Victims to get final say over sex offenders' name suppressions
The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill had its third reading late on Wednesday night.
It also amends the law so that children under the age of 12 will not be able to be questioned about whether they consented to sex.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said this made it crystal clear children could not consent to abuse.
The law further closes what Goldsmith said was a legislative gap, by ensuring the victims of all sexual crimes, including intimate visual recordings offences, were automatically given name suppression.
"These changes will help ensure victims of sexual violence and their needs are returned to the heart of the justice system. We've been clear from day one that victims are our priority as we work to restore law and order," Goldsmith said in a media release.
He said at present victims' views on suppression only had to be taken into account by the courts.
Long battles over name suppression retraumatised victims, as did the inability to discuss what happened to them and to warn others.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell spoke on behalf of the Justice Minister during the third reading.
"It is abhorrent that the law allows questions about whether children enjoyed or agreed to sexual activity. We're fixing that.
"It is unconscionable that victims feel silenced by our laws especially when they've braved the scrutiny of the court process to prove their case. We're fixing that too."
Mitchell said victims had been clear that name suppression settings had disempowered victims, prevented them from speaking out about their experiences and warning others.
New Zealanders also believed the way children were questioned in court was unacceptable, Mitchell said.
MP Kahurangi Carter spoke in favour of the bill on behalf of the Green Party.
"I know that we all feel this really heavily for victims under 12. It seems so obvious.
"I'm glad today we're bringing our legislation, our laws into line with what is right."
Goldsmith recognised some victims would not want to make the decision about name suppression themselves. In those cases, the decision would rest with the courts.
He believed the changes would assist in ensuring 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029.
While the bill was passed unanimously, there were no Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House at the time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
8 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill banning protest outside homes passes first hurdle
By Giles Dexter of RNZ Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors including how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values." Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable." The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, his party did not support the bill. Labour's justice spokesman Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." She disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill and report back within four months.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Former Dilworth housemaster Ian Wilson remains an undue risk, declined parole for the sixth time
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist of Former Dilworth housemaster Ian Wilson's sixth attempt at parole has been declined. Photo: NZME / Michael Craig Warning:This story discusses sexual assault and may be distressing for some readers. Former Dilworth housemaster Ian Wilson, who is serving jail time for sexually abusing several students, has been grilled on whether he has other victims he has yet to disclose. "Not to my knowledge. I would be very surprised if any other people come forward," Wilson told the Parole Board today. But panel convenor Judge Arthur Tompkins rejected Wilson's response, stating it was "not an answer". "What does that mean - 'not to your knowledge'?" he asked. Wilson repeated his response, claiming he was not aware of anyone else whom he had sexually abused, who had not already laid a complaint against him. Judge Tompkins reminded Wilson that previously, he had only admitted his offending in sequential stages, when confronted with credible accounts by victims as they spoke up. Wilson claimed he had repressed memories of his previous actions. He said he "didn't dwell" on the abuse he inflicted, and it was only on hearing accounts from his victims that he thought, "yes, there's truth to that". "I had put them [memories] away, I tried to move on." The panel pressed him on whether it was a possibility that Wilson had repressed memories of there being further victims. He said there was always that possibility, but repeated he would be "very surprised". One of Wilson's supporters spoke to the board about how Wilson had been reading the Bible and praying to God to reveal any abuse that he may be holding back. "And nothing has been revealed," said the man, who cannot be named. Dilworth School in Auckland has been linked to several historical sexual offending cases. Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook Wilson, who worked at Dilworth from February 1971 until his resignation in December 1996, was arrested in 2020 as part of Operation Beverly, a long-running investigation into historical sexual abuse by several staff at the Auckland-based boys-only boarding school. He was jailed in March 2021 for three years and seven months for indecently assaulting five students between 1975 and 1992 - some of them more than once and over several years. Wilson was still in jail when he had one year and 11 months added to his sentence in August last year after belatedly admitting to having abused five others. At today's hearing, Wilson was denied parole for the sixth time, leaving him to serve most, if not all, of his prison sentence. The board determined he remained an undue risk and scheduled his next hearing for July next year. His statutory release date is 22 September 2026. If granted parole in July, he would be released with parole conditions. However, if he were again declined, he would serve the remaining two months of his sentence and then be served with release conditions. The outcome was welcomed by one of Wilson's victims, Neil Harding, who has fought to keep the former housemaster behind bars for the duration of his sentence. "It's really, really good. I'm really comfortable with that. I'm grateful to the Parole Board that they listened," Harding told NZME. Before the hearing, Harding made submissions to the board, imploring it to ask Wilson if there were other victims. He said he believed there were at least two other people who had yet to come forward. "Of course, if he were truly remorseful, he would tell the truth," Harding said. In his submissions, Harding pointed out that Wilson was part of the school's senior management and claimed Wilson played a significant role in covering up abuse by other parties, as well as his own offending. "The Royal Commission into Abuse in Care named Dilworth School first in institutions that had the highest prevalence of sexual abuse in New Zealand between 1950-1999. "Ian Wilson was responsible, along with others, for the cover-up of sexual abuse of hundreds of young boys." He said Wilson was "sadistic and inhumane" towards students and described him as "a monster". More than 40 former pupils have taken their own lives after the decades of abuse that went on at the school, Harding submitted. "The impact of [Wilson's] abuse, and the role he played, is incalculable." Wilson has denied knowing others were sexually abusing students. "He most definitely knew other paedophiles were active at Dilworth," Harding told the board. He said Wilson continued to lie, including when he claimed his offending ended, and when asked about further victims. Harding rejected Wilson's claims that he had reformed and was remorseful. "If you believe that he has been rehabilitated, then he has again duped and conned the system." At the hearing, Wilson's lawyer submitted that Wilson was an eligible candidate for parole, given that he had a support network that held him accountable, and had approved interim accommodation. Wilson's ill health, proposed special conditions, safety plan, and the treatment he underwent in prison were additional factors for consideration. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald . If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Bill to ban protesting outside private homes passes first reading
Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors like how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials, and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values," he said. Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable," Meager said. The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels, and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, Labour did not support the bill. Labour's Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Its justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." Costello disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill, and will report back within four months.
