Sitting Date: 18 September 2025

CRIMES (COUNTERING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 July.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, when we were last on this bill, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan had the call and has five minutes and 34 seconds remaining to speak.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Madam Speaker, thank you so much. I will be interested to see if my speech gets cut off again this time, because it was cut off halfway last time for a special debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you're OK this time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I am OK.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Great. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to pick up where we left off last time, in terms of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, there are a couple of things I want to address. Now, noting that we are in the second reading and there is an opportunity for us to ask the Minister additional questions during the committee stage, but at this stage, in the second reading, based on our understanding in the select committee stage, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not be supporting this bill.

Now, the reasons for that are numerous, and they are because of the fact the bill is complex. Firstly, we saw during the select committee stage that this bill, in terms of the new offences that are going to be created, overlaps with a number of existing offences within the Crimes Act. But I think, more importantly, there are some fundamental concerns that the Green Party has in terms of this bill's interaction with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA).

A couple of points I want to address specifically. One of the first ones is around, let's say, section 19 of NZBORA in terms of its connection with the Human Rights Act, and specifically section 21 of the Human Rights Act, against discrimination. There is a concern that this bill will inadvertently—even though it's not necessarily in the content of the bill, but inadvertently—target certain communities more stringently than others.

The other point that I mentioned in the first half of my contribution is that we are seeing a change in the demographics of Aotearoa New Zealand, and, with that, we're seeing complexities in terms of the interactions within our own communities. With that, we are seeing the potential challenges when it comes to the freedom of association, particularly when we're looking at things like protest and activism of all forms, which is within the people's right to do here in Aotearoa. Even though any form of intimidation or violence as a part of that, and potentially coming about as a result of certain protest and activation—that may result in that intimidation of violence, but they are already considered as a criminal offense under the Crimes Act. So, again, the idea that this bill doesn't necessarily serve the kind of purpose that the bill is intending to serve that isn't already captured in the existing legislation.

There is also concern in terms of how the bill is going to be brought about, and then how they are going to be assessed. One of the things that specifically is a challenge within the bill is around the idea of omission. So we are looking at, for example, clause 8, new section 69A inserted. Omission is a really tricky thing when we're looking at criminal offences because it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant. I think, particularly in a stage where, if we are going to be having something like this, I don't know if—at least at the select committee stage, we weren't able to find out how the defendants, who are now responsible for that burden of proof, are going to be fully exercising their right in order to defend themselves, particularly when we're still seeing cultural barriers and language barriers within our court system. So that is another one of the major concerns we have, and we're happy to engage with the Minister during the committee stage to tease some of that out further.

Finally, there is a general trend that we're seeing, and a concern, that, again, certain communities in Aotearoa are going to be more stringently and critically targeted as a result of some of this bill, and particularly in light of some of the recent trends we're seeing in terms of our ties with, let's say, Five Eyes. That is something that is of deep concern for the Greens, and it's something that also changes the balance in terms of our interactions and our independent ability to have that independent foreign policy. What traditionally forms a backstage, data-collection role has now taken a very prominent centre stage in terms of our foreign affairs policy and also in terms of our ability to defend ourselves.

So the Green Party likes the intention of this bill—that, yes, Aotearoa New Zealand does need to have mechanisms that prevents itself from being a target of foreign interference. But what we're seeing is that that foreign interference through—the select committee stage hasn't been able to tease out, to capture, some of the concerns that we've had. I think another really important concern, as a part of that, is what constitutes foreign interference. Because, frankly, in some of my portfolios, such as education, we're seeing a great deal of foreign interference from the US and UK in terms of the direction of our education policy. Would that be considered foreign interference under the current legislation? That is something that we simply don't know. So, at this stage, the Green Party cannot support this bill.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and speak on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. I was lucky to be on the Justice Committee, which, obviously, looked at this bill. It has been recommended unanimously that it be supported in this House, and that's what ACT will be doing.

Foreign interference is a clear and present danger. In fact, just this week we heard of a foreign Government interfering with a potential activity at a Victorian university, and so this bill really is ensuring that we strengthen the protections. A lot of it is actually codifying some of the existing laws but making sure that they are much clearer. We do want to make sure that there is no foreign interference from foreign powers within New Zealand and make sure it's really clear that new offences are created around that. The bill creates some new offences to address some gaps in criminal liability and ensure that police and other enforcement agencies have the powers needed. I do recommend this bill to the House on behalf of ACT.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. As Minister of Customs, I have the privilege of being aware of the growing challenges that we have internationally and, as the Associate Minister of Immigration, a recognition of the challenges that we're facing across our international borders. The fact that this unrest does create an elevated level of risk from foreign interference is something we cannot ignore. It is important that we continue to evolve and respond and develop the powers and authorities and the abilities for us to keep New Zealand citizens safe; and the protection from foreign interference is exactly one more step in that direction. It is about the protection of our people. It is about the protection of New Zealanders, and having the legislation and the powers that gives us the investigation rights gives us the ability to send a clear message that we are ensuring that our enforcement agencies have the powers they need, but also that we are sending a strong message. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted, and when I have swapped seats with Mr Speaker, we will continue.

Debate interrupted.

© Scoop Media