NZ Hate Crime

The New Zealand Law Commission has released its report regarding the review of law relating to hate crime in Aotearoa New Zealand, with a focus on whether the law should be changed to create standalone hate crime offences. 

 The Commission states 

1.2 The term ‘hate crime’ is not used or defined in legislation. In this Report, we use it as a descriptive term (as opposed to a legal one) to refer to conduct that is: (a) an offence under the existing law (for example, assault or wilful damage); and (b) committed because of hostility towards a group of people who share a common characteristic. 

1.3 Under the current law, there are no offences that deal specifically with hate crime. Instead, section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that if an offence was committed because of hostility towards a group of people with an ‘enduring common characteristic’ (such as race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability), the courts must take that into account as an aggravating factor when sentencing the offender. We call this the ‘hostility aggravating factor’. When it applies, the courts may impose a harsher sentence than they would have for an equivalent offence that was not motivated by hostility towards a group of people. We refer to this approach of treating hostility as an aggravating factor at sentencing as the ‘sentence aggravation model’ of hate crime law. 

1.4 Hate crimes harm not only the direct victim but also the wider group of people who share the same characteristic. Hate crimes send a message to the affected group that they are not accepted or valued by society. More broadly, both hate crimes themselves and society’s response to them can affect social cohesion. 

1.5 This Report considers whether the current law adequately responds to hate crime and, if not, how any concerns about its operation should be addressed. We conclude that, while there are some problems with current law and practice, these are not fundamental problems with the sentence aggravation model. The sentence aggravation model remains the most appropriate way to address hate crime in Aotearoa New Zealand. We recommend a series of reforms to improve its effectiveness. 

1.6 The nature of hate crime and the harm it causes mean it is important for the law to respond to it effectively. The justice system should seek to hold hate crime offenders accountable, send a clear message to the public that hate crimes are unacceptable, reduce occurrences of hate crimes as far as possible and reassure affected communities that hostility towards them will be treated seriously. These objectives provide the framework for our assessment of the current law. 

1.7 We find that there are some problems with how the current law is working:

(a) It does not require the courts to communicate clearly to the public (such as through sentencing decisions) that an offence was a hate crime and that this makes it more serious. This means hate crimes may not be consistently denounced. 

(b) It does not provide a mechanism for systematically documenting court findings that an offence was motivated by hostility. This limits the ability of Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa | New Zealand Police, the courts and Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections to deal with the offender appropriately in future. It also makes it difficult to assess how the justice system is responding to hate crime and to develop appropriate laws and policies to improve that response. 

(c) It does not provide a mechanism to ensure the courts are aware that the hostility aggravating factor may apply to an offence and consider it at appropriate points in a proceeding. 

1.8 We conclude that these are not fundamental problems with the current sentence aggravation model. They can be addressed through targeted reforms to the existing model. We do not recommend creating hate crime offences. They would not comprehensively resolve the problems we have identified because it is unlikely that hate crime offenders would be consistently charged with or convicted of hate crime offences. One reason for this is that hate crime offences would be more difficult to prove than the equivalent non-hate offence, which is likely to affect charging decisions. Creating offences would also have significant downsides. For example, it is likely to increase the complexity of criminal proceedings and could lead in some cases to unintended outcomes such as hostile motivation not being addressed at all. 

1.9 In this Report, we make recommendations that would: (a) increase the consistency with which hostility is considered in court proceedings by creating a system for flagging hate crime cases in the courts and providing training and guidance for justice system actors; and (b) require the courts to systematically record the application of the hostility aggravating factor on the permanent court record and to clearly address it in sentencing decisions. 

1.10 Additionally, we recommend reform to the wording of section 9(1)(h) to clarify that the aggravating factor can apply whether or not the offender believes the victim is a member of the targeted group of people. We also recommend adding ‘sex’ to the illustrative list of enduring common characteristics.

The Commission's Recommendations are 

R1 The Sentencing Act 2002 and Criminal Procedure Act 2011 should be amended to provide that: a. a charging document may specify that section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 is alleged to apply to an offence; b. the court may amend the charging document at any time before sentencing to add or remove the specification; and c. ff the court determines at sentencing that section 9(1)(h) applies to an offence, it must make an entry on the permanent court record to that effect (whether or not the charging document specifies that section 9(1)(h) is alleged to apply). 

R2 The courts should share the following information with Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa | New Zealand Police and Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections: a. The fact that a charging document specifies that section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 is alleged to apply to an offence. b. Any entry on the permanent court record of a determination by the court that section 9(1)(h) applies to an offence. 

