Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill — First Reading

CRIMES (COWARD PUNCH CAUSING DEATH) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

MATT KING (National—Northland): I move, That the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.

Imagine arriving at hospital to find your beautiful son on life support. Imagine being told there was nothing anyone could do to save him. Imagine being told he was brain dead. Imagine being told he was king-hit from behind and never stood a chance. Imagine being told once you turn the life support system off he will die. Imagine that. These words came from a story by Duncan Garner in 2016.

I got given some very good advice by my father, advice very similar to what Duncan Garner received from his father: be careful, there's always someone bigger and tougher than you. Don't go hitting anyone, it could kill them. One punch can kill. This is one of the motivations for me bringing this bill to the House, and to highlight the message that you can kill someone with one punch.

I am honoured to have had a member's bill drawn out of the ballot in my first year in Parliament. I understand that some very good MPs in this House have gone their whole entire career and not had a member's bill pulled, and I know that I have a few around me. So I'm appreciative of that.

This bill creates a new offence that would allow for a specific king-hit, or as I would prefer to call it, a "coward's punch", offence in response to a number of deaths where an individual killed was assaulted and tragically died as a result of their injuries. This offence has a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, which sits nicely between the offence of causing grievous bodily harm at 14 years', and manslaughter which carries a life sentence. It amends the Crimes Act 1961, being the principle Act, and inserts section 168A "Assault causing death—(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years who—(a) assaults any other person with intent to hit the other person with any part of the person's body or with an object held by the person; and (b) the assault is not authorised or excused by law; and (c) the assault causes the death of the other person. (2) For the purposes of this section, an assault causes the death of a person whether the person is killed as a result of the injuries received directly from the assault or from hitting the ground or an object as a consequence of the assault. (3) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) it is not necessary to prove that the death was reasonably foreseeable.", and that is a key part of this bill. It covers situations where victims are subjected to unprovoked or unexpected assaults and, therefore, cannot defend themselves.

Australia has, in the last few years, created a similar offence. They have an eight-year minimum mandatory sentence, and it includes intoxication or impairment provisions that trigger that mandatory minimum. They've had over 90 deaths over the course of a decade. In our case, as the bill stands now, intoxication or impairment would merely be an aggravating feature for sentencing, not triggering a mandatory sentence like Australia. It's really easy to prove. The two ingredients: you commit an assault, and that assault causes a death or a death results as a result of that assault.

My thinking behind this is that having a specific offence makes it easier for tracking and recording of this type of offence. It creates an alternative offence, previously covered by manslaughter. In the cases of manslaughter there is a degree of mens rea or mental intent that the prosecution has to establish, that a reasonable person, in the offender's position, would realise they were exposing the victim to significant risk of serious injury. In this bill, there is no need to prove that death was reasonably foreseeable. It can be laid as an alternative charge to manslaughter, so there is more opportunity to get a guilty plea as a 20-year maximum versus life imprisonment can be plea bargained out. Now, I know we don't have plea bargaining officially in New Zealand, but it happens all the time. So you have situations where a defence lawyer can negotiate the alternative charge, and, therefore, save the court system the time, the stress, the agony, and the grief that victims' families have to go through. So for that fact alone, it's with bringing this bill in—for that fact alone.

There's anecdotal evidence from overseas and around the country that juries are reluctant to convict for offences like manslaughter. In the case of vehicular manslaughter, they're more likely to convict of dangerous driving causing death, especially if the penalties are less. Guilty pleas can equate to less suffering for the affected parties, as I mentioned, and it negates the need for expensive trials. I've been through numerous High Court and District Court trials, and I can tell you—and my colleague next to me, Harete Hipango, will tell you as well—they are very gruelling for the families and the victims, if they're alive. Anything that can minimise court trials and the experience is worthwhile, in my view. In some cases, I've had rape victims tell me that the rape trial was worse than the actual event, if you could believe that.

I understand that when this bill was drawn from the ballot, the likes of Joseph Parker, the boxer, he and his camp supported the thinking behind the bill. My view is if this gets through to become law I'll hopefully be involved in a public campaign to sort of publicise to people, and specifically targeting young men because they're the high risk area, that you punch someone once and it can kill them.

I was a policeman in Kerikeri. I went to a job at the local Homestead Tavern. There was a man there who was in his late 60s, he was about 50 to 60 kilos dripping wet, a harmless man by the name of Lyle Rapana, and he was hit by a guy close to my size. He hit his head on the bar's leaner as he went down, and he never got up. In that case, the offender was convicted of manslaughter, but in those sorts of cases I think this bill would be specific to those sorts of cases where it's an unprovoked assault, where the victim did not see it coming.

