Major Changes To Proposed Anti-Stalking Law
This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith …
Minister of Justice
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is welcoming changes to toughen up the proposed anti-stalking law, including being triggered after two specified acts within 24 months.
'This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period,' Mr Goldsmith says.
'We've said from day one victims are our priority. Returning them to the heart of our justice system underpins all our work to restore law and order.
'Stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long. As I announced in November, the offence will have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
'This builds on our work already underway to restore real consequences for crime, with our sentencing reforms coming into effect at the end of this month.
'I want to thank those who made submissions during the select committee process. Your input has identified some important ways we can combat this insidious behaviour.
'The Justice Committee has now put forward a raft of recommendations, which government parties have agreed to.
'This includes strengthening the pattern of behaviour definition to only require two specified acts, and within a two-year period.'
Other changes made to the Bill by the Committee to enhance its effectiveness include:
Addressing the publishing of any statement or other material relating to the other person, or purporting to originate from that person (also known as doxing).
Adding new sections to enable the disposal of any intimate visual recordings possessed by a person convicted of the new stalking and harassment offence.
Adding the new offence to the Firearms Prohibition Orders regime, allowing those orders to be made when a person is convicted of the new offence.
Clarifying the new aggravating factor relating to stalking by more clearly linking the associated stalking and harassment-type behaviours to the offence the person is charged with.
Making it clear that restraining orders under the Harassment Act 1997 and orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 can be made when a person is discharged without conviction in relation to the new offence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
14 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ
Otago Daily Times
14 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Earlier correspondence in late June showed Goldsmith's office drafted an initial "holding response" to the UN but requested it be sent with Seymour's letterhead as "the senior Minister for this response". Emails between Seymour's staff also canvassed the options for responding to the UN. It noted MFAT's preferred approach would be a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."
Otago Daily Times
14 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter-writing saga
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Earlier correspondence in late June showed Goldsmith's office drafted an initial "holding response" to the UN but requested it be sent with Seymour's letterhead as "the senior Minister for this response". Emails between Seymour's staff also canvassed the options for responding to the UN. It noted MFAT's preferred approach would be a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."
