Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Madam Speaker thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes (Robbery) Amendment Bill. Should we not pay tribute to Matt King? I think it's sorry that he can't be here to see this. Matt King—I think this bill is indicative of the fact that Matt King had a good idea but wasn't able to follow through and I think that lands where this bill is at.So this bill broadens the definition of robbery by adding just three words—it's a simple change—to the Crimes Act and those three words are or unlawful taking". The intent of this change is to clarify that robbery need not have intent to permanently deprive someone of the car such as particularly with carjacking and thereby opening up the charge of robbery to be able to be used in carjacking cases. While on this side of the House the Government thinks that the intent is good the change is a very poor one. And the reason for that is it will not clearly achieve the bill's objectives. That's for three reasons—there's three reasons. First of all it's too ambiguous. Second of all it misidentifies the issue. And thirdly it's far too broad. And from formerly working in police prosecutions I can testify that there were many front-line officers who came forward with bright ideas about how to change the law to make it easier to prosecute someone but when you drill down and find out what its implications are with wider points of law it doesn't always work so well. It was interesting that the member in charge of this member's bill identified the very issue of multiple charges being brought because—she's quite right—in any given criminal incident you'll have multiple charges. They might be grievous bodily harm threat to kill—there'll be other issues relating to robbery on top of the carjacking. And what you often see is plea bargaining happening and those charges being whittled down in order for a prosecution to be brought. And so the question is: which is the strongest crime to prosecute and what best serves the general interests in serving that need to bring justice? So I think that the intent is good. But I'd like to just unpack those three reasons why the Government won't be supporting this piece of legislation. So first of all on ambiguous because unlawful taking is not specifically defined in law. That's a pretty significant issue. If you're introducing three new words into legislation the best thing you need to do really is to define it and this bill fails to do so. Secondly in terms of misidentifying the issue in the current law it blurs the current distinction between theft and conversion which is actually quite problematic in terms of prosecution basis. And the third point—that is being too broad—it redefines robbery for all cases not just those related to vehicles or carjacking in this instance. So given the problems with this bill as it's drafted and the significant disproportionate impact that it would have on the House's time that is the reason why the Government will not be supporting this bill to select committee. Although we agree in principle with the concept it does not achieve the intent as outlined in the member's general policy statement which is in the bill available on the Table. The member in charge has argued quite articulately that it is difficult to make out the offence of robbery in the case of a motor vehicle because the definition of robbery requires an intent to permanently deprive the victim of their possessions. But to address this issue the bill proposes inserting three words to the Crimes Act in the definition of robbery which are those words "or unlawful taking" and this is really a poor way of achieving the intent of the bill. The wording of the amendment is too ambiguous and it won't provide that greater clarity in law which the member is striving to achieve in order to facilitate that front-line ability to prosecute. It will not achieve that outcome. The wording of the amendment of the bill "or unlawful taking" provides no definition and no reference furthermore as to where we might find this definition. So it is leaving it to the courts or it is leaving it to be further divined and that is not good legislation and not good use of this House's time.Unlawful taking is a heading in the Crimes Act in the 1961 Crimes Act but it is not specifically defined in that Act referring generally to a whole category of offences. It is fundamentally unclear therefore that this amendment proposed in this bill would achieve the intended outcome. As the definition of "or unlawful taking" is unclear the new offences that may be covered by the amendments such as carjacking as illustrated by the member are also very much unclear. The bill misidentifies the issue in current law and blurs the distinction between theft and conversion. And I'd like to go on to explain that currently there is a distinction in law between theft—the permanent taking of any property including a vehicle—and conversion the temporary taking of a vehicle. The offence of conversion exists specifically because it can be difficult to prove an intent to permanently deprive someone of their vehicle—the issue at the heart of this member's bill. Misidentifying the issue in the bill tries to broaden the definition of robbery so it includes temporary theft of a vehicle rather than simply adding in an aggravating offence for carjacking which would probably be a better way of going about it. This blurs the obvious line between theft and conversion is untidy unclear and potentially applies beyond motor vehicles which creates a whole new class of problems that the courts would probably have to deal with. The approach taken by the amendment is simply just far too broad. It redefines robbery in all cases not just as carjacking as the intent of this bill wants to do. Although the general policy statement specifies that the target of the law change is carjacking of motor vehicles it is the legislative vehicle for the change that does not specify motor vehicles at all. Instead it simply redefines what robbery is as a general concept and entails clarifying what it calls "or unlawful taking". So given the charge of conversion already exists this approach needlessly is just far too broad.Therefore although we agree in principle with the concept of the bill as I've already said we do not support this bill. It would be far more appropriate to consider this as part of a full policy process considering it alongside other relevant parts of the Crimes Act as this would be a far more effective way of utilising the legislative time of the House and would also be far more likely to actually achieve the intent of the bill and what the member is trying to do. So what this bill amends—it's quite simple: it is not clear and I've spelt this out in three main reasons. The apparent hope is that the less specific wording of "or unlawful taking" will somehow capture crimes where there is no intent to permanently deprive the victim of their vehicle and that's problematic for a number of reasons. So what I would like to do is conclude by commending the member on identifying an area where there are some issues but in terms of actually doing this in a way that is going to achieve the intent of the bill it has failed to do so. I think there's far more useful work this House could be doing in terms of a wider approach to law and order in terms of how we can be working harder and smarter to keep our communities safer how we can break the cycle of reoffending by trying to work within our communities and do good policing and activities and how we can build an effective inclusive and humane justice system to better support victims and whānau and doing this through a range of ways including issues such as family violence which is prevalent right throughout our communities and drives reoffending and revictimisation.Thirty years of locking up more people has not worked and we will not continue on this way. I'm proud to be part of a Government that has made a commitment to reducing our prison population and I will continue to work hard to see that come to fruition because I believe that is the best way forward for New Zealanders. New Zealanders know that we cannot arrest our way and not imprison people out of the current situation that we find ourselves and that we need to work collectively and not just continue to arrest people as a way of responding to current law and order issues. That is why we'll continue to do things differently we will continue to use evidence-based approaches in all areas of our law and order system in order to reduce reoffending reduce victimisation tackle the root causes of problems instead of just locking people away and enhance community safety and the wellbeing of our communities. Hopefully I have given all of the reasons why this Government will not be supporting this bill further. Thank you."