Crimes Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This Government is committed to fixing the basics in law and order, and building a future where all New Zealanders feel safe in their communities. A critical part of achieving this is restoring real consequences for crime. As a Government, we have a responsibility to denounce the actions of those that ruin the lives of their fellow New Zealanders. Today marks a significant milestone, as the last stage of one of our most significant pieces of work in law and order, and it is my privilege to speak before the House today.

The Crimes Amendment Bill delivers on our commitments to provide better protection for the public, for retailers, for first responders, and front-line Department of Corrections officers, all people who have borne the brunt of unacceptable and often violent offending in recent years. This bill also responds to calls for a tougher approach to crime by creating new offences, strengthening existing penalties, and providing law enforcement with more tools to respond to criminal conduct.

A key feature of this bill is its response to coward-punch offending. These senseless attacks can have devastating consequences. In a single moment, the victim can suffer life-changing injuries or lose their life altogether. Families have to live with the consequences long after the offending has occurred. This legislation recognises the seriousness of these acts. It introduces specific offences for strikes to the head or neck that result in grievous bodily harm, and it establishes a new offence of manslaughter by strike to the head or neck. It also ensures that coward-punch offending is captured within the existing three-strikes framework. This should send a clear message that violent offending of this nature will be treated with the seriousness it deserves.

This bill also strengthens protections for those who protect us. Police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and front-line Corrections staff perform difficult and often dangerous work on behalf of New Zealanders. Assaulting these workers is not simply an attack on an individual; it is an attack on the people and the services that New Zealanders rely on during times of need and times of emergency. These new offences and increased penalties contained in this bill better recognise the seriousness of such offending and provide stronger deterrence against violence directed at these workers.

Tackling retail crime has become a significant priority for this Government, as it is a significant concern for communities throughout New Zealand. Too many retailers, their staff, and their customers have experienced theft, intimidation, and disorderly behaviour. Small-business owners, in particular, have repeatedly expressed frustration that offenders too often face few immediate consequences for their actions. This bill responds to those concerns. It modernises existing citizens’ arrest provisions, making them simpler and easier to apply. It creates a shoplifting infringement regime that provides police with additional tools to respond swiftly to lower-level offending, and it also introduces a new offence, targeting theft carried out in a disorderly manner. Taken together, these measures provide more options for responding to retail crime and support the thousands of New Zealanders who work in the retail sector every day.

The bill also delivers important reforms to New Zealand slavery and trafficking offences. Human trafficking is a serious violation of human rights and often involves some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. The legislation strengthens existing offences, aligns penalties across the trafficking and slavery regime, and modernises the law to better reflect contemporary forms of exploitation. It also removes barriers that have made some trafficking offences difficult to prosecute and clarifies that children who are trafficked do not need to be shown to have been deceived or coerced. These changes will better equip investigators and prosecutors to hold offenders accountable and ensure New Zealand’s legislative framework remains consistent with international standards. I want to also acknowledge the work of Greg Fleming, Camilla Belich, and the organisations and advocates who have sought stronger protections in this space over many years.

Throughout its passage, this bill has been strengthened by advice from officials, scrutiny of the Parliament, of the work of the Justice Committee, and constructive engagement with stakeholders. The amendments made during the committee stage, including expanded protections for front-line corrections staff, improvements to trafficking provisions, and clarifications to the coward punch manslaughter offence, have helped ensure the legislation will operate as intended. This bill provides and forms part of the Government’s wider programme to restore confidence in the criminal justice system, strengthen public safety, and ensure that victims’ interests are properly recognised.

The Crimes Amendment Bill builds on our extensive work so far in Government to fix the basics in law and order. In just over two years, we have scrapped taxpayer cultural reports, we’ve scrapped the previous Government’s prison reduction targets, we’ve given police additional tools to go after the gangs, we’ve toughened up on our sentencing legislation, we’ve restored the three-strikes regime, we’ve launched an action plan to combat methamphetamine harm, we’ve reinstated a total prisoner voting ban, we’ve clamped and seized cars of people evading court fines and reparations, we’ve given victims of sexual violence the power to determine whether their attackers receive permanent name suppression, and we’ve criminalised stalking and made it a jailable offence.

