Alexander Marc: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11480] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to contribute to the debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). First of all I want to deal with some of the main points of the bill before I talk about the areas that we have concerns about. The purpose of the bill is to update Part 7 of the Crimes Act with regard to sexual offences. The present law in that area is somewhat outdated. The last time it was reviewed was in 1985 and many of its provisions have been carried over from the original Act of 1908. Clearly society’s expectations regarding sexual conduct and consent have moved on a little since then. This bill is the product of a review of the sexual offences area and was consulted on widely ranging from legal academic experts to those in the health sector who treat sex offence victims. 
The bill addresses a number of key issues. Firstly I will talk about the range of offences. Offences that currently relate to and can only be committed by sexual intercourse will be extended to include all forms of sexual connection. That standard reflects the current view that all forms of sexual activity that are not consented to are equally abhorrent and that all offenders are equally culpable. We view that as a positive step forward.  
Child sex offences are simplified and the bill removes any doubt that consent might have been a possible defence in a case where the victim was under the age of 12. The current time limit of 12 months on prosecution for some offences involving victims aged between 12 and 16 will also be repealed. That is also positive. A new offence of familial sexual abuse will be created. It will cover a wide range of relationships—such as foster adoption marriage and guardianship-type situations—and will cover all forms of sexual connection. It further protects those under the age of 20 from the abuse of a power relationship. 
A revised offence will also cover sexual conduct with an intellectually impaired person when consent is induced by exploiting the person’s impairment. I share some of the previous speaker’s concerns with regard to just what an intellectual impairment is. That is not fully described in the bill. 
With regard to the issue of drug rape the new law will clarify explicitly amongst the matters that do not constitute consent to sexual connection that they include a person being too affected by drugs or alcohol to have the capacity to consent to sexual activity. 
 In other matters the penalty provisions remain essentially intact with the exception that the penalty for sexual connection with a child under 16 years old will be increased from 7 to 10 years’ imprisonment. 
One other effect of this proposed legislation that I think will be positive is that all sexual offence provisions are to be made gender-neutral. That removes the anomaly that the leader of United Future Peter Dunne brought to public attention last year. As recent cases have continued to highlight an anomaly exists whereby older women for example do not commit an offence if they have a sexual relationship with a boy aged between 12 and 16 in the same way that they would if the genders were reversed. That is plainly ridiculous and I am glad to see that it is finally being addressed. 
I will move on to some areas of concern. I think the honourable member from National Richard Worth made a comment with regard to the explanatory note of the bill which I will now quote from: “The law can help to achieve this by—reinforcing that people are entitled to enjoy a fulfilling sexual life with other persons of their choice irrespective of their sex:”. I am not sure why that is in the explanatory note of the bill. I do not see what the point is in having that statement there. It is unnecessary and is quite frankly the stamping of an ideology by this Government that seems to be hell-bent on a commitment to ethical neutrality. I think that that is a critical mistake. Again I say that although that statement will not be part of the bill at the end of the process there is no point in that statement being there at all. 
If we look at some of the other statements in the explanatory note of the bill we see a number of things that are good and some that are not so good. The bill aims to simplify and strengthen the current offences against children and to cover the full range of sexual offending. Now nobody can disagree with that. The bill goes on to state: “The penalty in regard to sexual conduct with young persons under 16 has been increased.” I think that is right and proper and most people would welcome that. However I have a huge problem with the next paragraph which states: “It is however important to balance the need to protect children particularly from older men and at the same time to ensure that teenage sexual experimentation does not result in young people being involved in the criminal justice system.” I have no problem with that but the next bit bothers me: “To balance these two conflicting requirements the Bill introduces revised defence provisions in regard to sexual conduct with young persons under 16. There are no defence provisions relating to sexual offending against children under 12.” 
I think it was said earlier in this debate that we are now to have two regimes for children when there was only one previously that dealt with all children under the age of 16. There is now the creation of a gap between children who are under 12 and those who are between 12 and 16. That seems to me to weaken our supposed intolerance to what is ultimately child abuse and that needs to be looked at. I hope that during the select committee process that issue will be looked into and that the distinction between those two different age groups and those two different regimes that is implicit in this legislation will actually be addressed fully because it is problematic. 
The other issue that I have a huge problem with is this. There is a provision in the explanatory note that states: “The Bill creates a new offence under new section 98AA of the principal Act prohibiting dealing in children for the purpose of sexual exploitation ...”. Nobody can possibly disagree with that. But the ultimate irony is that the very Government that is proposing to support this legislation is the very Government that turned round and put through the Prostitution Reform Act the very Act that is responsible for putting younger children out on the street in Christchurch— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It was a member’s bill! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: But we all know that the Government squeezed the arm of every Labour member to vote in favour of it. It passed after great consideration by one abstention. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speak for yourself! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: There he goes again squeaking and squawking like a parrot that has just had its bikini line waxed. Frankly the simple fact of the matter is that on the one hand Labour is deliberately trying to allow children to be victimised out on the streets by a law that turns round and states it is OK to sell exploit and abuse children and on the other hand it now wants to pass legislation that states that will be a crime. How does that make sense? It gives with one hand and takes with the other. If the Government is really intent on creating a new offence that talks about the sexual exploitation of children and the abuse that is imposed on children then it should go ahead and revisit the Prostitution Reform Act. Let the Government go ahead and revisit that legislation bring it back into the House and amend it so that we do not on the one hand allow children to be legally offended against and abused and on the other hand turn round with another law and try to take away that abuse. That makes absolutely no sense. 
We will support this bill being referred through to the select committee because for the most part there are some very good aspects to it. But as I have indicated we cannot possibly agree to support the bill all the way through Parliament until we see some major changes particularly around the two areas that I am most concerned about. The first is the two different regimes with respect to the children’s ages—relating to those under 12 and to those between 12 and 16—and the second is the need for consistency in how we treat children who can be sexually exploited with regard to some of the other ideological rubbish that this Government is trying to shove down the throats of New Zealanders.