Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This is a very interesting situation once again. This member’s bill was placed in the ballot in the year 2001, 3 years ago, and has finally reached this House. Since then the matters that are contained in this bill have become Government policy and are included in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which is why it is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee, to be considered alongside the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in due course.

This amendment to the Crimes Act grew out of perceived inadequacies as far back, as I have said, as 2001—3 years ago—in the Act concerning drug rape. The New Zealand Drug Rape Trust was formed and its members, some of whom were victims of drug rape themselves, drew to my attention the increase in drug-facilitated rape in New Zealand. Until recently drug rape was regarded as a crime that occurred overseas. Most of us have probably been warned by our mothers, and as mothers warned our daughters, about people who spike drinks. We know that many people have been told, and warned, to drink with friends, not to leave a drink unattended at the bar, and to make sure they look after each other, etc. But this crime has been on the increase.

The increase in drug rape was thought to be blamed on tourists, but we have discovered since, and reporting in places like my electorate in Hamilton has shown us that drug rape is not just committed by tourists. Drug rape occurs not just in the tourist centres and not just in our cities, but is a New Zealand - based crime that is on the increase in the provinces as well as in the cities. I want to thank, particularly, the police in Hamilton for the work they have done in that regard, and also the very brave young women who have reported drug rape and suspected drink-spiking. It is not an easy thing to bowl up to a police station and report a drug rape. I want to thank the women who have done so and the police, particularly the detectives in Hamilton, who have been sympathetic, and who have been working with the hotel industry and with those people who are involved in the selling of liquor, to prevent further criminal activity in that regard.

In the past 10 years, as I have said, we have seen an increase in drug-facilitated rape, both in New Zealand and overseas. The increasing popularity and accessibility of the Internet has facilitated the spread of information about the drugs commonly associated with drug rape. As a result, would-be perpetrators are gaining more information about drugs and about how to commit these crimes. Drug rape is a crime that is very hard to legislate against, and it is very difficult to prove. As we know, most rapes do not have witnesses. Drugs leave a person’s system very quickly, and the victims themselves are often unsure of the exact events, due to the effects of the drugs. However, it is hoped that by amending the current legislation some improvement may be made in order to protect victims and punish perpetrators. As I have mentioned, statistics on drug rape have escalated in recent years, both in New Zealand and overseas, as has the publicity about drug rape. Statistics, however, have often been difficult to obtain, due to the low level of reporting and the fact that few police departments specify the nature of rape when compiling statistics—New Zealand included.

There have also been relatively few convictions for drug rape in New Zealand, though reported incidents of rape in Queenstown, Wellington, and Auckland have shown us that women were targeted in bars. The police are aware of groups of people who trade stories and photos of their attacks over the Internet. When the bill was lodged, there were no convictions for drug rape in New Zealand, and a recent court case in Wellington, R v Hooker, had failed to convict a man on rape charges. That case highlighted the evidential difficulties associated with prosecution for sexual violation in cases of alleged drug-facilitated rape. That does not send a strong message to would-be perpetrators nor foster a sense of security amongst women. While evidential difficulties may still arise in some cases, a specific statutory provision dealing with the issue of consent may assist prosecutions. A strong message needs to be sent that drug-facilitated rape, as with all instances of rape, is totally unacceptable and will be dealt with harshly.

The bill addresses the consent issue by stating that a person who is unable to resist because of an illegal anaesthetic or a hypnotic substance is unable to consent to sex. The bill also seeks to legislate against those who deliberately drug a person to have sex with him or her. Introducing this legislation will enable prosecutors to perform their jobs, and it will be an important step against drug rape. Legislation needs to take into account the specific factors of drug rape, such as the fact that the victim may be conscious but can still be unaware of the act or the nature of the act. We have seen pictures on television of people who have been drugged and who look OK, but who are actually unable to make decisions and are unaware of the acts they have had performed on them. The victim may be prevented from resisting due to the nature of the drug, and the fact that the victim did not fight off his or her attacker or specifically state his or her opposition to the act does not in itself constitute consent. Consent must be given knowingly and voluntarily, and the drugs used in drug-facilitated rape impair the victim’s ability to reason or to know the exact nature of the act. Another factor is the reasonableness of the accused’s belief as to consent, given the effect of drugs or other substances consumed by the victim, and the circumstances in which that consumption occurred, particularly when the drug was administered by the accused or was known by the accused to have been administered to the victim.

