to deal with this. To deal with the victims is a tragedy. To deal with the offenders and walk away feeling whole is even harder because the nature of investigations of this is that you do have to build a rapport with your offenders and you do have to try and get into their minds and it’s a dark, dark place to get out of.

As the Minister of Customs, I’m also aware of the prevalence of the intimate visual recording, and the team that is involved in policing that offending is also a very special unit of enforcement people who have to be given full credit for the nature of what they deal with on a daily basis.

But I’ll take us back to the bill and the importance of this piece of legislation to, first of all, provide some consistency around the offending and recognising that the fact that a child cannot consent should have been taken as read. It is an anomaly that urgently needs to be fixed, and I applaud the members across the House for taking immediate action to get this under way, and also recognise the work of the Justice Committee to use this as an opportunity to tighten up a range of issues that this bill has identified.

It allows us to bring some consistency, bring some protections and, yet again in this House, highlight how important it is to drive accountability for offenders—that this is important that we protect victims, but it is equally important that we have ability to protect our communities from these predators that have lost humanity when they are prepared to victimise such young children, which is too regular an occurrence.

The name suppression component is, I think, one of the areas where, having dealt with a number of victims—the sense of being able to take control of your destiny, to be able to determine whether you choose to be held in the dark on this or whether you choose to stand up and shine light on the abhorrent behaviour. And we’ve seen a number of cases in New Zealand as well where victims have chosen to not hide in the shadows; to speak out and to put the shame where it should lie and offload the shame from themselves. That is an incredibly brave and important action, and the fact that this legislation will put that power squarely in the hands of the victims is something that we in New Zealand First applaud and recognise the important work that this committee has brought to the House today.

There is a lot of work still to be done in this space, and as we on this side of the House—where we try to put the victim ahead, this is just another step in the right direction. I think that we have an opportunity here when we recognise these pieces of legislation, with support across the House, that we can achieve really powerful things in the protection of our victims in New Zealand. But more importantly, how much work we have to do to make sure that those that commit these offences are not only held accountable, that our communities are protected from them, and the lengthening of prison sentences is a reality. It is something I have said repeatedly in the House: that sometimes we have to have penalties, not because we think they’re a deterrent but this is a nice political thing to do. But sometimes we have to protect our most vulnerable from predators who will continue to make more victims unless we keep our society safe from them.

In concluding, I would like to acknowledge first those that work in this enforcement space—those hard-working and dedicated detectives and investigators that are constantly out there dealing with the very worst of society, and that they are the ones that help combat this battle, and that this piece of legislation will allow us to contribute to better outcomes for our victims in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

The next call is a split call between Te Pāti Māori and Te Pāti Kākāriki.

E te Pīka. Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā Anahera Pono me te Māngai hei tautoko mai, aianei, ake nei, āe. E te Whare, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa i konei e whai wāhi ana ki tēnei kaupapa hirahira. Ki a tātou kaitautoko i tēnei Pire, tēnei te mihi. Ka huri hoki ki a tātou kaitaua, ki a rātou e mate ana i raro i te kino o te tutu moepuku. Tēnei te tangi, tēnei te mihi aroha.

[I acknowledge the Speaker. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Faithful Angels, supported by the Mouthpiece, Amen. To the House, I give special thanks to all gathered here participating in this important topic. I thank all the supporters of this bill. I turn my attention to the brave ones, those who suffered at the hands of the immoral manipulators. I cry, and send my sympathy.]

I stand today on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, as the member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau, in firm support of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. It is deeply troubling that in Aotearoa in 2025, we are still amending laws that have historically done more to protect predators than their victims.

There is no good reason why a child under 12 years old should be questioned in a courtroom about whether they wanted or asked for what happened to them. The extension of automatic name suppression to all victims of sexual offences just makes sense, but what I commend the Minister of Justice for today is the amendment that gives victims the power to determine whether their predators are granted permanent name suppression.

