Dalziel Lianne: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8269. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will begin my contribution to this debate by congratulating my colleague Charles Chauvel. He came to this Parliament already an advocate for repeal of the partial defence of provocation and I know that he has worked tirelessly to see that law removed from our statute book. I pay tribute to him. He drafted the member’s bill that I had the privilege to have in my name for a short period of time and I thank him and congratulate him on all that he has done. 
I also acknowledge the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. He introduced the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill at the point where we were able to have such a bill introduced. I think it is important to say that because various members of this House have made the point that we are having this debate now because of the Sophie Elliot case and the Ronald Brown case. That is not the case. In fact the member’s bill that Charles Chauvel drafted for me was ready for the ballot some weeks before those cases hit the headlines. The reason that we deferred putting it in the ballot was to ensure that our participating in a public debate on the defence of provocation could not potentially give a lawyer grounds for appeal. As soon as we knew that those two cases would be dealt with we felt that it was important that the bill not be submitted to the ballot until an appropriate time. I felt that the Minister introduced this bill in a very timely fashion as soon as he was in a position to do so. I pay tribute to him as well. 
I also pay tribute to the chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee Chester Borrows. I think he has presented an extremely compelling argument to this House throughout the whole of the debate on this bill. With his experience in the police force and in the legal profession I think he has brought a very useful contribution to the debate but I also think he should be congratulated on his personal knowledge and his understanding of the issues. 
I do not normally do this—this sounds terrible—but I want to thank Simon Bridges as well. I thought he gave an incredibly sensitive and thoughtful speech and Jacinda Ardern and I gave him big ups before. I want him to know that it was very moving. I thank him on behalf of all of those whose memories of their loved ones have been ruined in may respects by the people who murdered them claiming this defence. I thought he added a very very powerful message tonight. 
I will follow on from some of my colleagues and say that I regret that we could not speak with one voice in Parliament tonight. I think that would have been the best way that we could have offered something to the families of Sophie Elliot and Ronald Brown. I was asked during the Committee stage of this bill whether I had children. No I do not have children. The reason I was asked whether I had children was not to question whether I would be prepared to die for my child; it was to question whether I would be prepared to kill for my child. Even though I do not have children there are people whom I would die for but no there is no one whom I would kill for because I do not believe that it is my right to kill another to intentionally take a person’s life from him or her. 
As my colleague Chris Carter pointed out the ACT Party has disgracefully employed a dog whistle technique in this House tonight. Those members use the hypothetical example of a father responding to a direct threat to a child—to a child being abused or attacked. That was the example we had given to us—a hypothetical case. Not one case in the litany of cases presented by two Law Commission reports—not one case—mirrors the hypothetical example. Why? Because not one such case would see a lawyer recommending pleading provocation; he or she would go for complete acquittal. That is the point I am making. The lawyer would argue that the father was incapable of forming intent. I ask members to tell me if they could find a jury that would convict a father in those circumstances. 
This defence is not about those cases. This defence is about men who determine that the anger they feel about being approached by somebody of a different sexual orientation is grounds for them to take that person’s life or that the subsequent behaviour of a former partner former wife or former girlfriend even—their former partners’ choosing to be with somebody else or not considering that their sexual prowess is up to it as it were—somehow justifies their taking their former partners’ lives and often the lives of the new men in their lives as well. That was the example we had from Simon Bridges. That is what this defence has been used for and no amount of sophistry from the ACT Party will change that. 
The law change is not happening because of the Sophie Elliot case or the Ronald Brown case but we would pay tribute to their memories by passing it unanimously. I believe that in this House we have a responsibility to keep our statute book up to date. This defence is past its use-by date. I commend this bill to the House.