So there's numerous cases I've been involved in in my time. There was another case in Kaikohe where there was a road-rage incident. The middle-aged man was followed home and was subject to a coward punch in his driveway, and he dropped and never got up again. The offender got 10 months' home detention for that. As a result of that, a petition was raised and there were 11,500 signatures over a very short space of time—I think it was two weeks; 11,500 signatures in support of tougher sentences and in support of the coward punch legislation that I propose to introduce.

On one other occasion, I was present during a serious situation where a guy was hit from behind. He didn't die, so this legislation wouldn't be relevant, but it was horrific. He fractured his skull and had major injuries. His life is never going to be the same again. I witnessed it. I gave the man first aid. I was one of the witnesses when it went to trial, but luckily the guy pled guilty, the offender pled guilty, and was sentenced. But if that guy had died, this bill would be perfect for that situation. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just acknowledge that member, Matt King, as the sponsor of the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill. I'm not sure if I heard that, but this was his first bill or his second bill drawn—

Hon Member: First.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: First bill—congratulations. But Labour can't support this bill. Clearly anyone—anyone—that king-hits any person should be thrown in jail, absolutely. We abhor the actions where people are struck, but more so if they die through that king-hit. If I may, it may help the member to turn our attention in this House to what the current laws are in this country that concern death resulting from a single hit. Of course, we have murder: culpable homicide where the offender means to cause the death of the person killed, means to cause injury, they know it's likely to cause death, or does an act they know to be likely to cause death.

Then we have manslaughter: culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where there is no intent to cause death. Currently, in our courts, a judge has the discretion to impose any penalty for manslaughter up to and including life imprisonment. Conventions can incur starting points of five to six years' imprisonment. The starting point may consider the extent of violence involved, usually forceful violence with intent to cause serious injury, or incur a higher starting point, for example.

What this bill does—like the member who sponsored it said—is introduce a new offence. It creates a new offence that will allow for a king-hit, or, as he said, a cowards' punch - type offence. Those convicted of the so-called "one punch assault" will receive a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. There is no minimum sentence imposed. It is not necessary to prove that the death was reasonably foreseeable. In effect, a person may be convicted on this offence and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for a single hit they did not know, understand, or realise could result in death. Aggravating and mitigating factors are extremely important, and so removing the requirements to consider whether death was foreseeable, effectively ignoring culpability as a factor in sentencing, undermines the intent of the law to provide a just response to this offence.

This is why this side of the House is opposing this bill, because we believe we have the legislation, we have judges to make the call in these serious, king-hit assaults. I was listening for that member to distinguish between what is wrong with our current laws that lead to murder, and what are the current laws under manslaughter that he is trying to address in this particular bill, and I didn't quite hear what the member was purporting to say.

Of course, like I said in the previous bill, the High-power Laser Pointer Offences and Penalties Bill, around the lack of evidence that's purported to support what this member's bill is intending to present to this House. He mentioned the Australian Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014. Just for the House's attention, the Australian version of that particular bill imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years' imprisonment, and adds five years to the maximum penalty where the offender was intoxicated at the time of the offence. When the New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell was introducing this law, it was intended to attack and address the "thugs". So is the member or members across the House saying that all people who unintentionally cause a death through a single hit are thugs? Is that what they're saying? Because you referenced this bill to the Australian example, and I'm giving you the context in which that Premier put this bill to their House. So that's, essentially, what that bill was addressing. I don't believe that that has been cleared in this particular bill.

In terms of their penalties—the penalties in this bill, it's unclear as I read this bill in terms of penalties. The bill talks about new offences under "New Section 168A Assault causing death", which appears between murder and manslaughter in the Crimes Act 1961. Of course, I've mentioned before, murder carries the sentence of imprisonment for life; unless it would be manifestly unjust, the minimum non-parole term cannot be less than 10 years. Of course, manslaughter also carries the sentence of a life sentence in section 177—

Matt King: Let it go to select committee.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Well, this is the sponsor's bill that I'm actually just sharing in the House, because he didn't cover it in his introduction, but it does not refer to a minimum sentence. So this bill proposes a lesser upper limit for a term of imprisonment than either murder or manslaughter. But like manslaughter, it does not impose a minimum sentence.

I don't think the sponsor of this bill has convinced the House as to the problem that he's addressing. We all agree that king-hits are performed by cowards—we all agree with that, but his remedy in introducing this bill, I believe, falls well short. Labour will be opposing this bill.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in support of the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill, which has been brought to the House by my very good friend and colleague Matt King, the member for Northland.

I've just been listening to the contribution from the member opposite, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, and I really have to wonder what they're doing voting against this bill. The member spoke about some of the issues and problems, she tied in some rhetoric from New South Wales, and said, "Well, because New South Wales called this some bill which has to do with thugs, then this bill's to do with thugs.", and, therefore, they won't be supporting it. But then she said, "Well, there is a problem with coward punches, but this bill is not going to address that."

