Franks Stephen: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12675] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It often falls to the ACT party to disturb cosy consensus but particularly following Ms Bradford’s confidence that there would be no dissent in the House I will dissent. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just making sure that the member feels we are fulfilling our role. 
I am concerned about this bill because it seems to me that if this were a matter the police had been drawing to the attention of the Government or that the Courts had been drawing to the attention of the Government or that the Government thought was serious it would not be a member’s bill. It would be a Government bill before the House and the Government would not be using members’ time on a matter that so clearly needs more expertise. It may be that it is to be welcomed that this bill has spurred the Government into looking at this area. I am not prepared to express a view one way or another on prevalence. 
I am conscious of relatively recent statements from Wellington police sources that the fear of drug rape might be exaggerated and that the actual established incidence might be lower than has been stated. I am very conscious as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee that the fear of some crimes goes in historical cycles. About 15 years ago this House passed some very poor law in response to a panic about alleged child sexual abuse which undermined the very long-evolved protections in the rules of evidence that sheltered people from evidence they simply could not combat. 
As I look at the provisions in this bill I am concerned there might at least be a risk of a similar phenomenon at the moment—that is in the new offence proposed by new section 129B to be inserted in the Crimes Act by clause 5 of this bill: “Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse stupefies or renders unconscious any other person with the intent to commit sexual violation.” If members think back—or maybe for some the knowledge is still current—to the times at parties when they have set out to overcome the better judgment of other people present they might agree there is a long grey continuum between the act of stupefying or rendering unconscious and the normal process of pouring drinks into someone. While both actions may be reprehensible and while it may be that we should not condone what is traditional social custom we do undermine the law when a 10-year penalty is created for something as common as that. If the law gets out of step with the way people actually behave people will consider themselves not to be criminal when they are.They essentially place responsibility on the person who is being stupefied to avoid it. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: That is not normal behaviour. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am hearing objections from the Hon Marian Hobbs. I do not think that Marian Hobbs can have been to very many parties as a youngster because it is absolutely the case that people pour drinks into others for the purpose of— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I have never experienced that kind of behaviour. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: She has never had that experience? Well I say to Ms Hobbs that it is not her speech. If she wishes to make that point she should take a call—as so rarely happens from Ministers on that side of the House. She should take a call and make a speech. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I will. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I do not notice others in the House agreeing with her—in fact I see nods around the House—so Ms Hobbs may have had a sheltered upbringing. But the fact is that the very object of a lot of teenage drinking is to get wasted. If one talks to children one finds that that is exactly what they do. While I do not condone that I do not think a 10-year sentence or putting into the law something that could result in a whole group of—probably—kids getting into a position where they are facing a 10-year sentence does credit to the law. 
I hope the select committee takes very careful cognisance of the potential for careless drafting in this area. In this case it may not be the drafting that ultimately gets considered because of the Government’s other steps. But I am puzzled for example by the suggestion that one could have a “lawful justification” to stupefy someone in order to commit rape. What possible lawful justification could there be—or does it even need to be done “wilfully”? It is hard to imagine.