Whaitiri MekaHon 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."