Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13215] 
1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why did he include new section 134A in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) and what process did he use to secure Cabinet or Cabinet committee approval for the introduction of the bill? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 With the new broader and tougher law relating to under-age sex the existing statutory defences such as the girl being older than the boy are no longer relevant. The bill provides for an amended defence which requires the defendant not only to have had reasonable grounds to believe that the other person was aged 16 or over but also to take reasonable steps to verify that. The other defence similarity of age which is used in jurisdictions overseas such as Canada will now not proceed but will be replaced by police using their discretion about whether to prosecute. Normal Cabinet processes were followed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Did the Minister advise his Cabinet colleagues that the bill effectively decriminalises some sexual conduct between persons aged 12 to 16 years; if so why would they proceed with such a proposal? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I advised my colleagues that I believed firmly that the age of consent should stay at 16. But I also advised them that given that the penalties are much tougher—for example the maximum penalty will now be 10 years rather than 7 years; there is a series of tougher penalties—we needed to distinguish between predatory acts and exploitative acts. I therefore advised them that where two teenagers of roughly the same age were indulging in what is often described as experimental teenage sex having a similarity-of-age defence which is used in jurisdictions overseas such as Canada would be an appropriate way to go. 
Tim Barnett 
: What are the defences to a charge of consensual sex with someone aged 12 to 16 years under the current Crimes Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Under the current legislation a boy who is charged has a defence under section 134 if the girl is older than he is. A male also has a defence if he is under the age of 21 can prove consent and had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was aged 16 years or over. The amendment to this defence will require any persons charged regardless of age or gender to show not only that they had reasonable grounds to believe that the other person was aged over 16 years but also that they had actively taken steps to verify that. At the moment women and girls cannot be charged at all. That gender discrepancy is unjustifiable and is removed. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Was the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) put in front of the whole Cabinet the whole Labour caucus and United Future and was there no parent in those three groupings who pointed out the folly of this legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Not only were the normal processes followed but in the first reading of this bill in the House it was pointed out to the whole House that the defence of relative age was proposed to the select committee. For 6 months there was no reaction from anyone in the House notwithstanding the fact that it was explicitly spelt out by David Cunliffe reading the speech on my behalf. 
Murray Smith 
: Will the Minister accept that the main reason that his irresponsible plan to turn a blind eye to consensual sex between young teenage children is even an issue for Kiwi parents is because the approach to the sex education that his Government gives to primary school children is: “Here are the condoms and here’s how you do it.”; and in the face of that message is it any wonder that some of those children want to put the theory into practice and that we have such a high rate of teenage pregnancies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the Minister to respond. Parts of that question were not strictly in order. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I do not accept the premise of anything the member just said in that question. What I do say is that every member in this House I imagine believes there should be an age of consent of 16—that that is appropriate. Equally every member in this House is aware that there is a widespread discrepancy between the law and the practice. I imagine that very few members in this House believe that the answer to a problem of for example two 15-year-olds having sex is to put them before the court and to put them in jail. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Minister is so convinced of his policy why has he dropped it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I guess I could pick up on a comment made by a very respected journalist in the gallery Lindsay Perigo who said that the reaction was an overreaction that was hugely hysterical. The result of that reaction is that the wrong message is portrayed. It is not my intent or the intent of the Government or I believe of the House to send the message that sex under 16 years is OK. The message we want to send is that that is illegal that we will deal harshly with those who indulge in exploitative or predatory actions but that we will take a different approach to those young people of roughly the same age who are doing now what they have been doing for centuries. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Noting the Minister’s admission that the wrong message was portrayed was it his view that this clause should remain in the bill after those Cabinet discussions; or is it correct that he was required to leave it in by the Prime Minister who said that these changes are worthy of debate? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As Minister I of course take responsibility for anything that comes into this House in a bill. However I also note the assumption that every member of this House makes—that when a bill is introduced it goes to a select committee where it is examined in detail. I image that the member—although I cannot say because it is under privilege—must have raised this matter in the committee and asked questions about it. I am sure he did and at length in the hysterical way he has publicly.