This is significant because heinous sexual crimes such as those committed, as I understand, in the 1990s—which a political party and leader in this House were alerted to in November 2022—were kept silent. The leader, who is soon to be Deputy Prime Minister, referred the victim’s family to a lawyer of his choosing and remained silent while this criminal, Tim Jago, continued to serve as the president of the ACT Party. Tim Jago’s identity was kept secret—a secret for 737 days—following his conviction in January 2023 for fear of swaying the electoral result, depriving New Zealanders of the right to be informed about who was leading a political party in this House—

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think this matter has been well canvassed outside this House. I’d just like to ask the Speaker for his guidance. Given that that matter was subject to court orders and that the ACT Party—which the speaker referred to—had no influence and took no part in influencing those court orders, I’d like the Speaker to consider whether the ongoing description of that as being associated with the ACT Party, while it’s certainly not true, is helpful to the debate and the maintenance of the order of this House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’m just going to take some advice on that. Thank you very much for the point of order. I acknowledge that a lot of this has already been in the public domain, so that is acknowledged. But I’d also draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 121, “Personal reflections”, where it says that “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” So, as the member continues her speech, may I ask her to stick to the confines of the bill. I think the point the member was making has been made, and I would encourage the member to use that time accordingly.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This legislation can’t come soon enough and will disincentivise those gross criminals from pursuing permanent name suppression and further destroying the lives of their victims. It is a stain on this very House and on the political party for betraying the trust of New Zealanders and for exploiting laws—

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that you’ve just provided direction to the House and to the specific member about Standing Order 121 not to reflect by imputing improper motives against a member’s private affairs, this member was speaking—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The point is taken. I understand the point of order.

Simon Court: Right. So I’d just ask that you—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yes.

Simon Court: —enforce your direction now.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): So if I can ask the member to continue to—the point has been made around the information that is in the public domain. But, as I said on Standing Order 121, I ask the member to refrain in the remainder of the speech in terms of connecting it to the imputation of improper motives to another member of this House.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: Protecting our tamariki is our fundamental duty—

Tom Rutherford: Stop reading.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: —yet the system has failed them, allowing children to be questioned as if responsible for their own abuse. This bill ends that injustice. A child under 12 cannot and should not be asked about consent, because consent is never a factor in their lives.

For too long, victims have been silenced. This bill ensures their voices are heard and protected. Automatic name suppression safeguards their healing, shields them from public scrutiny, and allows them to reclaim their stories on their own terms. This bill is a step in the right direction, but is it is only the beginning. Te Pāti Māori will always stand with survivors, we will always challenge the laws that uphold colonial systems of silence and suppression, and we will always demand better from this House.

This is about our mokopuna, this is about the survivors, and this is about ensuring that we put these laws in place to protect whānau. Ka tika te whakataukī, “Ka whati te tī, ka wana te tī, ka rito te tī.”

[The proverb that is apt here is “When the shoot is destroyed, it sprouts again, and it thrives.”]

Though we have seen harm, we now have the chance to rebuild and strengthen. To every survivor, to every whānau affected, and to every advocate who has fought for this change, mea tātou hei whakatika—it is on us to make this right. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Just before I take the next call, I just want to draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 52/6: “Where possible, members should not read speeches. However, no member, other than the Speaker, may interrupt the speaker who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention,”. So when you speak up and say that someone’s reading a speech, actually, I can see that that’s happening, but that can be considered to be disorderly.

E te Māngai o te Whare, thank you for allowing us to take a call on this, and I will be supporting this bill on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki. But I do want to acknowledge the speaker before me, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, for her insights and for her honest and raw kōrero. I know that it can be confronting for some to hear, but I’m glad that you are speaking truth to that, given that victims weren’t able to speak truth to that for a long time during the election.

So in terms of this bill, this is about people who have been victims of sexual violence. When reading about the bill and following it through, it reminded me of a time in 2020 when I supported a large group of women here in Wellington who had been sexually abused by a prominent musician group in our city. That was really hard because so many of those young women didn’t want to speak up because they wanted to protect their own identities. Some wanted to go through the court system, some didn’t. Some just wanted accountability. Some were afraid of accusing people with big names of the sexual harm that they had caused, and that was a blockage to their path towards the justice that they wanted.

So very much aware of the barriers that exist within our justice system for victims of sexual violence who are pursuing different pathways of justice. When we talk about victims, there’s not one solitary kind of uniform path that all victims want to take. Sometimes it is in the courts and sometimes it’s not. But I can understand why a large number of victims of sexual violence do not choose to go through the courts, and that’s because of the scrutiny that they’re subjected to. It’s always, you know, “What were you wearing? What were you doing? What did you do to encourage someone else to violate your rights?” That, to me, is wrong.

But it’s even more wrong and sinister and cruel to do that to children, because their brains are still developing, they’re still trying to understand the world. They see everything in those positive lights, and to cross-examine a child about something that happened to them—of such a disgusting, just inexcusable nature—is wrong. So I’m glad that we are supporting this bill today, so that children don’t have to defend themselves in courtrooms for violence that happens towards them.

