Franks Stephen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7085] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I will say at once that I come to this bill with half-an-hour’s reading. The Hon Ken Shirley who took the time and was on the committee when this was first dealt with in 1999 has given me some briefing notes. Looking at the title it is very hard indeed to see why we should have a title as bland and as innocuous as the “Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6)”. It could have been descriptive. It could have been something like the “Property Crimes Amendment Bill”. It could have been something that would give people a handle and an opportunity when they glanced through the Order Paper or were looking through the statute book or searching through a computer entry system to see something that would have told them what this amendment did that others did not. In other words a title should distinguish a bill. This is simply a label that is no better than a number. The “No 6” actually gives more information than the title that has been chosen for this bill. The number of different times that we have heard it mentioned it could also have been referred to as the “Anti-hacking Bill” the “Computer Crimes Bill” or it could possibly have been the “Tidy-up Bill” but to simply call a bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) does not tell users anything. I believe that it is bad practice. It is consistent with other bad drafting practices that we have like the practice of having enormous single parts. 
This bill actually shows all of the tawdry little tactics and the defects in dealing with a Government that subverts the integrity of the document and its usability to its short-term political objectives. Plainly there must have been a short-term political gain in introducing it back in 1999. 
 The bill with “No 6” in its title means that it probably was the sixth amendment to the Crimes Act in 1999. That shows a very active Government. It shows that at the time there was a Government and a Minister of Justice the Hon Tony Ryall who were actually doing something in the area of crime. Now here we are 4 years later and No 6 is still No 6. I do not think there were any amendments to the Crimes Act in 2003. It shows just what priority or lack of priority is given to crime. 
When speaking to the title of a bill that amends such a fine piece of legislation as the Crimes Act and considering why we would have a title as uninformative as this we could just assume that it was laziness or a drafting practice that does not take account of the needs of those who are looking for the label or description—those who will need to try to find the amended legislation. I am coming to the view having realised just how long this bill has been before Parliament that this innocuous kind of description—this kind of labelling—does serve a Government. It helps to disguise just how long something has been sitting without attention while other more fashionable things like the enormously useful Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill went through while the Government changed matrimonial property law and now is turning lesbian mothers into fathers. All of these things have had more urgency than the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6). 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member Mr David Benson-Pope has just called the honourable Stephen Franks a crook. Chuck him out of the Chamber for God’s sake! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I thank Mr Mark for trying to uphold standards in the Chamber. I have managed to create a sort of filter that filters out the drivel one gets from Mr Benson-Pope. The contribution Parliament gets from the member for Dunedin South must be one of the worst from any whip. He is a whip who lowers the tone of Parliament every time he opens his mouth. 
Ron Mark 
: When he gets off his backside. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Exactly. To bring this to a conclusion—the Government has had 4 years to try to make this bill mean something. It has had 4 years in which it could have relabelled the component part to this bill in a way that would have helped the people who are going to use the legislation. The bill should at least have been called the “Crimes (Property Crimes) Amendment Bill (No 6)”.