Jones Dail: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11476] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is fairly straightforward legislation and the preceding National Party speaker Richard Worth has touched on an interesting point in terms of section 128A in clause 7. It is always very dangerous to start interfering with well-established cases. If one looks at section 128A(4) which states that: “A person does not consent to sexual connection if he or she submits to or acquiesces in sexual connection while so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to sexual connection.” one wonders whether if they are both so affected by alcohol or some other drug does that mean that neither of them could possibly be liable for an offence? If the male and the female are both under the influence but the woman—as is usually the case—somehow through the drugged or drunken stupor suddenly says “No no no.” which is an established case today but the man is so drunk that he does not know what is happening either would section 128A(4) actually give him a defence? He could be so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he would not know what was happening either. It will be a very interesting task for the select committee to consider that one. 
The other point I was looking at was the comment in the explanatory note which states: “The Bill proposes that the incest provisions should be extended not only to sexual connection (as noted above) but also to cover same sex relationships within the family unit.” I had a look at the incest provision in section 130 and I do not think it achieves that objective as it stands at the moment. It would need to be very clear perhaps not in quite so clumsy a way as section 17 of the Care of Children Bill because section 130 states only that: “(1) Sexual connection is incest if—(a) it is between 2 people whose relationship is that of parent and child siblings half-siblings or grandparent and grandchild; and (b) the person charged knows of the relationship.” A better definition of “parent” is needed than that because if there are two same-sex people living together and one of them interferes with the other party’s child the question is whether they are living in a relationship. What constitutes a relationship in this day and age? It just seems to me that if all there is in this bill regarding same-sex relationships and what they are meant to be is what is in the statement made by the Minister and the introductory notes in the bill it is totally unsatisfactory. Section 130 needs a definition of “parent” in the same way that section 131A defines family members although for other purposes which are not necessarily linked to section 130. 
 It surprises me that the Government can come up with a definition of “same sex” for bills like the Care of Children Bill or the family property legislation but seems to have great difficulty in coming up with a definition for it in terms of section 130. To me section 130 does not make it clear that it applies to same sex. What a same-sex relationship is would become the whole question for a defence lawyer and most defence lawyers would have no difficulty in getting their client acquitted on section 130—on the same-sex basis as it is now. The person might still be guilty on other aspects of this legislation as it is drafted at the moment but certainly not on incest charges—bearing in mind that the charge of incest now carries a term of imprisonment of 10 years which is probably higher than the present term of imprisonment. 
So there are a few things to be considered in this legislation when it goes to the select committee. Mr Cunliffe indicates that it will be going to the Law and Order Committee in which case the bill might come back to the House in this parliamentary session. Those are some matters I draw to the attention of the Law and Order Committee as being possible deficiencies in the legislation. At this stage New Zealand First supports the bill going to the select committee.