Coddington Deborah: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20023] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this legislation which ACT is supporting. It is not perfect; there are flaws in it. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain some particular points to me and the reason why those issues are in the bill because ACT did not have a representative on the Law and Order Committee. 
I am always supportive of anything that goes anywhere towards protecting children against sexual abuse by adults. There are two main areas that concern me. Firstly I am pleased that the definition of “family” has been extended. I recently went to a tangi in south Auckland. One of the Maori women there sat down beside me because she knew about the books I had written. She said that at a meeting at the marae a few weeks earlier the women had been discussing how not one child on that marae would not have been sexually abused by other people on the marae and how they could not do anything about it. 
The thing that concerns me about extending the definition of “family” is that it could extend the ability for perpetrators to get name suppression. One of the reasons why name suppression is sought is to protect the victim. It is usually given automatically if the victim is “a family member”. That is often the fault of the media because when a person has interim name suppression the media will report for example that the victim was a 12-year-old niece. If the media did not report that and stated that it was a 12-year-old girl then it could report the name when name suppression was lifted. But when name suppression is subsequently lifted the media cannot report it because that would identify the victim. I argue that we should have something in this legislation or it could come in at a later date—and I urge members to consider this—stating that name suppression can be given only when victims specifically request it or when victims are under the age of 16 and could be identified. By extending the definition of “family” there is a danger that more accused people will get name suppression. 
I would like the Minister to explain why the age of consent has gone from 20 to 18 when family members are concerned. I have some difficulty over that. In the case of doctors for instance if a doctor has a sexual relationship with a patient no matter what age the patient is that doctor can be struck off or will go before the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. For a doctor to have a sexual relationship with a patient is a real no-no no matter what age the patient is. Could the Minister take a call to explain why the age of consent has come down from 20 to 18? For me it is not a reason to oppose the bill but I am curious as to why that provision is included. 
I do not agree with the National Party about the defence for a 45-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old girl. I do not believe that the way the legislation is drafted is as loose as that. I would like the Minister to explain it. As far as I can see leaving aside this issue of whether the girl is a prostitute section 134A(2) in clause 7 states that it is not a defence if “the consent of the young person concerned was obtained by a false and fraudulent representation as to—(a) the nature and quality of the act concerned;”. To me that does cover areas. That is used a lot in sexual abuse cases where stepfathers foster parents or someone who is known to the victim has said: “All fathers do this. This is what love means. All families do this. Don’t tell.” That is obtaining consent on a false representation. 
Finally I was recently in the United States. I just remind the Committee of the effects of child molestation. From some research done in the United States it has been estimated that the annual direct costs—admittedly it is not a definitive figure because of the under-reporting and under-prosecution of child abuse—in the United States including medical police court and welfare costs of all child abuse is $24 billion. If we look not just at the financial costs we find that 26 percent of abused and neglected children become juvenile delinquents and that 13 percent of violent crime can be linked to earlier child maltreatment. If we are serious in this country about getting tough on crime we have to be serious at looking at why—