This members’ bill, as I have said, has been overtaken by the Government’s Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I suppose I should be pleased at that, as imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I believe, however, that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) is better worded than this bill, and I wish to thank the Minister of Justice and the drafters of the Government bill for the work they have put into it. As I have said, I want to thank certain individuals. I particularly thank those who have already appeared before the Law and Order Committee for sharing their stories with me and the other members of the committee. I thank the Drug Rape Trust. I want to mention Amelia Carter, a former intern from Victoria University of Wellington who did the research on the bill and helped to draft it.

I thank Detective Chief Inspector Peter Sturman of the London metropolitan police for his research and for coming to New Zealand to share it with us. I thank the New Zealand Police and the Minister of Police, George Hawkins for the work they have done on the prevention of drug rape, and particularly for the print and television advertising campaign warning young people about drug rape. I thank all those who have helped to get the bill to this stage, and, as I have said, particularly those who have shared their stories of drug rape, at great personal cost. I am sure members know that it is at great personal cost that people do that.

Once again, I thank the Minister of Justice. I thank my colleagues in the Labour caucus for promoting this bill. I also say a big thankyou to the people in the Labour Party who accepted this measure as a policy platform at the last election. They will be pleased to see that it has now come before the House and that it is to become law.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The National Party will support the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill through to a select committee. We will be happy to see it go to the Law and Order Committee, which is currently looking at the Government’s Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which deals with this very issue.

There are a few reservations about this change to the law that I as a former lawyer need to deal with. First, as I recall, the previous Government speaker spoke about the Hooker case in Wellington—an unsuccessful prosecution relating to an alleged drug rape case. I also recall a recent decision in the Sturm case in Auckland, which involved a drug rape of men by a man, where there was a very successful conviction, and subsequently a very long penalty was given. I am a little concerned that we may be passing—or looking at passing—a law that has already been dealt with in the Crimes Act, in terms of that particular rape case. I do not see how any person could be considered to be able to consent to sexual connection if he or she has been stupefied by drugs. Certainly, it will be something we will be looking at. Clearly, we are opposed to any sort of drug rape and crime of that sort, but in the select committee we would like to tease out the law and get some very good advice from the Ministry of Justice and associated bodies. I am sure they will be able to assist.

This bill has been brought about because the member in charge of it has noted, correctly, the party-drug culture out in the community that has unfortunately grown over the last few years and that has seen an escalation in the use of illegal drugs in this country. Often those drugs are manufactured under the auspices of criminal gangs, which sell them to teenagers on the basis that as the drug is non-alcohol they will not get picked up for drink-driving, it will not make them fat, because it is not alcohol, it is a fun thing, and it is only a little pill. Of course, what we are getting is an attitude, particularly amongst teenagers and other younger people, that such drugs are “only party drugs”. But party drugs can be extremely dangerous, and the member has correctly noted that.

An acquaintance of mine recently told me of an instance where she, a woman in her forties, felt she had been the victim of somebody putting such a drug in her drink. It was a drink of orange juice, and she was completely unable to detect any drug in it. It was only when she arrived back in New Zealand and discussed the symptoms with her doctor that it became apparent she had suffered the classic symptoms caused by an illegal drug that someone had put in her drink. Fortunately, there was no rape as a result of that. But it is quite clear that the problem is very prevalent, and we want to send out a message to people that it will not be accepted.

One of the concerns I have with any sort of law about drugs and drug testing is that at the moment there is a real backlog in the community of cases involving drugs—methamphetamines in particular, and other drugs in terms of testing. We see every now and again in the newspapers and in other media that some criminal cases that involve drugs wait up to 18 months to come to trial. Quite often, after that amount of time, prosecutions are abandoned for the reason that it is simply not fair to expect defendants to wait and wait, sometimes for years, to go to trial. One of the concerns I have when we make these sorts of laws is to look a little further than just at the law and make sure that the Government has the ability, the wherewithal, and the will to put in place the assistance of, for instance, scientists and others to do the testing. It is no good to put a law in place and then leave the police with none of the tools to deal with it. I understand that it is very difficult to test for some of these drugs, particularly within the time frames involved. I hope that at some stage that will not be a problem, and if people know that the testing can be done, and done quickly, then we might find that some more may come to our attention.