R3 The recording and sharing of information by the courts in accordance with recommendations R1(c) and R2 should also include information about the characteristic(s) and group(s) of people targeted by the offending if it is technically feasible to record that information. 

R4 The Sentencing Act 2002 should be amended to provide that, if section 9(1)(h) applies, the court must state (using any words that it thinks fit) that the offence was committed because of hostility towards a group of people with an enduring common characteristic. 

R5 Section 9(1)(h)(ii) of the Sentencing Act 2002, which requires that “the offender believed that the victim has that characteristic”, should be repealed. 

R6 Section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 should be amended to include ‘sex’ in the illustrative list of characteristics. 

R7 Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa | New Zealand Police should review and update its guidance on hate crimes and other relevant guidance to ensure police officers and prosecutors are informed about any changes to the law as a result of this review. 

R8 Updated Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa | New Zealand Police guidance relating to hate crime prosecutions should be shared with Crown solicitors. 

R9 Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa | New Zealand Police and the Crown Solicitor Network (supported by Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law) should provide training on any changes to the law as a result of this review. 

R10 Te Kura Kaiwhakawā | Institute of Judicial Studies should consider developing guidance and providing training to judges on any changes to the law as a result of this review. 

R11 Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa | New Zealand Police should publish data on reported hate crimes annually. 

R12 If the amendments in R1 are made, Te Tāhū o te Ture | Ministry of Justice should publish court data on hate crime cases annually.

Food Safety

The Victorian Government has announced establishment of Safe Food Victoria: "a new, independent regulator" under the Safe Food Victoria Act 2026 (Vic). It replaces regulation by Dairy Food Safety Victoria, PrimeSafe and the Department of Health (through the Health Regulator). Safe Food Victoria also provides support for the 79 local government authorities who conduct food safety regulation. 

 Establishment reflects the Government’s Economic Growth Statement "committed to halving the number of business regulators by 2030 to make it simpler and easier to do business". 

 Food safety functions performed by Agriculture Victoria will transition from late 2027. 

 Safe Food Victoria directly regulates many food businesses. Safe Food Victoria also performs incident response, recalls and council regulatory support under the Food Act 1984 (Vic): 

  Meat Facilities licensed under Meat Industry Act 1993 include: abattoirs knackeries processors retail outlets (other than supermarkets). 

Seafood Facilities licensed under the Seafood Safety Act 2003 include: seafood producers and harvesters wholesalers processors retailers. 

Dairy Facilities licensed under the Dairy and Food Innovation Act 2000 include: dairy farmers milk carriers dairy manufacturers distributors declared foods. 

Horticulture, sprouts and eggs Functions currently performed by Agriculture Victoria will transition to Safe Food Victoria at a later date (likely from late 2027).

The Government indicates 

 Victoria’s food regulatory system is undergoing the most significant reform in the last 30 years. The establishment of Safe Food Victoria represents an important milestone in this process. 

Reform stages 

Stage 1: Establishment of Safe Food Victoria The first stage of reform involved creating a new, independent regulator – Safe Food Victoria – consolidating PrimeSafe, Dairy Food Safety Victoria and food safety functions from the Health Regulator and Agriculture Victoria. Safe Food Victoria began operation on 1 July 2026. Safe Food Victoria reports to the Minister for Agriculture. 

Stage 2: Development of a new framework for food safety in Victoria The second stage of reform will develop a new, modernised regulatory framework for food safety and further consolidate functions in Safe Food Victoria. During this stage, the optimal role for local government within this system will be considered. This stage of reform will streamline regulatory processes and reduce red tape, ensuring greater consistency and enhanced collaboration across the supply chain. Safe Food Victoria will uphold the current high food safety standards while introducing simpler, more unified systems. This process is in early stages and will continue through to 2027.

