Alexander Marc: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20073] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 The Law and Order Committee heard 26 submissions on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) including eight from private individuals five from the legal profession and seven from organisations that are involved in one way or another with protecting people from sexual harm. We have heard some harrowing personal stories we have heard legal opinion and we have had comment from Victim Support carers in relation to this bill. This legislation is definitely a step forward. It stuns me that there is only one party in this Parliament that has decided not to support a very important piece of legislation albeit with its imperfections. The penalties for sexual connection indecency and sexual intercourse with a child under 16 will increase to 10 years in jail. Who could disagree with that? False and fraudulent representation will be added to the grounds for negating a defence—again a sensible measure. This bill lifts the arbitrary under-21 age limit for a “reasonable belief in age” defence. New offences include the exploitation of persons under 18 for sexual purposes and of people for the removal of body parts or for slavery. Clause 131 is designed to provide protection for young persons from sexual abuse within the family. 
The family is the one place that should be a guarantee of safety to its members especially its most vulnerable members and this legislation goes part-way towards trying to define that and to defend that right. Yes there are aspects we could quibble with. What the hell is a whanau in the context of this legislation? That does open the legislation up to misinterpretation. We all asked about that and no matter how many answers we got we were none the wiser on that one. Rape is still a legislative prejudice reinforcing the outdated notion that only a man can rape. That is something that I think we have to come back to at a later date. At the end of the day the penalties will be the same so at least that aspect of it has been addressed. But this bill advances justice and there is no question of that. The truth is that if we have to wait for the perfect bill before we support it no law would ever be advanced. We would still be tugging our forelocks scratching our bums and wistfully looking out for our savage enemies as we pluck wild berries and go off on hunts. Advances in civil society are incremental. Most people would be happy with one step forward but this bill is a good 2½ steps forward. 
The “child grooming” legislation that the Government picked up was based on a suggestion from me because this was a good opportunity to do so. I applaud Phil Goff for doing so. Sexual grooming is an insidious predatory behaviour aimed at creating a climate of trust—an environment or relationship with a vulnerable child that will ease the possibility of committing a sexual offence later. The advance of technology has exacerbated the problem of identifying such grooming with the use of the Internet and chat rooms and of text messaging and so on. All those arenas are easily accessible to sexual predators. The United Kingdom Sexual Offences Act 2003 was in some ways the forerunner of the legislation that we have advanced here today and it contains a specific grooming offence that focuses on situations whereby an adult who has met communicated or been in contact with a child under 16 travels with the intent of committing an offence against that child later on. So again I am delighted that the Government has moved on my initiative to make the grooming of children by paedophiles punishable by up to 7 years in jail. My original suggestion was for a term of 5 years so I could not be happier that it has gone up. I think that is a tremendous step ahead in terms of protecting our children—our most vulnerable. 
The law change will create a whole new crime that gets in before a criminal actually lays a finger on any child. This is the way it has to be if we wish to get those perverts before they start to ruin young lives. I say this: this legislation actually starts to redress some of the imbalance that we have always had in the past. We have had to wait for the ultimate crime to be committed before we could do something about it. This measure is proactive. It gets people and criminalises the activity that leads to crime. It is a huge step forward on behalf of potential victims and a huge step forward on behalf of the law-abiding people in this country who demand to be protected from crimes before they happen. The change enabling the police to arrest a person before any sexual activity has taken place would cover situations whereby an adult establishes contact with a child under 16—for example through meetings phone conversations text messages and chat rooms—gains a child’s trust and arranges a meeting with the intention of committing a sexual offence. Anybody who has spent any time with young victims who have been susceptible to the crimes of paedophiles knows just how long and how damaging the effects of that crime are when it is visited upon them. The amount of healing that needs to take place in order to get the victims back into a safer place again is horrendous. This measure is a big step forward in looking after kids in society and I congratulate the Government on picking up that initiative. 
I also want to thank the members of the committee who spent an inordinate amount of time on looking at the various aspects of the bill including Dianne Yates’ contribution and that has to be acknowledged. I am a little disappointed that the Labour members refused to allow a motion by Tony Ryall in the select committee to reappraise the considerable amendments to this bill but that is a small quibble. We all had the opportunity to really get our teeth into this legislation. I also want to make a special commendation to Liz Butterfield from NetSafe in Auckland with whom it was my privilege to go and discuss the amendments that were finally advanced by Phil Goff together with members of his justice ministry. We went up there and had a very good discussion. We spent a lot of time dealing and grappling with the issues. I hope that Liz Butterfield and NetSafe will feel that their contribution has been reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper that we now pass. Their work in advising myself and the Minister’s department and in raising the relevant issues cannot go unmentioned or unacknowledged. 
I am sad to see that National is the only party that sees fit to block this bill. That is a tragedy because this bill does go a long way towards helping to redress some of the outdated and outmoded legislation that we have inherited from I think it was the 1960s. United Future commends this bill to the House and wholeheartedly supports it along with every party other than National.