One of the concerns lawyers will have with this bill will be in relation to evidential concerns. That, of course, is something that should concern all people in New Zealand, and I am sure that the Law and Order Committee—and I note that my colleague Brian Connell is a member of that select committee—will look very carefully at that. It is very tempting, certainly in Parliament, to make laws to fit a particular offence or crime, when we always have to look at the principles and ask whether they will still be adequate in terms of all other offences. Will we, in fact, do a greater injustice to someone who could be alleged to have committed a crime just to be able to say that we have dealt with various groups of alleged criminals? It is extremely important in Parliament that we look at the role of the State in this, because the State is a huge and powerful body. I am greatly concerned that, no matter what we do, we do not give away individuals’ rights to defend themselves adequately against allegations, and that they should have the sorts of resources they need to do that.

I have found that a lot of people in the community are very interested in law and order and in tougher sentences being handed down, and I am one of them. However, some of those very people are often the very people who, when they have experienced their own children being collected by the police in an embarrassing situation, are the first to say to everyone they meet that the police were dreadful in their particular case. Certainly, that is the sort of situation that could very well happen if this bill goes to law, and no doubt the Crimes Amendment Act (No 2) covers it. Right-thinking, decent, ordinary New Zealanders might well find that a family member is accused under the law when they may well think that he or she is innocent. We need to understand that innocent people are occasionally—and fortunately it is occasionally—wrongly found guilty. That is why we make sure that whatever we do in relation to the laws of evidence and to offences like this, we do not throw out the principle along with everything else, and that is extremely important.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have 10 minutes?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have 2 more minutes.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It just feels like 10 minutes.

I really did like that very positive contribution from the Hon Ruth Dyson, who, of course, is always interested in making sure that innocent people are not wrongly accused of crimes and convicted. That is one of the concerns that the Law and Order Committee needs to look at, and I am sure that the New Zealand Law Society, hopefully, will give submissions on this. I know it is very easy to give a knee-jerk reaction. I have heard from people who have been the victims of this sort of crime. It is an absolutely dreadful crime, and I want to do something about it. At the end of the day, we have to understand that until people are convicted they are entitled to be treated as though they are innocent. We must always do that, no matter what. No matter how heinous or abhorrent the crime is, I plead that the Law and Order Committee does not go overboard and allow for innocent people to end up being convicted.

There are a range of issues before this Parliament, and obviously before the dinner break we had an issue that, if one likes, is an example of the litmus test of politics, of the so-called centre-left, centre-right divide in terms of the Holidays Act. This is an issue that clearly is entirely different in terms of parliamentarians, where there is a much greater sense of commonality and consensus.

Today the Law and Order Committee was in the process of hearing evidence on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Before I briefly talk about the public hearings we held today I will take the opportunity to warmly congratulate my good colleague from Hamilton East, Dianne Yates, on her work and initiative. An earlier speaker said that her bill will very much sit alongside the current legislation before our committee. I believe that the work she has done has been something of a catalyst. This is a very good example of how effective a member of Parliament can be, one has obviously done the work and has talked to a range of people—victims, and people who have expertise in this area—and has come up with a very good bill, which now, of course, has been superseded by a Government bill. Dianne Yates’ member’s bill will go alongside the Government bill and come to the Law and Order Committee.

Today we heard an excellent and very insightful submission from the New Zealand Drug Rape Trust. What it did, in public session, was give a briefing around the issues of drug rape. It then, as an interested organisation, made a specific submission to the select committee. I have to admit to members and to this Parliament that as chairman of the Law and Order Committee I was very mindful of the fact that we as representatives are but lay people, fundamentally, and we are required to get our minds around a huge range of issues.

