Borrows Chester: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8268. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 to abolish the partial defence of provocation. Section 169 of the Crimes Act provides that “Culpable homicide that would otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who caused the death did so under provocation.” Section 170 an adjunct to section 169 would also be repealed by this bill. 
It is fair to say that society has high expectations of the criminal law. We expect it to be efficient and effective and most important to be fair: not just fair for defendants but fair for all participants including the victims of crime and their families. There are times when we must look at the system with fresh eyes and ask whether the law is still serving the interests of those it was designed to protect. In this case I think we all agree that the answer is no. The partial defence is notorious for allowing the defendant to tarnish the character of the victim at trial. In particular it allows irrelevant factors such as the sexuality of the victim to be raised by defence counsel. This causes unnecessary distress to victims’ families and friends. Limiting any defence argument about provocation to the sentencing stage will greatly reduce the media scrutiny of a victim’s conduct. 
Recently the Government announced eight new initiatives to support the victims of serious crime. Four of those initiatives will provide further assistance to the families of homicide victims. I am pleased to add the repeal of the partial defence of provocation to the list of steps taken by this Government to improve the responsiveness of the criminal justice system to the needs of victims of crime and their families. 
I am also confident that the repeal of provocation will strengthen rather than dilute the protection offered by the law to the victims of domestic violence. The defence is rarely relied upon by battered defendants and is more often used by the perpetrators of domestic violence to excuse their homicidal violence against a partner. In one example that I have been told of provocation was successfully relied upon by a man who killed his partner after she broke a promise to him to not report a beating he had given her on the previous day. I can think of no clearer evidence that the partial defence of provocation allows the law to be used against those most in need of its protection. 
The labelling of an intentional killing as something other than murder is inconsistent with the State’s obligation to protect the value of all human life. This is where I have a significant problem with the position of the ACT Party because essentially it wants to have a different class of offender and a different class of victim. This comes from the party that protests that it is the party that argues for victims’ rights most of all. It says in one situation there is an excusable murder and in another situation there is a murder that is not excusable depending on the role or the circumstances of the victim. I find that to be completely abhorrent. I also find it to be inconsistent that the earlier speaker on this bill from the ACT Party David Garrett said that if provoked for example by a situation where he came across someone offending against his own child and he went on to take that person’s life the member would be prepared to do the time for that. In fact he said in his opening remarks that he would be prepared to kill for the sake of his child. 
I say murder is murder. The intentional killing of one human being by another is murder. It is not manslaughter; it is nothing less than murder. We should be honest enough in this fair and democratic society to understand that and to expect to stand up and pay an account for doing exactly that. At a time when the Government is working to send the message that people must find ways to manage their anger other than through the use of violence it is inappropriate that a defence that effectively rewards a homicidal loss of self-control should remain on our statute book. I commend this bill to the House.