I wanted to also note a case that went through the courts in October last year, which was between ACC and a woman who had been sexually abused during her childhood from the age of two to 17. At the time last year, if you had been the victim of sexual violence as a child, you weren’t able to be compensated for that violence and for the loss that it caused you in your adulthood if you didn’t report that violence as a child. Thanks to this brave woman and her legal team, in particular Beatrix, one of her lawyers, they appealed that decision by the courts. They took it to the Court of Appeal and now any survivors of sexual violence who were violated as children are able to be compensated due to that. And that could look like 100,000 people being eligible for support from ACC to the sum of $3.6 billion. So that’s a really great thing that is also happening to support victims of sexual violence.

I just wanted to conclude our support for this bill by acknowledging some local organisations here in Wellington who made really great submissions on this bill. It wasn’t an easy topic to hear about at all—discussions of consent in children and their experiences in the courtroom. It was really difficult to listen to. But I’m grateful for the advocates and the experts from TOAH-NNEST, from Thursdays in Black, and from Wellington Sexual Abuse Help, who helped to inform this conversation.

Finally, I want to say thank you to our Labour whānau over here for bringing this bill to the House in the first instance and for making these discreet changes to our legal system which will protect survivors and make sure that, especially, children aren’t re-traumatised and re-victimised in their pursuit of justice for them. Kia ora koutou katoa.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I welcome Helen White to take the call if she would like—I see her rise to her feet—but I suspect she’s probably next, would be my assumption.

I do want to reiterate some of the comments made by previous speakers. This is a bill that was brought forward previously by the previous Labour Government, picked up by the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, and continued on. So it does show the support of the bill from both sides of the House, previously led by Labour and carried on by the National Party, and shows that there is some agreement around what is actually being done through this legislation.

The bill does seek to secure and strengthen legislative safeguards for victims of sexual violence when they participate in the court process, and it is focusing on two particular pieces of legislation, the Crimes Act 1961—probably before you were born, Mr Speaker; I’d hate to make an assumption of your age, but easily quite considerably before you were born that legislation was there—and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Not so sure on that one, Mr Speaker; I’d hate to make any comments regarding that, but it is focused on those two pieces of legislation.

For the Crimes Act 1961, it’s to address issues relating to children and consent. To the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, it’s to modify provisions relating to name suppression and it’s that that I want to focus on in particular. The changes being made as the part of the bill around the Criminal Procedures Act 2011 are to clarify and strengthen name suppression settings for complainants in sexual violence proceedings. It specifies in law both the importance of protecting a complainant’s privacy, and of supporting their autonomy, and also broadens the victim’s automatic name suppression to include all offences of a sexual nature and requires the agreement of the victim for permanent name suppression to be granted to persons convicted of sexual crimes. That’s a good thing. It puts the power of the decision making around name suppression in the hands of the victim rather than leaving it to the person convicted of the crimes.

That’s a positive step to ensure that those people who commit these heinous crimes can’t hide behind the secrecy anymore. If the victim of the crime is comfortable to say, “Yes, I want to waive the right of permanent name suppression.” for them as the victim, then it should be the exact same thing for the person who was convicted of committing these heinous, heinous crimes in New Zealand. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. The member Tom Rutherford, who just spoke, is exactly right. I was leaping up to take a call, inspired by the speeches in the House, from every side, in support of this piece of legislation. I picked up the family and sexual violence portfolio for Labour, and it was a very heavy portfolio to pick up. I have known people who have been affected by sexual violence, and that’s not a surprise, because one in six New Zealanders is affected in this way.

The issue of violence and sexual violence towards children—and that’s what it is—is one that I think we do need to acknowledge has a special element. It doesn’t mean that anything that’s happening to adults is anything but terrible, but when this behaviour occurs, the very nature of childhood changes. You take away a child’s childhood when that happens to them.

It is astonishing that we had a law that suggested that sexual connection with a child was a 14-year sentence, whereas there was a more serious crime, which involved looking at whether there was consent and really begged the question as to whether you should charge under the other Act so that you could get a 20-year maximum sentence. It did suggest that we were not treating one of these crimes as serious or as seriously, and it surely is. It’s surely a terrible thing.

