Anti-stalking legislation put forward by the Government is being strengthened after amendments recommended by MPs during the Select Committee process.
They include changes to what the legislation considers to be a pattern of stalking or harassment behaviour.
Under the bill proposed by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, stalking or harassmentis a pattern of behaviour directed at someone by doing a specified act on at least three occasions within 12 months knowing it would likely cause fear or distress to that person.
However, the Justice Select Committee has unanimously recommended this be changed to two specified acts within 24 months.
“We note that stalking is often pre‐meditated and could involve perpetrators tailoring their behaviour so that it falls outside specified time periods,” the committee’s report, released today, says.
“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,” Goldsmith said.
“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.”
The list of what is considered a “specified act” is also being expanded. Currently, it includes watching, following, loitering near or obstructing someone, as well as recording, tracking, contacting or communicating with a person.
The committee believed the act of “doxing” should be added to the list. This is described as “collating and publishing private and identifying information about an individual, including posting information on their behalf”.
“We recognise that this behaviour invades a victim’s privacy and can cause significant harm. We consider that doxing is not clearly captured in the list of specified acts in the bill as introduced,” the report says.
Goldsmith said other changes made to the legislation by the committee include:
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.
“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,” said Goldsmith.
The committee’s report includes a section on the view of the Act Party.
It sets out that it believes requiring two specified acts within 24 months “helps address the concerns raised by submitters and more closely aligns with the current existing criminal harassment offence”.
The party also says “we do need to strike a balance between ensuring a sufficient pattern of behaviour is established to protect victims while not unintentionally creating offenders and burdening the courts”.
It encouraged police to give written notification to potential offenders “to the fullest extent possible” to ensure they “are made aware of the specified acts which may trigger an offence”. Act also wants the list of potential defences to be “maintained in the interests of justice”.
The report includes a “differing view” from Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori. The parties welcomed the commitment to address stalking and harassment as well as the amendments proposed, but believed more could be done.
One of their proposals was for the provision requiring the alleged perpetrator to know their behaviour would be likely to cause fear or distress to be reviewed within one or two years to evaluate how it is functioning.
They suggested it be reworded to include that someone “ought to know” their behaviour would cause fear or distress. This would be in line with how Australia and England have dealt with this issue.
“This would create a broader and more survivor-centred threshold, consistent with international best practice and the lived realities of survivors,” the three parties say in the report.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