Well, I really don't understand what the issue is, because I listened to Matt King's speech and I heard, very clearly, some examples which he highlighted of people who have had coward punches put against them. They've died, and there's been no justice. The example here of Ana Iongi, whose partner, Reginald Sharma, died after a single punch at an Auckland party in August 2017, said she was 100 percent behind this bill. In the case in this instance, the man accused of causing his death was charged with manslaughter and found not guilty by a jury in August of that year, and she was absolutely shattered by that outcome.

This bill is about providing a solution for those examples with easy proof where those people who could do a coward punch—the courts are able to find them guilty where the very specific offence which is in this bill has been met. And this is a very specific offence which this bill proposes, in clause 4 inserting new section 168A: (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years who—(a) assaults any other person with intent to hit the other person with any part of the person's body or with an object held by that person; and (b) the assault is not authorised or excused by law; and (c) the assault causes the death of the other person." A very simple offence.

I challenge the members on the other side of the House to say to the family of those who've had family members killed by coward punches that they think it's OK for there not to be an offence and for there to be more cases in New Zealand where people are not able to be charged and where there is no justice for those victims. Because on this side of the House, we believe that where a coward punch which causes death takes place, there must be some justice. There must be some justice for those families. I don't think it's OK to stand up in this House, as the member opposite just did, and simply say, "Well, it's a little bit unclear in this bill and so we don't really think there's an issue, so we'll just vote it down." That doesn't provide justice. That's simple—

Matt King: Politics.

SIMEON BROWN: As Matt King said, that is simple politics. This is a member's bill, and I would encourage members on the other side of the House to put the bill through to select committee so that the public can have their say, so that victims can have their say, so that people can come forward and tell their stories to the select committee. And if there are particular points of law, which they seem to allude to, around minimum sentences and maximum sentences, which seem to be quite complicated for them, well, put it to the committee so the committee can hear the evidence. I say this to New Zealand First: put this bill to select committee so that New Zealanders can have their say on this piece of legislation. Because voting down this piece of legislation is saying to people like Ana, whose partner died after a single punch in August of 2017, that this Parliament doesn't care, that this Parliament is not going to provide justice, that this Parliament is not going to be providing a solution whereby those people can be held to account.

I just want to commend my good friend Matt King for bringing this issue to Parliament: thank you for coming here as a local member of Parliament who brings his experience, his stories—what he's seen on the streets in his policing career—but also coming to this Parliament and standing up for victims of crime, who need a voice in this Parliament and who need people who are going to stand up and fight for them. Because I've seen too often this Government being soft on crime, being soft on the causes of crime, being soft on criminals, and being too focused on wanting to just reduce the prison population, I do not support this bill.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Could I just stand up and speak as someone who knows just a little bit about crime, a little bit about law and order, as, I can see, does the sponsor of this bill, but certainly not that previous speaker, Simeon Brown, who could've just taken that speech from, what, about 15 I've heard him give in this House which actually bear no relationship—stand up here, talk tough, talk about "soft on crime, hard on crime"; completely irrelevant. I just get angry sitting here when I hear that.

I recall that part of my 41 years in the police I spent teaching and training detectives, and as the detectives would come in—these are people that have come in, they have reasonable knowledge of the law, they've spent time on the streets as uniformed police officers, didn't really need the in-depth knowledge of, perhaps, the Crimes Act or some of the serious legislation that they'd subsequently need as detectives. Well, the first thing you'd do when you start testing—they would open up the Crimes Act and start looking at the variety of offences in there. The first thing they would sit and do is they'd go through the assault provisions and the various definitions of them, and they'd sit there and say, "Well, what's the difference between that and that?" Essentially, you're talking about injuring, wounding with intent—a large number of offences. Just about all those offences had been put in there to satisfy, generally, a political requirement at the time, because they didn't make anything safer.

What this House should be about is making sure that anything we pass in this House is going to make things better for people. What we need to do is make sure: is this thing that we're passing, this piece of legislation, actually going to make a difference? Well, I'm afraid, Mr King—good on you for having a look at this, but it's not actually going to make any difference. He, like myself, was a detective, and he will know that when you come to look at a set of facts, when you start doing a criminal liability, the first thing you do is look—was there a death, and you start working backwards from that. Actually, there is ample legislation now to look after this. There is manslaughter and there is murder. There are sentencing regimes around both. There are aggravating factors around both.

This is just simply not necessary. This is just going to be another confuser, and it's not going to make anything—it's going to be another trade-off. It'll be another thing that Crown solicitors will be lambasted with by lawyers who are saying, "Well, if you charge with this, we'll let you off that." It just adds another layer. I can't help but be passionate about this. If you confuse the issue, the only people who will benefit will be the defence lawyers, because where you don't have a clear set of facts, clear law to work on, where you have alternatives, that's what any good lawyer will say: "Right, we've got an alternative here. We've got a trading point here." Once you've got a trading point, you've got a weakening point, and that's what this will do.

