Goff Phil: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Goff Phil: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20024] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I would like to take an early call just to answer some of the questions that have been raised by in particular Mr Ryall but also to note the comments that Deborah Coddington has just made and to thank her for her support on a number of those issues. 
The first issue raised by Mr Ryall and something he proposed during the second reading debate was that the bill should be referred back to the select committee because it had had insufficient consideration. I draw to the attention of the Committee that this bill was introduced to Parliament more than a year ago and was referred to the Law and Order Committee more than a year ago. A total of 21 hours and 36 minutes were given to consideration of the bill. It was in the hands of the select committee whether it wanted to ask more questions and to take more time over those who made submissions. I received no complaints from people that they did not have the opportunity to be heard or to have their points raised with the committee. The select committee had every opportunity to cross-examine and ask questions of anybody appearing before it. That was in the committee’s hands not my hands. The concept that this bill has been rushed through is just bizarre on the facts of the case that I have just explained. 
Secondly Mr Ryall raised his concern that there was a discussion paper that raised the question of the status of incest and he rightly—to be fair to Mr Ryall—acknowledged that I was against narrowing the definition of incest. I think we need to maintain incest as an offence not because of the classical reason of preventing inbreeding but because children in a family who are dependent have to be protected regardless of whether there is a blood relationship or any other relationship. In fact what we have done is much strengthen the definition of incest. At the moment incest covers not simply sexual intercourse but any form of sexual connection. The member will be aware that under the old law all sorts of sexual abuse could have occurred if the child was over the age of 16 and it was totally lawful. Now we are providing greater protection. 
Mr Ryall asks why we allowed a different point of view to come out in a discussion paper. I have to say that if a discussion paper was to reflect only everything I believed and I did not tolerate it including anything I did not believe it would not be much use as a discussion paper. That is why one has a discussion paper. One has within it different and sometimes controversial views. That is exactly what the Australians did and other jurisdictions. Of course after seeing the discussion paper and hearing some views our Cabinet made a very clear cut and unanimous decision that yes of course not only would we retain the law on incest but we would strengthen the law on incest. 
I thank Deborah Coddington for her comments that she is pleased that the definition of family has been extended. Mr Ryall was having some trouble with the definition of family. New section 131A in clause 7 sets out the classical family membership in terms of parents step-parents foster parents siblings etc. then refers to members of the same family whanau or other culturally recognised family group. As Deborah Coddington rightly pointed out that broadens out the definition to provide protection where it is needed. The section goes even further to include a situation where the child is living with the other person as a member of the other person’s family and that other person has power or authority over him or her. Yes of course we have broadened the definition because our kids deserve the protection that that wider definition gives. Every child should be able to grow up in this society in a family that protects him or her—where the family however it is defined is a sanctuary—and not be subject to the sorts of appalling things we know have happened in the past and regrettably still do happen. 
In relation to the “reasonable belief” provision once again we have toughened the law. I refer to the defence of “I reasonably believed that she was over 16.” It is too easy to say: “I reasonably believed that to be the case.” Now a person has to go through the steps that that person took to ascertain whether the person was 16 or over. So this law is again tougher in protecting those who are under age. 
Mr Ryall raised the question of a particular change that will be made. Under the previous law if a person was 1 day over the age of 21 there was no defence at all even if one could demonstrate that one had reasonably and genuinely believed that a person was not under age—say one had asked for her driver’s licence had checked it and it had stated that that was so. Unfortunately there is the situation—and I think Mr Mark agrees with me on this—where some young women some girls out there can look a lot older than 16 and do use false identification. If a person acts in good faith but is conned by an under-age person why should there be no defence to protect that person? Of course there should be a defence and it should not be arbitrarily restricted to those who are under the age of 21. 
I have no better authority on that than David Farrar who is the co-chairman of the liberal group within the National Party—with Katherine Rich I think—a former staffer of Don Brash a long-time member and supporter of National and a worker in the office of Leader of the Opposition who made the point that I have just made. It is nonsense to say that a person who is 21 years and 1 day old has no defence at all if the young woman concerned looked like she was 18 and presented the person concerned with a driver’s licence that stated that. That is why the old law did not make sense—not just the fact that the arbitrary threshold was contrary to our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.