The legislation that comes before the House today is legislation that was thought of as part of a whole group of reforms, and that framework is something I’d like to talk about for a minute, because it was part of a group of reforms called Better Outcomes for Victims, and it involved a New Zealand pilot—actually, three New Zealand pilots—that started in July of 2023. One of those is actually happening until, I think, the end of this month at Manukau District Court, and two are at Whangārei.

The one at Manukau is a real collaboration between the Ministry of Justice, the Police, Oranga Tamariki, and community groups, and it seeks to wrap around a victim and provide things like the capacity for the victim to have the evidence heard in a child sexual case. They can do that outside of the courtroom setting. The one in Whangārei involves looking at bail, it looks at speeding up things, and it looks at safety plans around the victim. All of those trials wrap up in the next month, and there is a report on the results, as I understand it, that has yet to be published.

We will see the outcomes from those trials, and I will be making sure that I know what the Government is going to do with regard to those trials, because from what I can see, it sounds like they have been successful in many ways. The idea of this legislation was that it was part of a strengthening process for victims. These trials are really pivotal to making that real for victims beyond this. I urge the Government to make sure that they keep the feet to the fire of their Minister with regard to those trials, because changes in the law only work if they’re part of a framework of changes in our courts as well.

The legislation is an interesting change. We’ve talked about the one which is about really making sure that children are no longer subject to any kind of inquiry about consent. But there are also changes here to suppression orders. I take the point made by others that it’s a real balancing act, trying to create the kind of autonomy that people need, who are victims, to make their own decisions. But there is also a point that’s made in the Labour Party’s report after the select committee that there’s a concern that we can’t be too foolish about the nature of some of the stresses on children, for example. If a child is being asked whether they consent to a suppression order, they do it within a context, so it’s going to be really important that we don’t put weight on children, which is inappropriate to them being children, because, as I said at the beginning of this speech, the very acts that they have been subject to have taken away so much childhood, and to treat them as mini adults in that way and ask them to have that weight is really asking a bit much, so I think we have to be very careful about how we pursue that one. It’s just simply not easy.

There’s also the issue of multiple victims, because, in many of these experiences, a predator doesn’t just create one victim. The predator will continue to act in that way because they have crossed some line in their own head that justifies this kind of action, and so it’s really important that people in this situation accept that there’s more than one victim and that there will be different victims out there who might want this treated differently as well. One victim in a family might well wish to have the name of the perpetrator out there. Another one may, for all sorts of reasons, not wish that to be. While I take the point made by the New Zealand First speaker tonight that there is an issue where we should be celebrating people’s lack of shame when they come forward and are willing to say that this has happened to them, it’s not their shame; that’s a really important point.

The other issue with regard to that is we should respect how much harm this does to people and we should respect their wishes. There is bravery in any action to stop this kind of behaviour and hold people to account. That is not an easy process. We have a duty to make it a lot better than it is, but I would not be judging anyone who decided that they did not want to share the information in this way. I hope I’ve made my point that the Labour Party takes this issue very seriously.

This is legislation I can be proud to say started under the Labour Party. It’s part of a wider context. There is, actually, a very good report that came out, and it was the Green Minister who headed that, on sexual and family violence. It’s been updated recently. Everybody within the Parliament does seem to be more aware than they have been about how serious this is for our country and how many victims there are, but we have to make sure that it isn’t just about words and it isn’t just about changing our laws. It’s about making sure that we resource our people, our victims, and our court system enough to make sure that when we go through these processes and when the victims of this kind of behaviour go through these processes, we are truly taking a different approach from the one we have taken, because the one we have taken for many, many years has failed. In fact, it’s ingrained some terrible crimes. It’s meant that perpetrators have continued to exist and do more harm.

I just want to go back to honour the victims of this kind of behaviour and acknowledge that we’ve also had the abuse in care report this year, which is a devastating report in terms of the harm that has happened to our children under the care of this State. This is one of the issues that, I think, this Parliament can deal with. I think we are capable of dealing with it, but we can’t cut the budgets of people who are helping victims. We have to adequately support our courts, and we have to pass legislation like this. They are all part and parcel of the same thing, and it is our job as the legislature to do that. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to add my support to the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. We’re in the second reading and, as has been touched upon previously, this bill was introduced, in the previous Government, on 10 August 2023, with the first reading taking place on 29 August 2023. I thank the Labour Government and Ginny Andersen for introducing this bill back then. I’m glad that National has been progressing this legislation—of course, following some significant improvements through the select committee stage. I’m very privileged to be part of the Justice Committee.