In fact, it's quite interesting looking at the background of this. The single-punch bill actually came from New South Wales, and it wasn't designed, actually, to this sort of situation. What it was actually designed for was the incredible number of problems they had around their liquor licensing problems at the time. What was actually happening was they were getting a lot of violence around inner-city Sydney, and, again, it was a piece of legislation that was brought in to highlight what they thought was a part of a package of offences, a package of measures they brought in at the time around that whole trying to stop what was a lot of violence.

In fact, murder wasn't really the issue, death wasn't the issue; it was actually the serious injuries that were caused. If this legislation actually broadened and talked about the effect of the single punch, because, actually, most—and I'm sure, if he's quite honest, Mr King will deal with this—of the factors around offences like the single punch that came up, actually resulted in quite bad injuries. It was actually people who had may have ended up with, sometimes, long-term brain injuries, etc. It wasn't actually death. Death was an easy part of it. So this doesn't even address the real issue of what it copies, which was New South Wales, and New South Wales actually weren't looking at the death part of it. They were looking at serious injuries, and this doesn't even actually address that.

So good on the member for bringing it across. You know, he's come here, he's been a long-time police officer like myself. You come here and you want to, sort of, make a bit of difference, but actually, this simply isn't going to make a difference. The member will remember when he first went on his detective course as a constable on trial. He'll remember sitting down, looking at the legislation—look, he's smiling over there because he knows this. He looked at the legislation. He was tested on this, and he couldn't work out what was a wounding. He couldn't work what was an injury. This is just another layer that's going to confuse those that come after him. It's not necessary. It won't make anyone any safer. It may make him feel a little better, and that may not be such a bad thing, but I cannot recommend this. With my experience of the law, this will just simply add and create a confusion and a gap for the defence lawyers. I do not commend this bill to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't actually know where to begin with this bill. I think that the intent with which Matt King wanted to create a piece legislation that targeted king-hits and coward punches New Zealand First actually agrees with, right? So we actually believe that there should be something carved out in the law that deals with these thugs that actually punch and injure without warning innocent people: knock them out, injure them, and even kill them.

The problem with this bill that we've got is it does nothing of the sort. It does nothing of the sort. The only thing in this bill that has got anything to do with coward punching is in the title—it's in the title.

Matt King: Aargh!

DARROCH BALL: I'll read it out for that member. I know he says that he wrote it, but he didn't, because he just copied and pasted it from Australian legislation directly. I've highlighted it. But here's the first part: assault causing death "with any part of the person's body or with an object held by the person;"—with any part of the person's body or an object held by the person. Does that sound like a punch to you, Mr King? Does that sound like a one-punch to you? You could be holding a baseball bat and crack a guy, kill him, right? You want them, instead of being charged with murder or manslaughter—I hope people are watching, because there's a very good reason why this side of the House is not voting for this bill. This bill does not make any sort of sense at all—not one. But the worst part of it is that they're standing there saying that we're soft on crime. The worst part of it is that what those people are currently charged with and would be charged with is murder or manslaughter. What murder and manslaughter have currently, Mr King, is life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. Now, everyone watching, please understand that what this bill, this individual, and this party have got to try to stand up and convince us of is to change that maximum of life imprisonment to a maximum of—what, Mr King? 20 years?—20 years. So from life imprisonment to 20 years.

Now, those members are going to stand up—and I'm sure Mr Mitchell will—and say that we're soft on crime, we should have one-punch, and these people are cowards. We agree, right? New Zealand First agrees. This bill does not achieve that, and he knows that. In no way does this bill achieve that. It actually weakens the law.

Matt King: Ha, ha!

DARROCH BALL: Well, it does. You're the only one laughing, Mr King. You're the only one laughing, Mr King. It's quite sad—it's quite sad. Because I know you're a nice guy and you've got the best intentions, but this legislation is actually going backward from what you want to do and what the intent is of the bill.

Not only can you use any part of your body in this legislation—and prove me wrong. Any member of the National Party, stand up after me and prove that I'm wrong. Quote it from the bill. Not only can you use any part of your body—you can use your foot, you could use your knee, you could use your elbow, you could use your head, you could use your punch, right? You could use any object in your hand. But here's the kicker. It doesn't have to be one punch.

Matt King: Yeah. What's the issue?

DARROCH BALL: What's the issue? Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that, Mr King? This has got nothing to do with coward punching. This has got nothing to do with king punches. This has got to with assaulting and killing someone, which we already have in the Crimes Act. Not only do we have this in the Crimes Act but they've got harsher penalties than what this individual wants to come in with this bill.

