Robertson Grant: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 On the evening of 20 July 2003 24-year-old Phillip Edwards was walking down K Road in central Auckland. A convertible driven by David McNee aged 55 approached Edwards. After a discussion Edwards agreed to perform a sexual act in front of Mr McNee for a fee. Edwards had just been released from prison and was in need of cash. Edwards then agreed to return with McNee to McNee’s home for a shower. While he was there there was further low-level sexual activity. At some point during that activity Edwards reacted violently towards Mr McNee and began beating him around the head and the face. He stated at the trial that he had become very angry and that after the initial assault everything became a blur. Edwards then covered McNee’s body with a blanket robbed his home and took his money his alcohol and his convertible. Pathologists reported to the court that McNee was struck between 30 and 40 times. The assault was so severe that McNee could have survived for only 15 minutes after Edwards had stopped. 
I raised that story at the beginning of my speech to indicate that that is the kind of crime committed by somebody who is able to successfully invoke the partial defence of provocation. I raised the case in that detail to indicate the strength of feeling that reverberated around the gay community immediately after that case and immediately after other cases that have been discussed in earlier readings of the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill. I raise that case today to give a real-life example as to why what Parliament will do today is a very important step and a very very necessary step. People like David McNee Ronald Brown and Jim Curtis who have been subject to successful defences by those who have committed assault or murder against them need our respect and our thoughts today as do their families. 
I also pay some respect to everybody who has supported this bill’s passage through the House particularly my colleague Lianne Dalziel who spoke shortly before me. Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel brought forward a private member’s bill to remove the partial defence of provocation. The Government has stepped up as well and I congratulate Simon Power on having led that move. I also congratulate the select committee on bringing the bill back to the House today. 
I will make one thing very clear. I have had a lot of contact with members of the public about this bill and for the most part there has been widespread support for what Parliament is doing today. However there are some people who feel that passing this bill is in some way a knee-jerk reaction to two very recent cases those involving Sophie Elliott and Ronald Brown. I think it is very important to put on the record the fact that this issue has been discussed for some time. I do not want to put it on the record in a political way as perhaps the previous speaker Chester Borrows did. The partial defence of provocation was considered by the Law Commission in 2001 and again in 2007. The move to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations is timely but it is not a knee-jerk reaction. In my view this defence is something that has been a stain on our law books for some time and I think that reacting as a Parliament as we are now is quite considered in the circumstances. 
I also make it absolutely clear that we need to consider the notion of a gay panic defence and the fact that it somehow or other has been able to last on our statute book for some time in the wider context in terms of society’s view about sexuality. I do not want to spend too much time on this topic except to say that particularly in the recent case of Ronald Brown it is important that we think about the kind of defence that was mounted by the defence counsel. The defence counsel sought to portray Mr Brown’s lifestyle as a gay man as being somehow or other a “dark thing”. That was the phrase used—that it was a dark part of his life. I think that kind of rhetoric and language does not speak well for the views of some people in our community and I hope that our being able to take the defence of provocation off the statute book and away from even being able to be considered in terms of a defence will start to address those sorts of views and issues. I think this is a very timely thing for us to do. 
I will make reference to a couple of things that the Justice and Electoral Committee discussed when it was dealing with this bill. The first is the question around whether there should be any amendment to the Sentencing Act to explicitly allow for the consideration of the defence of provocation. The committee decided that that was not necessary at this stage because these issues can be considered by judges under their existing statutory discretion. I certainly accept that people far more learned in the law than I am are able to bring forward that idea and that we should accept it. 
I think we also should remember that the Law Commission had a second recommendation when it came to issues around this defence within the concept of establishing the Sentencing Council to draft sentencing guidelines. Labour was looking into implementing the Sentencing Council towards the end of its term in Government and I urge the National Government to consider it again. I think it would help to ensure consistency in sentencing whilst leaving flexibility for judges to depart from the guidelines where they believe that should be the case. I think that the National Government should look at having another investigation into that option. 
When we look at community attitudes towards this matter we see it is quite clear that the community supports this bill. We have seen a number of commentators come forward and make sure that we are all aware that essentially as my colleague Charles Chauvel put it we have to let people know that they simply cannot get away with murder. I think that is vitally important. As earlier speakers have already said this is murder. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel said we can look at situations in recent times such as the trial for the murder of Sophie Elliot. The accused took the stand and the abhorrence of the community grew as the victim was simply not able to defend herself. To see night after night on the news the pictures of somebody sitting in the dock and conveying that kind of attitude was something that the public of New Zealand found repugnant. I think it is important that the public was able to come to that decision by seeing that happen. But equally if we take ourselves back to the case of Ronald Brown as Lianne Dalziel mentioned we did not see the same reaction. Perhaps that was because Mr Ambach did not take the stand but I also believe it speaks of some attitudes in our society that perhaps we as a society need to further address. 
I am very pleased to stand in the second reading debate and support this bill. I believe that it marks a real advance for us in terms of attitudes towards victims and towards the families of victims in making sure that we lift in a sense the debate we have in our community around how we treat people who are murdered and how we treat their families. As I come towards the end of my speech it is probably timely to note the names of the people I mentioned before and I will add a couple of other to them: Roy Jackson Charles Aberhart Ronald Anderson Jim Curtis Barry Hart David McNee and Ronald Brown. These people did not have the dignity of the law that should have surrounded them. They did not have the support of the law that should have surrounded them and today this Parliament goes some way towards addressing the hurt and concern that they and their families felt. Thank you.