Franks Stephen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20064] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Before we pass this bill which appears likely I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff to explain whether I have been misinterpreting the peculiar clause 6 which inserts new section 98AA. I ask that because although it is obviously well meaning to set a penalty of 14 years imprisonment for people who exploit others under the age of 18 remove their body parts or force them to engage in forced labour something is a serious offence when it carries a 14-year sentence. Schedule 1 puts it into the range of offences for which offenders can be extradited. Extradition is a serious matter because it submits a New Zealander to another country’s legal regime where the range of protections may not be nearly as careful in terms of evidence. 
When I read new section 98AA—and I do not find the committee’s commentary helpful on it—I need to know what is in place to ensure that a parent who obliges a child to help on the family farm help in the family business or even just to do chores cannot be at least threatened by that child with liability for the forced labour of someone aged under 18 years. 
It is easy to say to not be ridiculous. It is easy to say that that is not what was meant. It is easy to say that no one would do that. But it is not true. People misuse law and use rules all the time for purposes that no one ever anticipated. We saw it in this Chamber last week when Dr Cullen misused Standing Order 38 and collapsed the House by disappearing. That was something that had never been thought of in 100 years in this Parliament. 
Children will be taught their rights. Some nut will one day evolve a theory that it is wrong for kids to have to do chores around the house. There will be people such as those who want to criminalise smacking who will decide to use or misuse the Crimes Act and try to force the police or someone else to use the new section 98AA. 
So I want to know before we pass the bill—and what we are considering now includes the commencement provision—just what the Minister will be able to do to ensure that those nutters do not get a chance to misuse the slogans that Mr Goff is sticking into our criminal law so that he can peacock at the United Nations. Because that is why this kind of thing goes into our law—so that the Government can parade about and say how virtuous it is. The committees in New York do not ask what kind of enforcement resource gets put in. No one in New York will be asking about the 1000 cases that have not been allocated by the police. No one in New York will ask how soon people get out of jail when they have a 14-year sentence. Even if someone is convicted under this legislation he or she will probably get out of prison in less than 5 years. But Mr Goff will be able to say that he did the UN’s bidding and stuck this stuff into New Zealand law. He can say: “Aren’t I a good boy pulling out this plum?”. 
I want to know what will protect New Zealanders against someone also using Part 2 to argue the defence in new section 98AA(1)(a) which states that if a person kidnaps someone imprisons them takes their body parts or forces them into labour then as long as the victim is over 18 it is OK. I know that no one intends that but who knows what use sloppy drafting will be put to. A Government that shoves through law in slogan form will one day cause damage. 
I would like the Minister to read into the record of  
Hansard 
 so that judges can see it at least what he thought this bill means in terms of the defence in new section 98AA(1)(a) and in terms of the sentence that could come from requiring children to do their chores. Judges look at what a Minister has said. If a Minister said that he or she never ever intended something it helps a judge to apply common sense despite what the UN may be asking us to do. 
I am glad that we have had this general debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill has a whole lot of political correctness in it and it changes time-honoured time-explored and time-developed definitions.