Why? Why would we agree with that? Why would we support that? I don't even know why the National Party let it in the ballot in the first place. It's quite embarrassing for them. Do you know what it is? We can rightly stand on this side of the House and say that the National Party is soft on crime because they want to lower the maximum penalty. That's what it is when it boils down to it, Mr King. That's what it is.

So unfortunately—and I'd like to make and reiterate this point—New Zealand First agrees with the concept that there's an issue with coward punches, that they are conducted by thugs, that they are king-hits, and that there should be legislation for it. But one of the things that Mr Greg O'Connor actually brought up was very, very important. This deals with the resulting in death, not resulting in grievous bodily harm or harm or just the assault of one-punch. It doesn't do any of it, Mr Mitchell. Please stand up and talk some sense into your colleague.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first thing I'd say is I'd reach out across the aisle to the previous speaker and I'd say: if you believe in it, if you do believe with the intent around the coward's punch, then vote for the bill—vote for the bill. Let's take it through to select committee. I know that the sponsor of the bill, Matt King, is very happy to work with New Zealand First to make sure that we have a good piece of legislation that comes back into this House. So I would put it to New Zealand First that they actually stand up, live their values, and that they support this bill and they take it to select committee.

Can I acknowledge Matt King. The reason why I like members' days and members' bills is that they often come into this House through real lived experience out in the community. Often, it's experience built up over years. I acknowledge Greg O'Connor and his service and his experience in the police, and I'll come to the issues that he raised, shortly, if I have time.

Matt King brought this bill into the House. I'll tell you why: because in his service as a front-line police officer and a detective, he saw case after case where people's lives were destroyed through coward punches, through someone that struck or punched or assaulted someone.

Greg O'Connor: Not in the legislation—not in the legislation.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: They didn't actually see it coming. No, it actually isn't in the legislation, and can I say to Mr O'Connor: don't worry about the defence lawyers. They're not going to be confused at all. They'll understand exactly what the intent of this legislation is.

I'm sure that Mr O'Connor himself has got many manslaughter cases that he's probably taken to court where, on the night of the assault, it might be a patched gang member that's intoxicated, that's dressed in his gang regalia in the middle of the night, that's overtly vicious and violent—

Hon Member: It's not just gang members.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —it's not just gang members, but I'm giving an example to Mr O'Connor—who then will turn up to court on a manslaughter charge dressed and clean shaven like I am, sit down, and then have to prove the mens rea. How many cases have you lost, Mr O'Connor, at court because of that?

Greg O'Connor: None.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: And the victim, who's had their life altered forever—I can guarantee that it's happened. So what Matt King has done, and it's a clever bill, is he's come in here and he's said that in that scenario, if someone is struck—and let's not forget the seriousness of this. That person that's struck is losing their life. They're not turning up the next day to see their family. They're not turning up the next day to work. We'll never see them again. They'll never walk in this beautiful country again. They're gone—they're gone.

What this bill has done is recognised that through the assault, a coward's punch, you're removing the mens rea. You're removing the ability for that person to put their suit on and to come into court two months later and say to the judge, "I didn't realise that that was going to be the outcome." Well, I'm sorry; what Matt King is saying is that's not good enough. If you decide to strike someone, if you decide to hit someone with a baseball bat—which is an example that was given by the Government—if you hit someone with an object, if you kick someone, if you kick someone in the head while they're on the ground—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Mitchell, I'm not hitting anyone with anything. Please don't bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —then actually you should be held to account for that—you should be held to account. Sorry, Madam Speaker. You shouldn't be held to account—but Mr Ball should be, without a doubt. That's exactly what Matt King has done.

I served on the East Coast of New Zealand. I could give you a dozen examples of people that were hit by someone, unsuspecting, that have fallen and have either lost their life or had parts of their skull removed to allow the brain swelling, who never fully recover, who will never have the quality of life back again. They may get charged with a grievous bodily charge or, if they kill someone, with a manslaughter, and they may go up in front of the court in a suit like mine and they may get off it. Go and ask the public in New Zealand how many times they've seen people with a reduced sentence or get off because they haven't been able to prove the charge. This is saying: if you punch someone or if you hit someone with an object and you kill someone—

Darroch Ball: It's murder.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, it's not. There's no mens rea attached to this. There's no burden of proof. Will defence lawyers like it? No, they won't, because they know that this is a much tougher regime on someone that's cowardly enough to kill someone.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to acknowledge the member who has brought this bill to the House and all of the speeches tonight that have spoken about violence and how abhorrent it is that we still, as the small, beautiful island nation that we are, suffer from such high rates of violent crime. And, you know, as members have pointed out, that includes domestic and sexual violence. It includes violence that's drug or alcohol induced. It involves violent crime that causes far more harm than might be foreseeable. We're all in agreement about that, and we're all in agreement that where serious harm, akin to someone being placed in a coma for a length of time, being brain damaged, or losing their life—it's some of the most serious of crimes that we have on our statute book. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, we do have those crimes on our statute book.