The Minister for Agriculture issued a Statement of Expectations for Safe Food Victoria: 

My expectations are that SFV deliver on the following 4 themes: 1. Provide continuity of regulatory services 2. Drive efficiency and regulatory burden reduction 3. Build a strong and positive organisational culture and capability 4. Enhance stakeholder engagement. The initiatives and actions outlined below describe how I expect SFV to address these priorities: 

1. Provide continuity of regulatory services I expect SFV to maintain and improve Victoria’s food safety regulatory system, to reduce the impact and risk that unsafe and unsuitable food has on the public, and provide regulatory assurance for the community, businesses and trade markets. Specifically, I expect SFV to: • Ensure the continuity of risk based, cost effective food safety regulatory services, consistent with the Safe Food Victoria Act 2026 and other food safety legislation. • In support of SFV’s new role at the centre of food safety regulatory operations, provide system stewardship – particularly with local government, the Department of Health and Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) – and system wide risk management. o Support the delivery of food regulation across local government, including by providing information and guidance for consistent administration of food safety legislation. • Work with the Department of Health to support its efforts to reduce food and diet-related chronic disease, particularly in the implementation of food standards for labelling and composition. • Establish clear protocols to support, respond and prepare for food safety incidents, including data sharing with the broader public health infrastructure in conjunction with the Department of Health. • Adopt a proactive and engaged presence in the bi-national food regulatory system, including as Victoria’s representative on the Implementation Subcommittee for Food Regulation, in important export market committees and other groups as appropriate. • Work collaboratively with the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to maintain access for industry to export markets. • Develop and implement a coherent regulatory culture and posture that recognises the role of regulatory and food safety culture for both SFV and the businesses it regulates, and how these impact and change the approach to compliance. 

2. Drive better regulation, regulatory efficiency and regulatory burden reduction Without compromising food safety outcomes, I ask that you explore how regulation can be better delivered in partnership with industry, while still maintaining a strong regulatory posture. I expect SFV to: • Continue to develop a regulatory system that expects and acknowledges a mature food safety culture as key to achieving food safety outcomes. • Encourage food safety education and outreach as a core regulatory tool. • Seek opportunities to reduce the regulatory burden on industry where it can be done without compromising food safety outcomes – particularly through the recognition of industry programs and co-regulation opportunities. • Drive a program of internal efficiency measures to lower the overall cost of delivering regulatory services. • Maintain a sustainable internal budget position to ensure SFV can respond to emerging risks, make critical investments in the regulatory environment, and balance cost recovery in line with the government’s Pricing for Value Guidelines. • In the context of a sustainable budget, work with DEECA to conduct a fee review to inform the overall fee settings ahead of the 2027-28 financial year. o As part of this review, and in future budget decisions, I ask that you closely consider the calibration of fee setting to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of costs across your licence base. • Report to me by the end of 2027 and annually in your annual report on SFV’s efforts to reduce regulatory burden for industry and increase regulatory efficiency within SFV as part of a program of continuous improvement. • Ensure regulation is appropriately calibrated, communicated and implemented to support small and emerging businesses. 

3. Build a strong and positive organisational culture and capability I expect SFV to work with DEECA to help ensure Victoria’s food safety system is able to manage risk and respond to new challenges, as well as support the food and agriculture sectors to seize emerging opportunities. Specifically, I expect SFV to: • Collaborate actively on further reforms to the food regulatory system (‘stage 2’ reforms) as outlined in the second reading speech for the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026. • Maintain strong Board and organisational governance, leadership and culture, with clear accountabilities, sound decision making frameworks, and effective oversight of performance, risk, integrity, staff wellbeing and safety and regulatory independence. • Sustain and build a capable, professional workforce with the technical, scientific and regulatory expertise required to deliver risk-based food regulation. • Work with DEECA to review, update and transfer the regulatory functions associated with eggs, poultry, horticulture and seed sprouts to SFV. • Provide regular updates on SFV’s progress and efforts to use digital tools and analytics within regulatory activities, including opportunities for co-investment or partnerships with industry and broader government. This includes working with the Department of Treasury & Finance and the Department of Government Services to identify and develop digital solutions. 

4. Enhance stakeholder engagement I expect SFV to consider the industries you regulate and co-regulators you work with, as partners in mitigating the risks associated with the consumption of food. Regulation should be in the first instance a collaboration with these groups. I expect SFV to: • Establish consultative committees with representation from key industry, local government and public health groups to inform regulatory outcomes. o As part of these committees, I ask that SFV consider how to ensure the dairy, meat and seafood industries – who have had long standing relationships with Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe – continue to be well represented; and to encourage new and emerging sectors to engage with SFV. o Committees should include broad representation and provide opportunities for perspectives from large and small-scale food businesses and regional areas. • Engage in open and regular discussion with DEECA and other food safety regulators on emerging issues, priorities and approaches to regulation. • Identify opportunities and collaboratively support DEECA to manage the risk of biosecurity, emergencies, animal and plant diseases. • Advance Treaty readiness and respectful engagement with First Peoples, including embedding principles of self-determination, cultural safety and partnership in engagement practices and regulatory approaches. .