Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13219] 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Did he explain to his Cabinet or caucus colleagues the new provision in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) that a person accused of sexual conduct with a child under 16 with consent can claim a defence by proving he or she took reasonable steps to find the age of the person concerned and that he or she believed the child to be of or over the age of 16; if so were any changes made as a result? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. The existing defence that the defendant believed on reasonable grounds that the young person was 16 or over has now been tightened significantly not only requiring the defendant to prove that there were reasonable grounds for believing it but that the defendant also took reasonable steps to find out whether the other person was aged 16 or over. That clearly is a significantly tougher test. The arbitrary differentiation of people over or under the age of 21 was removed on the advice of Crown Law that it was contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Did he tell his Cabinet or caucus colleagues that this bill allows a middle-aged man to have sex with a 14-year-old provided he saw her false ID and conveniently believed she was 16 and does he stand by this clause of his bill? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No the bill does not do that at all. The member will have many years to reflect on his allegation because he will find no evidence in court cases over a long period of time that that happens. There is a twofold test. The person must firstly have reasonable grounds to believe that the other individual was 16 or over. Secondly the defendant must now demonstrate that he or she took steps to verify that. Let me suggest to the member that the older the other party is the greater the age differentiation and clearly the more sceptical the court will be of that person’s state of mind. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the same principle of defence apply in relation to the Prostitution Reform Act that was passed in 2003; if so what reasonable steps does the Minister think that a client of a prostitute of approximately 18 years of age should take and does he not think that it would have been a good idea to require prostitutes to carry proof of age and for the police to be allowed to ask prostitutes for proof of age; if so why— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had three questions already and that is enough. Two of them can be answered. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Prostitution Reform Act sets a higher age of consent for anybody working as a prostitute and it also criminalises the client in a way that was not done under the previous legislation. Both of those changes are important and again I think the court can be relied upon to ensure that if a person tries to use as a defence that he or she thought the person was over 18 that by itself will not cut it. The defendant will have to demonstrate clear grounds for reasonably believing that to be the case. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What signal does the Minister think this Government has sent to young people their families and the wider community by introducing this legislation which includes under-age sex provisions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The signal that this legislation and companion legislation are sending is very clear indeed. The Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the tougher penalties it brings in including the removal of the defence that if one is a woman one cannot be responsible for having sexual relations with an under-age boy together with companion legislation that increases penalties for the crime of child pornography tenfold and supervision of 10 years for any paedophile after that person has completed the sentence gives this country the toughest legislation on predatory behaviour against young people anywhere in the world. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How does the proposed amendment toughen the law to prevent the defendant simply saying that he or she thought the other person was over 16? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Under the existing law that provision required a reasonable belief so it set a significant standard that the defendant had to prove. What the new legislation does is not only show reasonable cause to believe but it also points out that the defendant has to show the steps he has taken—or she for that matter—to verify the fact that the person was over 16. That will be quite a tough test to meet and is why I say that this legislation is the toughest legislation this country has seen and is as tough as anything in the Western World. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member interjected the whole time that question was being answered. [ 
Interruption 
] But they were not and most of them were in the second person. 
Heather Roy 
: Given that the Minister did not answer a previous supplementary question I ask again: what sort of message has he already sent to young people about pre-adolescent and adolescent sex and if on reflection he thinks he was wrong what sort of message would he send if he took responsibility for his decision and resigned? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The message is very clear in this legislation. My worry was not the message that I was sending—it was the message that those deliberately misconstruing this legislation were sending. That is why it became necessary to make the change that I have recommended to the select committee. I think that as people look at this legislation they will understand that it provides significantly greater protection for under-16-year-olds as do the other two bills that are currently before a select committee. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Who is right—the Minister or every newspaper editorial in the country today? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Some of the newspaper editorial comment is quite correct. I have quoted Lindsay Perigo already. I could also quote Russell Brown who talked about the bill removing a shocking loophole whereby some offenders could escape prosecution if the age of the child could not be established talked about removing an unjustifiable gender discrepancy and talked about this whole affair being a beat-up by politicians and others with vested interests for their own political ends rather than for the good of the country.