People have talked about all of the different degrees of violence, the way that our criminal law defines them based on the level of intent or recklessness; foreseeability of harm; that the offender carries the level of violence in the actions; and also the impact, so whether it's wounding, whether it's injuring, whether it's causing grievous bodily harm, whether it's death. We have those crimes in the statute book.

We also have the Sentencing Act, where the circumstances of the offending are taken into account on a case by case basis. Whether the person was a gang member will be taken into account, whether they were intoxicated, whether it was premeditated, whether it was provoked. All of those things are taken into account when a sentence is set.

A lot has been made of the mens rea, or the mental element, required in our homicide laws. So we have two different types of homicide in our laws—just to clarify this, because I, too, have worked in the criminal justice system for about a decade. There is murder, which can be committed through two types of mens rea: one is through intentional death, and the other is through committing a violent act or an unlawful act where foreseeable, serious harm was taken into account by the offender. Those are the two ways that murder is committed. That's supposed to be recklessness and intent. So the recklessness requirement seems to have been misunderstood by the Opposition as being the mens rea requirement for manslaughter. That's not the case. Both of those types of mens rea mean that the person will be held accountable for murder. So if you foresaw really serious harm or death, that's murder. Manslaughter doesn't require foreseeability of the harm, it only requires that the unlawful act itself was committed intentionally. Any assault counts. You don't have to prove that death or serious harm was foreseeable. So it's covered. It's homicide, and the sentence is life, if needs be.

Those are all covered by our law. So, you know, we stand here, and we've got this new piece of criminal law being proposed, which at best is unnecessary and at best has been brought to the House under a misconception about the current criminal law. At worst—and we see this in the House from time to time—it's a branding exercise for political parties so that they can talk about themselves as being tough on crime. Appealing to the plight of victims, to the fears of our communities so that politicians can look tough on crime is callous. It's abhorrent. On this side of the House, we want to care for victims by providing for mental health care, by providing for hospitals, by providing for rehabilitation, reintegration—under that Government, reoffending of violent crime was at around 50 percent. So the victims that we talk about, that people have talked about tonight, who are laying in comas, in hospital, were laying in hospitals where the walls were rotting—the hospital walls were rotting. That's how much that side of the House cares about victims while we rewrite the criminal law based on what already exists.

Let's actually care for victims instead of giving tax cuts to our mates. Let's get mental health care for them. Let's get actual healthcare. Let's get housing. That's what a compassionate Government would do.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can I start by acknowledging—I'll acknowledge the member Matt King for the bill that you've had pulled from the House. It's important to have the debate. I also want to acknowledge Agnes Loheni, actually, who is in the House tonight, who put out quite a powerful statement this morning—I think it was this morning; it was when I read it anyway—calling for men to stand up against domestic violence after the brutal murder of a Hamilton mum. You know, I don't think anyone could not have read that and felt moved and feel support. You want people to speak up, and I'm speaking up tonight to support your call for more men to stand up and speak out against domestic violence.

At the same time, I'd like to acknowledge that we do not have, as far as I know, a separate crime in the statute book that is called the murder of a woman, and therefore you get held to account in a different way. We have laws—as members have spoken of on this side of the House tonight—and we have a justice system, and we need for that justice system to be exercised well and for there to be the effort put into the causes of crime and to ensure that we have a holistic approach to this, rather than a carve-out for certain crimes that we give names such as coward punch, and somehow that falls into a different category of where there is a different sentence applied to it. Yet there are other murders and manslaughters that occur of other people in our society using different ways of creating those crimes that are somehow different and treated differently.

This is a carve-out. It's, quite frankly, a nutty piece of legislation. It's unfortunate, because if the member had appeared and given a speech in the House tonight that actually talked about overcrowded prisons, backlogs in the courts, making sure that our police were well equipped, making sure that we were ensuring that we were addressing poverty and the reasons why domestic violence occurs, and why people go out and cause these crimes, then the member would have more respect when he got up and spoke in the House about these things. I guess describing this as being tough on crime—it's a subcategorising of manslaughter, a piece of legislation that will complicate the law. It won't work as law. It, basically, I guess—and, you know, it would be useful when the member gets up at the end of this first reading and actually gives his summation of what sits behind it, that he doesn't believe that judges can be trusted to make the right calls and that there's something wrong with the justice system, that we have to subcategorise a crime that should already be dealt with within our existing justice system.