The good news is we’re making good progress as well. There are now 46,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime than when we came into Government, but the work is far from over. We want to keep driving those numbers down and reduce the amount of families that have their lives turned upside down every year by violent crime. I have no doubt that the Crimes Amendment Bill will help continue our success and make New Zealand an even safer place to live. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing for his acknowledgement. I have to say that it’s sometimes difficult to remember that he isn’t the Minister for Justice, such is his commitment to responding to questions and bringing bills to the House in the Minister for Justice’s name.

This bill does a lot of different things, and I think they all deserve to be examined separately because they are inherently independent of each other, apart from, perhaps, two parts of this bill. They do do different things, and I think, in fact, some of the issues surrounding this bill have been that the Government has been trying to do too much within this Crimes Amendment Bill and it hasn’t quite worked in the way that they may have envisaged.

I do also agree with the Minister that we need to think about the victims of crime. Of course, that is in the forefront of our minds, but that doesn’t mean that just passing any law that addresses crime is going to be effective in preventing victims of crime and preventing the causes of crime. I think, perhaps, that is where we differ on this side of the House in terms of this Crimes Amendment Bill.

I want to start with talking about the slavery and trafficking offences. The Minister is correct that this work has been going on a long time. I think I acknowledged his colleague, the Hon Nicola Grigg, who first had a member’s bill in this area. In fact, I was speaking to a former parliamentarian from the Labour Party that I saw earlier in the day who had said that it was something she’d been working on when she was in Parliament, so it is something that has been on the agenda for this Parliament to address for a long time, and it is satisfying to see Subpart 2 of this bill being brought to the House and bring in stronger protections for those dealing in human trafficking.

I’ve said it before in this House, but I think it is important for us to see exploitation of people on a continuum. We can see slavery down one end of that extreme continuum, but we also hear of exploitation at the other end, and to allow any of those offences within that continuum makes the other more likely because it increases its acceptance within society, so it is really important and I commend the Government for that aspect of this bill. That aspect of the bill was, in part, due to the Labour Party’s support for this at an earlier stage. Unfortunately, that is where the praise ends.

The rest of this bill, although intended to decrease the victims of crime, may in some instances actually increase victimisations in New Zealand. I will go through all of them, if I have time, in order. The citizen’s arrest powers are already in place in New Zealand. This is not something new that the Government is introducing. It already exists in New Zealand law. The thing that the Government is doing is bringing in the ability for people to use restraints, mechanical restraints, on people, and also further outline—in a way, I think, encourage through bringing in this legislation—the use of citizen’s arrest as an alternate to calling the police straight away. I believe that the intention is that this power—and I don’t think this will be disagreed—be used more often. The problem with that is that, when we were scrutinising this at the committee of the whole House stage, the Minister of Justice was unable to confirm—and I think some people would find this disturbing—that this would apply to children because of the criminal age of responsibility; and also, that there isn’t a time period that the right of undertaking a citizen’s arrest lawfully would expire.

Of course, you have a test in here that says you have to call a constable—you have to call the police officer—as soon as you make the citizen’s arrest, but there were concerns expressed at the committee stage that, what if that constable was unavailable for whatever reason? You have a situation where this bill may allow the restraint of children and young people, of adults who are vulnerable, for a period of time that’s unspecified. We did ask if there would be education about this. There does need to be education, because I think the restriction of liberty and unlawful imprisonment is a fundamental premise in our law, that we should not have liberty unreasonably restrained. Of course, the taking away of someone’s liberty and actually placing them in imprisonment is one of the rights that a State has that it exercises, but it is one of the most fundamental in terms of the removal of rights. It must be exercised very carefully, and I don’t think sufficient consideration has been given to the unintended consequences of this. That is something that we cannot support.

In terms of the undercover police officers, that’s linked to the trafficking as well. There were a few issues raised around that, but that is not the substantive part of the bill that we disagree with.

To the coward punch section of the legislation. I want to acknowledge that, in New Zealand, there has been a movement for some time from victims and family members of those who experienced a coward punch, which is a terrible crime to be committed against anyone who suffers either grievous bodily harm or death as a result of a punch that they weren’t expecting. However, we did receive a lot of advice in the Justice Committee—and this is clearly outlined in our report—that some of the steps that the Government is taking to prevent these coward punches may not result in more convictions for that type of offence.