As we’ve heard, but I’d like to reiterate for those who have just entered the gallery—welcome to your Whare—the essential purpose of this bill is that we’re amending two, what we call, principal Acts. The Crimes Act 1961, and this is where we’re making amendments around the issue of our tamariki, our children, and this awful thing called “consent”—awful when it comes to compelling them to talk about it. And the second principal Act that we’re amending is the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. And that’s around improving and clarifying the provisions around name suppression, which we’ve heard about this afternoon.

If I can just home in on the protecting children from inappropriate questioning. We have heard some very profound statements made today around that, and that’s what I’d like to, if I can, just put a bit of a focus on. Essentially, what are we trying to achieve here? We’re trying to avoid retraumatising our tamariki—the victims that are tamariki—by questioning them about consent, about whether they consented to this deviant sexual behaviour. Part of the changes that we’re making under this heading—because the other heading has been spoken about—is that the offence of sexual violation will no longer apply where a victim is under 12 years old. Instead, the charges will fall under “sexual connection with a child”. And we’re increasing the maximum penalty to 20 years.

A lot of times in the House, we just say parts of legislation, and, you know, I think about someone at home who isn’t necessarily, maybe, versed in the law. They hear these terms, but do we actually know what field they delve into? I know this is going to be quite triggering, but when we talk about “sexual connection with a child”, that’s defined as “connection effected by the introduction into the genitalia or anus of one person, otherwise than for genuine medical purposes, of … a part of the body of another person; or … object held or manipulated by another person; or … connection between the mouth or tongue of one person and a part of another person’s genitalia or anus”, etc. This is quite confronting, but we need to hear these things so we can understand how important it is to maximise the penalty and to make sure our children are truly protected from this type of disgusting and abhorrent behaviour. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

This is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the member across the House noted, this was largely a Labour bill that the National Government has picked up, and it just demonstrates that we do agree on some important matters.

The Minister of Justice introduced an Amendment Paper which essentially gives a victim a right of veto to an order of name suppression. What I want to do, really, is just identify how difficult that is and the challenges that that poses.

This is the final order, so ,first of all, I want to recognise that a victim who has not reported a matter to the police and where charges haven’t been laid in court is free to speak about what’s happened to them. They have an absolute liberty to tell the truth to whomever they want. When a matter then gets charged in court, it is quite common for a defendant to immediately seek an interim suppression order, and the victim can no longer speak. In some ways, that kind of seems strange to us, and I think it’s on that kind of premise that this idea has come. But I think it’s too blunt a tool, because one of the things that the courts have made clear is that publication is part of the criminal justice process, and if you’re convicted of a crime, publication of your name forms part of that punishment. Suppression is, essentially, the judge taking into account if it would be a wildly disproportionate punishment to have your name published.

So that’s the first thing to note. I’ll just observe that the ministerial papers show that this decision, this Amendment Paper, goes against advice for a number of reasons. I want to touch on them: firstly—that’s one—if we take the Fitzgerald case; the mentally unwell person who kissed someone in Cuba Street. That was a sexual assault, rightly charged, rightly so, but to then publish that person’s name in every instance could conceivably be a disproportionate punishment. That’s the first thing.

The second problem is about who is a judge, because if publication of name is part of punishment, we generally expect judges to hand down punishments and to be the adjudicator of what that punishment should be. This reform will make the victim the judge, and that’s a significant shift—a very significant shift—in our criminal justice system, so we need to think about that.

But much more important than either of those, which are perhaps a little philosophical, is whether it’s actually good for victims. First of all, there’s the problem of multiple victims. Now, the Minister will say that where there’s multiple victims, each victim kind of has ownership of the offending that occurred to them. But the fact of the matter is, where victims are related—either were at the same party and everyone knows that there was an incident there, or they’re members of the same family and everyone knows there’s a family member who’s a perpetrator—name suppression of the offender in respect of one set of offending and not the other actually makes no sense. It’s impossible to work through in a practical way, and so that’s hard on victims. The other way it’s hard on victims is this: sexual offending, sadly, often happens in family contexts or in friend-group contexts. If the victim has the power to say yes or no, there’s a real risk that pressure, real pressure, will be brought to bear by friends or family on whether or not that veto should be exercised.

This was put into the bill at a late stage, and we don’t think there’s been enough thinking around it. If we need to change the needle on name suppression—and there’s a good argument that we should—then let’s have a discussion about that. But this is a blanket reform and a very blunt instrument. We think there’s a real risk that this will harm victims more than it protects them, and we will certainly take those reservations to the next stage of this bill.