So I, quite frankly, find this really disappointing. Over the last 10 years there have been about 12 cases in New Zealand where a person has been convicted of manslaughter in cases of death caused by a single hit. Wouldn't it have been great for him to get up and talk about domestic violence and about the impact that that's having in our society and where drunken men hit women and kill them? Instead, this is about drunken men hitting other drunken men and somehow that needing to be carved out in our legislation. Can't support it. Think it's a wrong, bad piece of legislation. Commend his attempt, but unfortunately can't support it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I firstly want to commend Northland MP Matt King—an experienced, practical cop—for bringing this bill to the House. I think he speaks for the vast majority of New Zealanders who look in revulsion at these king-hit murders—deaths of innocent people—that occur around New Zealand, and are delighted there is a member of Parliament like Matt King that's prepared to say, "That's not the sort of New Zealand we want." and for this Parliament to send a very clear signal for people that are out in bars and clubs around New Zealand that this bullish behaviour of king-hits is morally repugnant and wrong.

Now, I've heard the bleeding hearts from the Labour Party and Green Party who I accept—as part of their DNA—see it as their duty to always speak for victims. And I am proud to be part of a National Party that actually says our criminal justice system is primarily responsible for ensuring that people are held to account for violent acts and for the innocent deaths of people.

But can I tell you this evening, my biggest disappointment is with the New Zealand First Party. I say this because they present themselves to the electorate as a law and order party. They pretend they are a party that puts strong values on holding people to account when they commit atrocious crimes.

I think we should be honest about what's happening in the Parliament tonight: if any other member of this House proposed this bill, actually New Zealand First would be supporting it. It is simply for the petty politics around Northland—and because Matt King is such an effective member of Parliament for that community—that they will not support this bill, rather than anything of the substance of this legislation. That is a tragedy for this Parliament. It's a tragedy for New Zealand. But it exposes the complete lack of principle and character by the New Zealand First Party and is why they only have a few more weeks in this Parliament. I say to the New Zealand First Party: "Stand up for your values before the country sees through you and gives you the rejection from this Parliament, which is coming very soon."

Can I come to the point that was made by the previous speaker, Clare Curran, who said we should not support the specific identification in our Crimes Act of the crime of a coward punch—that we shouldn't do that, that as a matter of principle that is bad law? Well, I ask this question: why, then, has this Government specifically provided for an offence of strangulation? If the way in which the person dies is completely irrelevant to the Crimes Act, then why would we specifically in the law provide for the particularly ugly crime of strangulation, because if it's good enough for Parliament to put on the law books our abhorrence of the crime of strangulation, it is equally appropriate for this Parliament to say that the particular crime of the coward punch is something that we do not want.

My last point is this: I look at our close cousins in Australia; actually Labor Parties in Australia in every state have supported a bill of this sort. What is it about the Labour Party in New Zealand that is so out of touch with Main Street towns all over New Zealand—and the threat from coward punches—that the Australian Labor Party understand but the New Zealand Labour Party does not?

I've actually read the records of judges using the coward-punch law in Australia. It at least seems to me that this is an idea worthy of sending to select committee. I commend Matt King on his advocacy for it. What he proves with this bill is not only he's an experienced cop but he's in touch with New Zealanders, and we need to see an end to the coward punches that are costing the lives of too many New Zealanders.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, the point of being a parliamentarian is to make good law, and, while I commend the member Matt King for having his bill pulled from the ballot, we can't support a bill that is unnecessary. We can't support a bill that won't actually achieve and won't actually be what it says on the packet. The fact is that there have been, over the past 10 years, about 12 cases in New Zealand where the person has been convicted of manslaughter in cases of death caused by a single hit. That shows to me that this barbaric act—nobody is going to defend the act—is treated in law.

Matt King: There's been a lot more than 12. There's been three in the last year.

KIERAN McANULTY: And the member calls out that there were three in the last year. Well, I am very pleased to inform him that that still does not negate the fact that there have been 12 in last 10 years. The fact is that this is yet again a member's bill that actually doesn't achieve what it says.

Now, I note that it has been modelled on the Australian bill. I also note that the law in Australia was passed in a package of law and order measures, and it is actually difficult to ascertain how effective that law is, so we can't go on the member's recommendations that this bill should be brought in on the basis of its success in Australia. Now, if there were facts presented that could convince this side of the House to support it—perhaps the member could have presented to the House examples that this, in Australia, was successful, that this was indeed a deterrent—then perhaps we would have supported it. But those crucial elements are missing, and we can't simply support a bill just because we don't support the crime which it targets—of course we do not.

