Mapp Wayne: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20058] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I wish to turn to two issues. The first is the amendment in my name which would essentially keep the law as it is now. I want to deal with Mr Goff’s arguments as to why he believes the law should be changed. He said the problem is that under the existing law a person who is over 21—maybe by a day or by a week or by 5 years—has no defences whatsoever and that therefore it is essential that defences be put into the bill for everyone. 
Mr Goff neglected to mention the range of powers that the judiciary has. For instance in the circumstances he described—for example if one person is aged 21 years plus 1 day and the other person is aged 15 years 11 months and 364 days—then I would not be at all surprised if in such a situation the court discharged without conviction. Judges have options. Alternatively they could enter a conviction and discharge so there is another option. It depends on the gravity of the crime. There is a whole range of options including a whole range of sentencing options. Mr Goff would have the nation pretend that there is only one possible outcome—jail for 10 years. That is simply ludicrous. One would expect the Minister of Justice who has been in the role now for some considerable time to know a little more about how the judiciary functions. 
The problem with the Government’s approach is that it has opened the doors to quite serious abuse. We specifically mentioned child prostitutes. They do exist in south Auckland and in Christchurch as I have heard from Mr Mark. The number has increased—and that is proven—as a result of the prostitution legislation. Those typically young women are hugely vulnerable to being preyed upon. That is the reality. They are preyed upon by older people. Mr Goff is putting in law a potential defence. Why would he do that? What was wrong with the old law? What was wrong with the level of judicial discretion that existed in reality? So I do urge that the amendment I have put forward in my name be adopted by those parties who are prepared to stand up for values. I will not be surprised if that does not include the Labour Party. 
I also want to talk about another issue and it is the inclusion of the word “whanau” in section 131A inserted by clause 7. It has no doubt been put in because the Government wants to look like it sounds inclusive and so forth. The trouble is that the criminal law is about certainty. I have heard from colleagues who sat on the Law and Order Committee that officials cannot define whanau—and in fact define it in the most broadest of possible terms; people who live on a marae—and that totally devalues our criminal law. Criminal law has to be certain because people suffer serious sanctions for breach thereof. 
So I assume in short that the Government has put in the word “whanau” out of some misguided sense of political correctness and in the process has damaged the criminal law of this country. The proof of that is the officials’ extraordinary definition—which could well be picked up by the judges—that simply makes a nonsense of the whole purpose and intent of our criminal law. There is no place for political correctness in criminal law. There is no place for some kind of misguided attempt to be inclusive in relation to the criminal law. Citizens have a right to know about certainty. This Government is taking it away.