Chauvel Charles: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18317] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The justice sector under this Government is in a serious state of disarray and one of the reasons for that state of disarray is the piecemeal approach to reform adopted by this Government in this sector. By my count there are eight ongoing reviews at a high level in this sector ranging from issues concerning the way in which children should be able to give evidence in court through to the way in which the prosecution service should conduct itself and including a review of the bail system legal aid changes and reviews of the Family Court of regulatory gaps around new media and of public feedback on legal aid lawyers. Many of these reviews will not come to fruition under the term of this Government and during this Parliament yet they are absorbing enormous amounts of time and energy in the sector and distracting people within it from getting on with their jobs. In the case of the subject matter of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) caring for our most vulnerable children that should be a real concern to all of us. 
By my count as far as the legislation affecting the sector is concerned there are 11 bills—counting this bill 12 bills—before the House at the moment with far-reaching significance as far as the reforms that they would enact are concerned. I am very concerned about this piecemeal approach. As I say it is distracting to those who work in the sector. It is difficult to know with any certainty which reforms legislative or otherwise will be brought to a conclusion. It is difficult to keep up with the changes that are being made at any particular time and certainly legal practitioners counsellors in the court and those responsible for enforcing the law are all feeling a significant level of disquiet as a result of all the upheaval. It would be much better I think if we could see a coherent approach to reform one that is principles based and comprehensive rather than this Government seizing on issues which is what we are seeing in the sector and the progression of piecemeal reform. Unfortunately that is what we are also faced with in this Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Apart from the concern about the Government’s piecemeal approach to reform there is also the fact that all these reforms are being referred to different select committees. The Minister in his speech foreshadowed that he will be asking the House to send this bill to the Social Services Committee. Much of the other legislation relating to justice matters is before either the Justice and Electoral Committee or the Law and Order Committee. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to consider carefully whether the Social Services Committee is the appropriate committee or destination for the consideration of this legislation. I ask Mr Finlayson to reflect in particular on whether the alteration to the claim of right defence should go to a committee such as the Social Services Committee. That committee surely is not the correct one to consider that question. It is a matter that ought to go I would have thought most obviously to the Justice and Electoral Committee. If the Minister would like to think about that question it would be helpful. It cannot be a good thing for these reforms to go off to different committees with varying levels of expertise in terms of their ability to do Parliament’s job of scrutinising them appropriately. 
As far as the major subject matter of the bill is concerned it is undoubtedly the case that we have a problem with regard to child abuse in this country. We ought to address it. We ought to do everything we can to ensure that we take it seriously deal with it and reduce it wherever we can. But one of the things that the Minister did not deal with when he spoke to clauses 6 and 7 of the bill was the concern that has been expressed by a number of experts in the area that extended obligations around reporting and around liability for harmed children inevitably lead as far as overseas experience shows to the covering up of such harm. Rather than leading to greater safety for children the danger is that by further criminalising or further penalising people for failing to report concerns about the safety of children we risk driving the problem underground rather than bringing it to the surface and ensuring that those in the system who need help receive it. 
I think it is important to register that concern at the outset. It always gives parliamentarians a nice feeling to think they are doing something about a problem but often the evidence indicates that the application of a purported solution may well make the situation worse. This House will have to think about that very seriously as far as the provisions of clauses 6 and 7 are concerned in terms of whether the safety of children will truly be enhanced by the provisions of this legislation. 
In terms of the other operative provisions of the bill it would appear that clause 5 which deals with the grooming offence and clause 8 which deals with the concealed weapons issue seem to be sensible reforms although it is odd that they appear at this time and in this piecemeal bill. 
I do want to spend some time on the claim of right issue which is dealt with in clause 4. The matter was not given great attention in the Minister’s speech but of course we all know the origin of the attempt to confine the definition of the claim of right. This is done by clause 4(2) of the bill which reads: “The definition of claim of right in section 2(1) is amended by omitting ‘that the act is lawful’ and substituting ‘at the time of the act of a proprietary or possessory right in property being property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed’. ” In other words a person asserting the claim of right defence has to have an interest in the property that is damaged in order to successfully assert the claim itself. 
This is clearly the Government’s reaction to the outcome of the Waihopai spy base attack in which the persons who were charged in connection with that attack were acquitted by a District Court on the basis of the assertion of the claim of right defence. Lawyers in the House will know that the claim of right defence is an ill-defined one. It may well be that there is some benefit in looking carefully at its ambit but to do so in the current circumstances is wrong. Clearly legislating to change the law because the Government has lost a court case rather than having pursued the other avenues open to it as a result of having lost that case not only seems like poor sport but is not good constitutional practice. 
So there are some real concerns about this bill and about the referral of it to the Social Services Committee given some of the technical and legal aspects that will have to be dealt with as this House looks more carefully at the questions that the bill throws up. The Labour Opposition will support the first reading of the bill but we have real reservations about it as I have set out in my speech.