But we can't also go around and increase penalties, as we've seen in various other examples, and then be accused of being soft on law and order. The fact is that if we want to have effective policies in law and order, then we need to work on fact, and the last thing that we as a Parliament, as parliamentarians, need to do is make laws in regards to law and order on emotion. I simply reject the notion that because this side of the House wants to make laws based on fact, that that makes us soft. We have had that accusation all night. We've had it with the previous bill and we're having it now, and I say to the other side of the House: that accusation does not resonate. Because the fact is, if you apply an evidence-based approach—New Zealanders are not dumb. New Zealanders are a thinking people, and they know a political stunt when they see it and they know a bill that is ineffective when one is presented. This is simply the case now.

We say again: if the member had presented evidence and a compelling case that would suggest that this was needed, there is no doubt that this side of the House would support it. A good example is livestock rustling. Now, if you went out previously, a few years ago—if all of us went out and asked the general public if there is a law against the theft of livestock, then, of course, people would say yes. Now, there are numerous examples to show that this is a serious issue in rural New Zealand, but the sad fact of the matter was that there was no law against the theft of livestock. Ian McKelvie presented a member's bill to this House, and, unfortunately, it wasn't drafted in a way that was workable. But I worked with him and presented a case to the justice Minister—presented fact and presented a compelling case—and the justice Minister included it in one of his bills, and it is now law.

So that is a pathway in which to achieve change when it comes to law and order—not going for emotion, not sidetracking and sidestepping facts, but looking at what is needed, backing it up with the truth, and presenting a compelling case. That has not happened in this case, and, therefore, this side of the House and the Labour Party cannot support it.

MATT KING (National—Northland): It's my right of reply. Look, I've learnt a little bit about politics tonight, and this is all about politics, watching the other side of the House put their arguments forward—some of them, it's unbelievable how wrong they are. I held out some hope. I mean, I didn't really think that Labour would ever support it, mainly because it's a National bill. They spent all of the last nine years opposing everything that we ever did—in fact, they opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and then a 5,000-page document, and then changed a page and a half of minor amendments, called it their own, and then voted for it. I didn't approach the Greens either, because I know that it's a National Party bill so they'll oppose it as well; they opposed the Kermadec sanctuary bill—it's because it's ours, so you're not going to support that.

But what gets me is Darroch Ball and New Zealand First, because he stood there and one of the things he said was—he was ridiculing me about the bill because it's got "coward punch" in the title and the bill includes kicking someone or thumping someone with a bat. It says "assault", right? So his logical thinking, his brain is telling him that because—it says "assault" in the bill so it covers all means—it says "punch" in the title and doesn't say it in the bill anywhere, but it says "assault", then there's something wrong with it. I had to laugh when I heard that—I just had to laugh. The reality is that their leader—their glorious leader—campaigned on this bill two elections ago. This was a New Zealand First bit of legislation.

Darroch Ball: It's not that bill.

MATT KING: Very close to. Go back and look at the media PR release. It's pretty much cut and dry, but because it's Matt King from Northland, they're opposing it. That is pretty damn sad from these guys—pretty damn sad.

I heard Greg O'Connor. He said he's had 40 years in the police. He argued about his experience with policing. He was saying that this would confuse lawyers and confuse the courts and confuse people; it actually simplifies things. Commits an assault and the person dies—two ingredients; really simple and straight forward. No need to prove anything: they committed an assault, the person died. Very simple. But I've heard Greg O'Connor get up a few times and do a few speeches on a few bills, which I actually doubt whether he's even read them.

Then they said, "Well, we're just creating another bill, another offence, and it's already covered in manslaughter." Well, what about the strangulation bill? I've got figures here. So strangulation is covered in male assault female or, depending on the injuries, its covered in the various Crimes Act assault charges. But they created a bill called "strangulation", and I think it's a great bill. I think there are numerous situations and domestic situations where women have suffered from a bit of non-fatal strangulation, and it is a precursor to more serious offending, so that's a great bill. Between 3 December 2018 and 28 February 2019, there were 416 people charged with strangling or trying to suffocate—that's 33 a week; it's almost five each day. That is a classic case of a bill where it's actually already covered in the Crimes Act, but this is specific for this particular offence.

The other thing is like Darroch Ball—oh, Darroch Ball, oh—he brought in the first responders bill. Everything that's in the first responders bill is assault that is covered in everything else. I agreed with that bill, Darroch Ball—I agreed with it; I thought it was a great bill. When you said before that you're not going to support this because there's nothing in it, why not let it go to first reading? You and I can negotiate directly, man to man, and we can have whatever you want, and I could put it in there—I would put it in there. But you just kicked it into touch because you don't want me—Matt King—to have any publicity in Northland, that's what it's all about—that's what it's all about. So what I'm going to tell you is I've been listening to you talk while this Government, under urgency, is putting through a bill to allow guys like that Tarrant terrorist to vote in prison, and yet you're kicking my bill into touch. What that does is gives me the motivation to campaign hard to beat New Zealand First in Northland.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Motion not agreed to.