The intention was to provide harsher sentences and make it more likely that people who were the perpetrators of a coward punch would be more likely to be imprisoned for a longer period of time. The advice we received is that the offences put forward would not achieve their aim. Even if one was to agree with the policy premise of this—and, of course, I’m sure the whole House sympathises with the families of those victims of coward punches; it’s an awful thing to lose any family member in a violent crime, especially, I imagine, when they’re not expecting that—this will not provide the justice that those families so deserve. There were also other issues with this in terms of inconsistency; that other violent acts which are just as reprehensible would not be covered in the same way, and my colleague Dr Duncan Webb went through that in detail.

We also have in this bill an offence against first responders and corrections officers. This on its own is not something that would be as objectionable, because we do acknowledge that when you are performing a job, and when you’re rushing towards danger, which is against most of our normal instincts and human instincts, these people are essentially heroes—they’re doing their job and they actually run towards danger. If they are injured during that, that is reprehensible and something that society in New Zealand should look down upon. The issue with this is that there didn’t seem to be sufficient justification as to the limitation of that group, and other groups were suggested that could have been covered—for example, Māori wardens, who do an amazing job protecting our communities. Unfortunately, we were unable to get support from the committee to include them in this bill and in the protections that the Government suggest that would incur, as well.

I suppose the part of this bill which is particularly concerning—and an aspect of this bill which, to me at least, didn’t come to light until we went through the select committee stage—is the increased penalties on theft. This came about through the ministerial advisory group on retail crime, and it changes the minimum sentence from three months to a year for some thefts. The Ministry of Justice has done calculations on this aspect of the bill, and they estimate that this will result, by 2036, in 1,370 women in the prison population—an increase of 839. That’s a 63 percent increase over the next decade. That is a huge increase in our prison population. What we’re talking about here is not violent crime, it’s crime that’s often associated with poverty. It is very alarming for us, as a society, to be looking at passing harsher sentences for those types of offences, which will take mothers away from their families. I can’t agree to support this bill, because of that genuine concern for those families that this offence would create.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose the Crimes Amendment Bill at its third reading. As the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, mentioned, there are quite a few parts to this bill and there are quite a few components, not all of which the Green Party opposes. But, unfortunately, as a whole, the harm that this bill will do outweighs the benefit, which is why we are opposing this bill is in this current form.

Now, if we’re looking at certain parts of it—and, again, just to kind of walk through some of the areas—the area around slave dealing and human trafficking and, I guess, some of the new mechanisms to address the issue of modern slavery is something that the Green Party welcomed, and it’s good to see this being put in this particular bill. I note that there is a current members’ bill in the name of both Camilla Belich and Greg Fleming, who are also addressing another part of this problem—also noting that, with that particular members’ bill, it is one of the few instances where the bill has been pulled out of the ballot because it’s got more than 61 non-executive members who supported that bill. Clearly, this House takes this particular part seriously, and this is one of the areas, like I said, that the Green Party does support.

Moving on to some of the other areas, there’s a small section in this bill around the protection of undercover officers, which is along with offences against first responders. Of course, a lot of these are important, particularly when it comes to the fact that first responders, in those situations, are also the ones who are most likely going to be harassed or abused or suffer at the hands of physical violence in those kinds of instances. I know we do see that, for example, the Minister—and, in fact, it needs to be acknowledged that this is one of those bills where there were quite a number of Amendment Papers that took place during the committee stage. One of the things that the Minister’s Amendment Paper 660 did was to provide a more specific definition of a front-line corrections worker, but again, it begs the question of what, then, we would consider “front-line”.

The previous speaker, Camilla Belich, has already mentioned some of the other ones that we were looking at that also could be considered “front-line”, but were not addressed in this bill—the likes of Māori Wardens, lifeguards, and also, as we see in the most recent report, where around, I think, 80 percent of home and community care workers are also being abused, mostly from a psychological perspective. An alarming number of them are also physically abused in their line of work. Though not first responding to an emergency, they are nevertheless responding in general. Also, there are other ones that we should be looking at—the fact that, for example, the Government has pulled the police out of some of the mental health call outs and where, potentially, first responders actually do not have the appropriate training or support to be able to deal with some of the more volatile instances of mental health incidents. Yet, when we’re looking at this bill, they are also, potentially, the ones who are going to be punished as a result of this introduction. I think there is a balance that needs to be struck in terms of when something is appropriate and when actually the issue comes down to the level of resourcing and support that has been placed for those first responders, as opposed to the punitive approach that we are seeing here. Again, it’s something that should be looked at from both perspectives and both angles, as opposed to just one.

