Worth Richard: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Worth Richard: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20028] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I will start by saying that reform of the criminal law is always serious and significant work. The Hon Tony Ryall in his comments in the Committee stage said there were a number of questions that the Minister of Justice Phil Goff should properly explain and he elaborated on some of those questions. But I doubt that the Minister has the ability to provide the answers to even a few of those questions. In the one outburst he did deliver he described incest as a defence. Even a first-year law student would know that incest is in fact a crime. It is also a pity that the Government wants to bolt through this bill in urgency and has not accepted the view of the Opposition that it would be appropriate for the debate to be taken on a clause by clause basis. If that had been possible National could have indicated where it supported particular provisions. Instead we are having a part by part debate on a bill that has only two parts. 
The reality is that this bill is like the curate’s egg—good in part and bad in part. The current minority Labour Government expresses a nominal commitment to law and order but that commitment is long on rhetoric and short on action. If members of the Committee are wondering whether that is fair comment I would say that it is because political correctness seeps through the agenda of the Government in this area as it does in many others. I will give four quick examples in the short time I have. 
We have already heard that the Minister approved a discussion document legalising brother-sister sexual relationships. Now it is quite correct that that discussion document and the specific proposal did not find its way into the bill. But a wise-thinking Minister in this particular area of the criminal law should never have allowed that proposition to emerge in a Government discussion document. [ 
Interruption 
] Because I am being interrupted I say again what it was that the Minister approved. He approved a discussion document proposing to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20. In the end the Government backed off. That proposal should never have been advanced. 
Another example a timely one in the context of one member sitting in this House is the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill—a member’s bill albeit sanctioned by a majority of the Labour caucus—that would permit on a basis that would not permit discrimination cross-dressing in the police the military and classrooms. 
 The third example relates to the similarity of age defence for under-age sexual activity. National and the public forced the Government to drop that highly controversial clause. It would have given a defence when there was consensual sexual activity between 12 to 15-year-olds. It was opposed by mainstream groups but supported by the Minister in charge of this bill Mr Goff the Labour Cabinet and the AIDS Foundation. If I take a final fourth example it is the proposal to scrap rape as a gender-based offence. In the result the Government has backtracked on that because a majority of the committee endorsed: “… the offence of rape being retained as a gender-based (male-on-female) form of sexual violation effected by penile penetration of a woman’s genitalia.” But there was a proposal to cast away that offence of rape and instead merge it into a wider grouping of sexual offences. 
I would like to speak for one more minute about what troubles me about this legislation in a broad way. It is well identified in the general policy statement that lies behind the bill. The general policy statement reinforces the view: “… that people are entitled to enjoy a fulfilling sexual life with other persons of their choice irrespective of their sex:”—I am reading from the general policy statement in the explanatory note. Most of us would think that what we are really about is significant reform of criminal law in the area of sexual criminal activity. To paint the legislation as being an entitlement for people to enjoy a fulfilling sexual life with other persons of their choice irrespective of their sex is incredibly irresponsible. 
This is supposed to be criminal legislation. It is intended to deal with offences that violate community standards and are abhorred by right-thinking members of the community. It should not have policy objectives of that particular type. National has said repeatedly in the short period the Committee stage has occupied that the bill should have been subject to more consultation. There should have been far wider community and legal consultation. The Government had an opportunity to do that. It chose not to do so. I believe that there will be as a result of that decision significant unintended consequences. 
We see in so much of the legislation that has been before Parliament in this session instances whereby significant errors have occurred through inadequate consideration. This bill will prove to be one of those examples. Another illustration is the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As that legislation was originally enacted there was a provision that vested all the reclaimed land of the Wellington City Council in the Department of Conservation. That all had to be undone at the rate of knots in legislation passed a few days later. Again we see obvious multiple flaws in the Building Act. 
The problem in simple terms is this: when one goes about reforming criminal law it should not be done on a patchwork basis. Why do I say that? Because chunks of work should not be taken out for separate consideration. Criminal law in general terms should be seamless. If it is broken up in the way that this bill has done with different parliamentary counsel engaged in different sections of the work the result obviously will be that errors are likely to creep in. And so they will.