But when one comes face to face with a submission such as this from the Drug Rape Trust, as happened today, one fully appreciates absolutely the significance and the extent of this problem, and for some of our young people the potentially fatal consequences. One cannot fail to be moved in the public session when one hears of a situation that I understand happened in Australia recently where someone’s bright, lovely young daughter went out for a night on the town and the next day, in the words used, “returned to her home in a pine box”. In her case the drug was fatal. One suddenly realises the dangers that are out there, particularly for our young people, and one has a sense of anger that adults should put people into this position. Dare I say it that in respect of bars, and certain pubs and clubs around this country even, one has a sense of anger as a parent, brother, sister, or whoever, that perhaps some of the owners of those establishments might turn a bit of a blind eye.

Again this issue is about community vigilance. I want to reflect a little bit on the work being done in Hamilton, and I think Dianne Yates certainly talked about the good work that the police are doing. I particularly want to pay tribute to our bar managers and bar owners in Hamilton, and also to the local police.

One of the other issues that the Drug Rape Trust emphasised in its public submission is that this is not just about a young person going out on the town and being incredibly vulnerable; this is a crime that affects a cross-section of people and a cross-section of ages. That again adds to the horror and fear we have about this social problem. The Law and Order Committee looks forward to considering this bill and doing its very best, and compliments Dianne Yates on her good work.

On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to rise and support the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill to the Law and Order Committee. This crime is despicable and it is happening throughout New Zealand in many environments. It is despicable because the assailant, with the use of a variety of drugs, prevents the victim from physically resisting or consenting to any connection. The drugs used can be intoxicating or illegal substances, or some sort of hypnotic drug. The assailants do not need to be worried about the victim’s screams, or needing to use physical force. The drugs they administer actually immobilise and silence the victim. These assailants deserve to be dealt with in the most severe way possible. This is a dreadful crime. I do not know what would be worse for the victim—being unable to forget or being unable to remember. Either way, the trauma experienced is absolutely horrific. There is no excuse for this.

These drug rapes are happening to men and women throughout New Zealand, and it is not just a big-city crime. It is happening everywhere. It is not happening just to young people either; although they are the principal targets. Statistics show that everyone is vulnerable to this type of attack. I accessed the Roofie Foundation website in Britain and saw that people over the age of 40 have also been targeted in bars, pubs, and clubs. An article in the Southland Times of August 2003 reported that 11 percent of the victims were male. So this crime can happen to anybody.

There have been many incidents of this crime in New Zealand towns. I contacted the police in the Waikato town of Huntly, and even they have had this crime reported. It is not a new crime but it is difficult to identify and difficult to prosecute successfully. Indeed, many cases go unreported because the victim does not seek help or even report the incident. As Judith Collins said, some victims do not remember until years later.

The police say that drug rape is probably not as uncommon as the official statistics tell us. We know the drugs are usually administered orally. The assailant spikes the drink of the victim, and it is not a myth, because these drugs are easy to administer and the victim is totally unaware, as the drugs are usually colourless and tasteless. It is a totally planned, premeditated crime. It does not happen just on the spur of the moment. These assailants have to plan their moves carefully. It can only be a total sleaze who carries out this type of crime. Such people deserve to have the full force of the law thrown at them; to be prosecuted by the justice system. But this crime is so difficult to prosecute. Worse, it is on the increase and it is happening not only in bars and clubs but in workplaces and at private parties—indeed, everywhere. Nobody knows how common this drug-facilitated rape is, because there is no way of measuring the number of incidents.

The fact is that in these cases time is the enemy, and that makes this crime doubly devious. When the victim recovers, or even remembers enough to make a complaint, and can then be tested, there can often be no trace of that drug left in the victim’s body. I was very pleased to read recently that a matchbox-size detection kit to test drinks for date-rape drugs is now on sale in Britain and is to be sold in New Zealand. This drink detective, which apparently tests for the three most commonly used drugs, will be marketed for female and male drinkers in bars and clubs. As far as I am aware, this kit has not yet gone on sale in New Zealand. It is a sad fact of modern life that a detection kit like this is needed.

I was interested, too, to read comments made last year by the Drug Rape Trust chairperson, Jenny Fenton. She said that the ease with which people could buy recreational drugs had boosted drug rape cases, and that she had seen a lot of middle-class men involved in this crime, because they had the money and easy access to the drugs. We need legislation that will enable prosecutors to work against drug rape. New Zealand First supports this legislation.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is my understanding from the Standing Orders, Appendix A, that these speeches are 10 minutes long.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

For the length of the debates that are an hour long the Business Committee has allocated the speaking times, as an agreement with all parties.