Now, there are a number of concerning bits I want to address. I mean, maybe going back to front in terms of the clauses of this bill, I want to start by addressing the issue of theft—and, indeed, we also see some changes to the Summary Offences Act. What is concerning to see over here is the fact that, on the one hand, we see the Government criminalising homelessness, but then also we’re now seeing, through this bill, the Government is also criminalising poverty. What is more concerning with this particular section on theft is that, for a lot of the things, particularly when we’re looking at theft in an offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner, there are already other mechanisms within the current Crimes Act that address—you know, when we’re looking at the idea of robbery and what some of the things are that are entailed in robbery, particularly when it comes to offensive theft in an offensive manner. It’s hard to say how this new section 219A, inserted by clause 25, would interact with some of the other sections under the Crimes Act—for example, section 234.

I guess it’s not reassuring for the House for the Minister, in those kinds of instances, rather than providing a very clear position during the committee stage on the ministerial intent, to simply state that, “Oh, well, we’re going to let the court work it out.” When you have a lack of clarity, it’s actually just going to take up more resources for the court to be able to decipher through some of the nuances that should have been made clearer within the legislation.

Also, in terms of some of the other areas, I think the more controversial part of this bill was around harm by strike to the head or neck—and this is both in terms of wounding and, I think, in the more serious instances when we’re looking at manslaughter. Now, it does need to be acknowledged that there are families and friends who have lost loved ones; we’ve heard them through the select committee process, and they’re really frustrated in terms of some of the existing length of sentences. The concerns around repeated offending, which has been raised during select committee, should also be addressed and validated, but a lot of these sorts of things may not be addressed in the way that this piece of legislation would like it to be addressed. Indeed, during the committee stage—and we’re glad that the Minister’s Amendment Paper 660 actually tidied it up—in fact, it would have created an anomaly where, if the person is acquitted from the particular charge of manslaughter by strike to the head or neck, they are acquitted from manslaughter in general. That would be considered, in some ways, a mistrial. There is no other mechanism, unless you are putting two charges in front of the court.

The prosecution of manslaughter, in the context of one punch, is already difficult to prove, but, in this case, I think the argument needs to be made that, yes, when you’re looking at this, it’s not simply just a strike to the head or neck. When it comes to culpable homicide, if it’s a murder, if there’s a genuine intent, it will be trialed and will be sentenced as murder; but manslaughter is when the mens rea component is not entirely convincing. When we’re looking at our culpable homicide regime, it’s already in a very delicate kind of balance when it comes to how the court is conducting itself. By adding an extra layer, it has the potential of making it even more unwieldy and complex, and it doesn’t really promote the practicability, and also the workability, of our criminal justice system.

I think another point that has to be made, as a part of this, is that it’s specifically to the head and neck, but the arguments will be, I guess, “Well, what happens if you do see a coward punch, not to the head or neck but to the chest or to other parts?” I think it’s also really concerning when you have other members of the House who are also intent on, for example, introducing a minimum sentencing to that. What must be stated is that, for example, in some of the things that have been proposed, some of them do, but for some others there’s no proposal for the minimum sentencing requirement. You would have the chilling effect of capturing instances where the incident was truly accidental and the offender was a child. Those kinds of things have not, thankfully, happened here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but it has happened overseas.

Finally, I just want to address the last part, which is another really concerning part of this bill, which is around citizen’s arrest. Now, this is already an existing provision. We have heard from the New Zealand Police Association, we have heard from Retail New Zealand, we have heard from Business New Zealand—essentially, except for the ministerial advisory group led by the vigilantism of one single person, no one else supported this particular part of the bill. It’s not simply because it’s unworkable; it’s impractical, it’s too broad in scope, and also, as we see from the existing provisions, the real issue is that, if someone does conduct a citizen’s arrest, sometimes Police do not have the resources to respond to some of those call outs. Now, rather than allowing for some of those resources, we’re seeing this expanding scope in power, which means that you’re going to be, potentially, aggravating offenders even more so than what currently is happening.

Instead, what we should be looking at is how we can provide additional de-escalation training and other mechanisms to address some of the root causes of retail crime—other than, you know, providing healthy homes and also a livable income. With that, the Green Party does not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.02 p.m.