New Law To Give Victims Final Say Over Sex Offenders' Name Suppressions
Parliament has unanimously passed legislation that will ensure the courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence, unless the victim agrees to it.
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.
The Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said this made it crystal clear children could not consent to abuse.
New Zealand was now moving into line with many other countries in outlawing it.
"It was well overdue and needed to be done."
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.
Goldsmith told Morning Report he was concerned about people who had gone through the court process and then found there was a permanent name suppression for an offender and there was no opportunity to talk about their experience and most importantly, warn others.
"We're talking about people who have been convicted of sexual crimes and they need to be named and held to account."
While the legal profession had expressed some concern around reducing the powers of judges, he said it was a significant change focused on the needs of victims and a chance to do things differently.
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
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
New Law To Give Victims Final Say Over Sex Offenders' Name Suppressions
Parliament has unanimously passed legislation that will ensure the courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence, unless the victim agrees to it. 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. The Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said this made it crystal clear children could not consent to abuse. New Zealand was now moving into line with many other countries in outlawing it. "It was well overdue and needed to be done." 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. Goldsmith told Morning Report he was concerned about people who had gone through the court process and then found there was a permanent name suppression for an offender and there was no opportunity to talk about their experience and most importantly, warn others. "We're talking about people who have been convicted of sexual crimes and they need to be named and held to account." While the legal profession had expressed some concern around reducing the powers of judges, he said it was a significant change focused on the needs of victims and a chance to do things differently. 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.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Asia-Pacific Should Be Rooting For Iran
Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month. The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilize, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the U.S-Israeli dyad. The good news for my region is that Iran's resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the U.S. pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China. There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth. Iran is the weakest. If Iran falls, war in our region – intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely. Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs. 'Tomorrow', people in this part of the world naively think, 'will always be like yesterday'. That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here's why. U.S. chooses war to re-shape the Middle East Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn't supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries. In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi's Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all: the Islamic Republic of Iran. One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success – if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of. With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years. A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft. Now – with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered ('We came, we saw, he died', Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine – the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns – or, rather, bombs – on the great prize: Iran. Iran's missiles have checked U.S.-Israel for the time being Things did not go to plan. Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours. Iran's missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the U.S. will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over: a serious pivot to Asia. Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into a powderkeg? For us in Asia-Pacific a major U.S. pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric – all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg. Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world – bellum Americanum – as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask? Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces". It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war. What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor John Mearsheimer's insights are well worth studying on this topic. The three pillars of multipolarity A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the U.S. unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS. Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China. All three are in the crosshairs of the Western Empire. If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder's early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don't think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass – which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) – as an option. That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the U.S. That alone should give us cause for hope. Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) – and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity). We have also reached – thanks in large part to these same policies – what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s Zbigniew Brzezinski said, "The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran." Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that. Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China? Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia's governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA. We have shown ourselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team. To avoid war – or a permanent fear of looming war – in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the U.S. but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China. Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of History. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction. Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the U.S. far more than I do China. Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project. The US Empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end – starting and finishing with genocide. Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA. America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape. Eugene Doyle
1News
6 hours ago
- 1News
NZDF plane lands in Middle East — no takers from Kiwis in Israel
A Royal New Zealand Air Force C-130J Hercules aircraft has landed in the Middle East as part of New Zealand's contingency plan to assist New Zealand citizens seeking to leave Iran and Israel. The aircraft, which took off from Auckland's Whenuapai airbase on Monday, and other NZDF personnel were positioned in the region and on standby if required. Earlier this week, Defence Minister Judith Collins said the deployment of the aircraft was part of contingency planning. "By positioning an aircraft and Defence and Foreign Affairs personnel in the region, we may be able to do more when airspace reopens." The contingent included New Zealand Army soldiers trained specifically for evacuation operations and were ready to operate out of a staging area if called upon. ADVERTISEMENT Senior national officer Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Kelly said the team was "well-prepared and postured" to respond. "Our priority is to work alongside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff to support those affected, to ensure we provide the care and urgency the situation demands." RNZAF personnel unload the C-130J aircraft in the Middle East. (Source: NZ Defence Force) No evacuation requests from Israel, Iran options 'extremely limited' — MFAT The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said there were currently 133 Kiwis registered as being in Iran and 111 in Israel. "Many travellers have heeded advice to leave through overland border crossings where it was safe to do so," an MFAT spokesperson said. The spokesperson said demand from New Zealanders for assistance to depart Israel had "declined considerably in the last few days". ADVERTISEMENT "We do not currently have any requests from New Zealanders for support to depart Israel." In Israel, MFAT offered New Zealanders the option to depart via government-organised bus charters on June 24 and 25. However, the situation in Iran remained "challenging and complex", they said, with options to support any New Zealanders trying to leave "extremely limited". "At this time, land border crossings remain the only option. We are aware that some New Zealanders have departed via land border crossings, however given the situation and with limited communications in the region, it may not be possible for New Zealanders to update their information on SafeTravel." All New Zealanders in the Middle East – not just in Iran and Israel – were urged to register on SafeTravel. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was running 24/7 consular operations in the region. New Zealanders in Iran and Israel needing urgent consular assistance should call the Ministry's Emergency Consular Call Centre on +64 99 20 20 20.