💬 Sue Bradford: So it is different, then?

It is different from what is in there.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is 5 minutes.

On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to thank Dianne Yates for introducing the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill to the House in July last year. I am sure Ms Yates’ bill, and she herself, have made a positive impact on the development of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Law and Order Committee is considering at the moment. I imagine that like everyone in the House I look forward to the day when measures to strengthen the ability of the courts to convict in drug rape cases are passed into law.

I realise that the Green Party, and particularly people like myself, are not usually in the camp of those calling for the strengthening of police and court powers. However, in situations like those dealt with by this bill, I feel strongly that the legislation must be changed to make sure that those who rape people through the use of premeditated application of drugs, do not escape conviction because of legal ambiguities.

From my own life and work experience, I am aware that historically many people have been subject to drug rape in this country, and it is a crime from which offenders have traditionally escaped scot-free. The people who have not escaped have been the many women and some men who have suffered as victims. Somehow society saw—and, in some cases, perhaps still sees—that if a woman or man is intoxicated and taken advantage of sexually, the victim is still to blame. And if the offender can get away with it, then it is good on them and no harm done.

Luckily, we have a Government for whom such primitive notions must be relegated to the dustbin of history. I am aware that already the court system and police have been starting to catch up as well, but have not been able to go anywhere near as far as they should have been. It is clear that we need to go a lot further in making sure that where someone does not consent to sex because they are unconscious, asleep, or grossly affected by alcohol or drugs, the perpetrator can still, and must, be held to account.

I must admit, however, that had this member’s bill been going forward in its original form I would have had some problems with it, as it did appear to deal only with the cases of people who were raped following their ingestion of drugs administered by someone else. I am therefore glad the expanded Government legislation appears to have been extended to include rape in any situation where people are unable reasonably to give their consent to any form of sexual connection.

It is way past the time that we as a society acknowledged the reality of what happens all too often in our pubs, clubs, and back rooms of our towns and cities, and what happens most particularly to our younger and more vulnerable citizens. I look forward to the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which has grown partially out of this bill. Once again, I thank Dianne Yates and all those around her for the role they have played in ensuring that this issue finally gets the parliamentary attention it deserves.

It often falls to the ACT party to disturb cosy consensus but, particularly following Ms Bradford’s confidence that there would be no dissent in the House, I will dissent. [Interruption] I am just making sure that the member feels we are fulfilling our role.

I am concerned about this bill, because it seems to me that if this were a matter the police had been drawing to the attention of the Government, or that the Courts had been drawing to the attention of the Government, or that the Government thought was serious, it would not be a member’s bill. It would be a Government bill before the House and the Government would not be using members’ time on a matter that so clearly needs more expertise. It may be that it is to be welcomed that this bill has spurred the Government into looking at this area. I am not prepared to express a view one way or another on prevalence.

I am conscious of relatively recent statements from Wellington police sources that the fear of drug rape might be exaggerated and that the actual established incidence might be lower than has been stated. I am very conscious, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, that the fear of some crimes goes in historical cycles. About 15 years ago, this House passed some very poor law in response to a panic about alleged child sexual abuse, which undermined the very long-evolved protections in the rules of evidence that sheltered people from evidence they simply could not combat.

As I look at the provisions in this bill, I am concerned there might at least be a risk of a similar phenomenon at the moment—that is, in the new offence proposed by new section 129B, to be inserted in the Crimes Act by clause 5 of this bill: “Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefies or renders unconscious any other person with the intent to commit sexual violation.” If members think back—or maybe for some the knowledge is still current—to the times at parties when they have set out to overcome the better judgment of other people present, they might agree there is a long, grey continuum between the act of stupefying or rendering unconscious and the normal process of pouring drinks into someone. While both actions may be reprehensible, and while it may be that we should not condone what is traditional social custom, we do undermine the law when a 10-year penalty is created for something as common as that. If the law gets out of step with the way people actually behave, people will consider themselves not to be criminal when they are. They essentially place responsibility on the person who is being stupefied to avoid it.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: That is not normal behaviour.