The topic we are discussing today, sexual violence, is one that clearly unites this House, even more so when it involves children. Like all parents, nothing disgusts me more than sexual violence against children. I recall these stories that my colleague Laura McClure mentioned in her speech and the raw emotions that I felt when I heard those on the news and the disgust I felt as a result. So I support the kaupapa of this bill around strengthening the rights of victims of sexual violence.

I’d like to acknowledge the previous Labour Government for bringing this bill to the House; the hard-working Justice Committee—and how good was that speech from Rima Nakhle before, by the way?—for looking at this bill in its entirety; the current Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith; and the submitters. As we’ve heard, it would have taken a lot of courage to submit on this bill, so I commend them for their bravery.

As has been mentioned, this bill seeks to make changes to two Acts, the Crimes Act and the Criminal Procedures Act, and introduces new charges. It increases the penalty from 14 to 20 years. What hasn’t been mentioned in this House, and I would like to mention it, is that the recent reforms that we’ve made to the reformed Sentencing Act will mean that more offenders will feel the full consequences of those 20-year sentences. That is a good thing. It’s a good thing for New Zealand, and a good thing for victims. Along with that, as my colleague has mentioned, it does make changes to name suppression. It gives the victim the right to veto name suppression for the convicted offenders, and that is also a good thing. So I just want to say this is a good bill and I commend the committee’s work for this and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that most of the main points have been made, so by way of summary I’ll keep my contribution brief. Labour is supporting this bill. Most of the work had been done and introduced under the previous Labour Government. We’re very pleased that the current Government has seen fit to be able to carry this forward. It’s important—I don’t think many people would disagree with that.

The bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 in two main ways. The first being that children under 12 can’t be questioned about consent, which several contributors today have expressed some sort of discomfort about the fact that we haven’t done that sooner as a Parliament and as a society, so it is good that that is done now. And it empowers victims by making it easier to lift automatic name suppression.

Taken as a pair of adjustments, those things outweigh our concerns that we have with the bill, so we will be supporting the bill. But I do also reiterate and acknowledge my colleagues’ previous contributions about some of the potential fish-hooks with the latter change, given the emotional burden of the name suppression decisions and the legal complexities around that not necessarily being as simple and straightforward as it might sound on a two-dimensional piece of paper. I implore and I hope that the Government will remain agile and flexible in terms of making sure that works as intended.

Labour supports this bill because, ultimately, anything that protects children is good and gives victims and survivors of sexual violence any kind of greater autonomy or any bigger part of the process to help reclaim themselves and reclaim some power back from what is a horrible, horrible situation. We will continue to advocate for a justice system that empowers survivors whilst also protecting their wellbeing through some of the potentially unintended consequences, but that is our job: to remain vigilant of those. But we commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to conclude the contributions on this bill at this stage. I just want to acknowledge that we are talking about a stage in the legal process that only occurs given the good work that our police men and women do across this country in order for these cases to go before the courts. It may surprise people listening into this, this afternoon, that the police do play an important role in ensuring law and order in this country, and we have a Government that is tough on law and order, and this bill goes another step towards ensuring that we deliver on our promise to deliver law and order for New Zealand. I acknowledge that this bill started under the previous Government, but it is the coalition Government that is delivering this in the House this term.

While we talk about law and order and being tough on people who do things in this country that they should be held accountable for—and the police play a key role in ensuring that happens; and I cannot emphasise that enough, given some of the rhetoric that we have heard during the course of the last week—this bill specifically focuses on another part of that, which is important to this Government, and that is the role of looking after and protecting victims.

I wanted to particularly touch on the protection of children from inappropriate questioning. That is a key aspect of this bill. It is to avoid re-traumatising child victims by questioning them about consent, and I don’t know if other parents listening to this this afternoon would be, like myself, as a parent, surprised that a child under the age of 12 could be questioned about whether or not they gave consent in terms of sexual violation. It’s just completely mind-boggling that, currently, that is the case, and we need to remove that from the statutes by passing this bill.

Instead, these charges will now fall under sexual connection with a child, and they will have a maximum penalty increased to 20 years, aligning that to those of adult sexual violation. A child is often smaller, younger, littler than an adult, and it is the view of this Government that even though a child is smaller, littler than an adult, the penalty should not be smaller or littler than that which would occur in the case of adult sexual violation. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.