I am hearing objections from the Hon Marian Hobbs. I do not think that Marian Hobbs can have been to very many parties as a youngster, because it is absolutely the case that people pour drinks into others for the purpose of—

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I have never experienced that kind of behaviour.

She has never had that experience? Well, I say to Ms Hobbs that it is not her speech. If she wishes to make that point, she should take a call—as so rarely happens from Ministers on that side of the House. She should take a call and make a speech.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I will.

I do not notice others in the House agreeing with her—in fact, I see nods around the House—so Ms Hobbs may have had a sheltered upbringing. But the fact is that the very object of a lot of teenage drinking is to get wasted. If one talks to children, one finds that that is exactly what they do. While I do not condone that, I do not think a 10-year sentence, or putting into the law something that could result in a whole group of—probably—kids getting into a position where they are facing a 10-year sentence, does credit to the law.

I hope the select committee takes very careful cognisance of the potential for careless drafting in this area. In this case, it may not be the drafting that ultimately gets considered, because of the Government’s other steps. But I am puzzled, for example, by the suggestion that one could have a “lawful justification” to stupefy someone in order to commit rape. What possible lawful justification could there be—or does it even need to be done “wilfully”? It is hard to imagine.

I rise on behalf of United Future to address this member’s bill, the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill. On reading this bill, one cannot help agreeing—particularly having come from the Law and Order Committee today and having listened to some of the testimony from the Drug Rape Trust—that we desperately need to address this issue. We will not be supporting this bill however, but only because the Government’s bill supersedes and expands on it. There is no point in supporting this bill, which will only sit alongside the Government bill and occupy time that it need not. But that does not diminish for one iota the intent of this bill, and the fact that we support there being a rational debate on and exploration into what can be done about something as reprehensible as the drugging and stupefying of people, with the intent of committing rape or sexual connection.

When we consider just how disgusting and deplorable a crime like rape is on a person, I do not see that there is much difference between drugging people, stupefying them, or holding a knife to their throat. The end result is pretty much the same. But this is the ability to drug people to the point that they can have loss of memory, and loss of physical control, so that in many cases they cannot even remember that they were a victim until quite some time later. Some of the effects show—

💬 Stephen Franks: What’s the difference? Alcohol does this.

Alcohol can do that. That has equally to be looked at, as well. There is a combination of drugs and alcohol that can be used, and have been used. The testimony that we listened to today, for example, pointedly showed the diabolical depths to which some people will go to stupefy an individual for their own sexual pleasure, and, in a sense, to cover up the trail of their crime—often by disabling the victim from being able to recognise that a crime has been committed, until quite a long time afterwards. We heard testimony from a person, that the commission of another event actually drew back her memory of the first event. There were traces of drugs in her system to prove the point.

I think it is utterly despicable that people can get away with this, and that we have not addressed it properly in the past. We have the Government’s bill to look at, but we need to be very wary of how it is phrased, because there are a lot of fishhooks in it at this stage. We hope that with some amendments, and with a possible Supplementary Order Paper down the track, it will be good, workable legislation.

United Future is not saying it will not support the intent of the bill; simply that, in light of the fact that the Government’s own bill supersedes it, there is absolutely no point in pursuing this particular legislative vehicle.

I would like to begin by giving a very strong commendation for the work of my friend and colleague Dianne Yates from Waikato, who has spent many hours preparing this legislation, and who has also worked to ensure that the wider community is onside with it. She has had very strong support from the police and other organisations for the introduction of this bill. I was a bit disappointed to hear the contribution of Mr Alexander, who has just resumed his seat, because I assumed that this bill would receive support from United Future to go to the select committee. Perhaps United Future might reconsider before the time comes for a vote. Even though it is clear that the recently introduced Government legislation supersedes this bill in some areas, from my point of view, this is in the same way as much other legislation.

One of the most important things we can do as a Parliament is send a very strong and clear message to the public of New Zealand—to the citizens whom we are elected to represent—that drug rape, like all other instances of rape, is totally unacceptable to every member of this House. It was a real pleasure for me to hear Judith Collins from the National Party, Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First, and Sue Bradford from the Greens stand up and say that.

💬 Stephen Franks: Empty words! Why doesn’t the Government keep them in prison?

Why Stephen Franks does not say that is, frankly, beyond me. Why ACT does not want to send a message saying that rape is unacceptable is a puzzle. I urge Marc Alexander—because I know that his heart is with this, and his head, as well—to reconsider, so that we can be more united, and can send a very strong message to the public that, party politics aside, we all agree, with the exception of ACT, on the intent of this bill.

The other important point to remember, in recognising the work of a member on the introduction of a member’s bill, is that sometimes the member has worked in a way that shows more community support and understanding of an issue in that bill than on a bill that has been prepared through ordinary Government processes. I am sure that the people who have worked so hard with Dianne Yates will be very proud to see their work being recognised and considered by the select committee, as well. It seems to be an opportunity for the select committee to focus in particular on what is fortunately a new, and I hope very temporary, issue in New Zealand society. Barbara Stewart alluded to the fact that drug rape is now an international occurrence. It beggars belief, does it not, that two decades ago we would not have been discussing this at all in the House. It is an opportunity for the committee to focus on a more narrow issue, with more concentration—and, again, reinforce our rejection of drug-facilitated rape—than would be possible if we looked only at the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). I am delighted that the Government picked up the intention of this member’s bill, because at the time of the introduction of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) we were not at all sure for how long members’ bills would be debated, and whether this bill would get to the Order Paper in time.

I wish I was on the select committee, because I think that it will hear some very interesting submissions, and will develop some law that will probably put us at the forefront of international legislation, and offer far more protection primarily to women, but to men as well, in these vulnerable situations. As I said, I am very pleased that this bill has such widespread support across the House. I urge its speedy and thorough consideration by the select committee, and I commend its progress.

Unlike some legislation that has come into the House over recent months, I believe that this legislation is very worthy. Like previous speakers, I also would like to recognise and commend Dianne Yates for the work she has done in bringing this legislation to the House in this shape.

I want to start by debunking a myth that date rape is in some way something special. It is just another form of rape. I learnt something today that shocked me. Seventy percent of these types of drug rapes are not done by strangers, but by people who are known to their victims. In my view, that is extremely alarming. Men who engage in this type of drug rape are vicious criminals. They are serial rapists, and, unfortunately, for every person that our justice system brings to book, there are probably many people who have gone undetected, simply because this type of crime is easy to perpetrate. The drug is easy to administer by sleight of hand and is hard to trace in the body. It is becoming a significant issue.

I had the opportunity—as I know that other members in the House did—to listen to some amazing people today at the Law and Order Committee. I want it on record that I was deeply touched by some of those individuals. They were strong, courageous people with equally strong families, and they were victims of this type of crime. They wanted to talk about their plight, and why it is just so difficult to deal with. They told us in some detail why it is hard to prove, and of the impact on their families and relationships.

I am sure I was not alone in immediately thinking about my own children, and about how I would need to act to protect their best interests as they start to engage in social activities. My daughter is 14, and my son is approaching 16 years of age, and I now believe that they are very vulnerable. Anything we can do to tighten up this legislation will get my strong support.

One thing that hit me very hard today, listening to these people talk, was that they felt, in the early days in particular, that they were not well supported by the judiciary and the police. They stressed that that is changing, but it is an issue in their minds. One submitter talked to us about how she was unable to prove her prosecution, simply because she could not prove that she did not consent. This is the real issue of this legislation. These drugs render people unable to object. We must make sure that we frame legislation that gives those people the protection in law they deserve.

I raise one concern, and that is the “drunk and regret syndrome”. Having a lot of drinks and falling into bed with someone, then waking up the next morning and regretting it is not an excuse—

💬 Rodney Hide: A National Party party!

I say to Mr Hide that that is not an excuse to invoke this legislation. We must be very careful as we frame this legislation that that does not happen.

I will go back to the issue that I raised earlier that the people who perpetrate these acts are vicious criminals. The people who spoke to us today also talked about the appalling injuries they had received whilst being rendered unconscious or unable to object. They talked about broken arms, head injuries—

💬 John Carter: Really?

Absolutely—and also about sexually transmitted diseases. Women who are good citizens had to go through the embarrassment of presenting themselves to sexual health clinics. We need to do more to protect our women from this type of activity, and as a member of the Law and Order Committee I am very determined to make sure that we frame legislation that allows that to happen.

So I go back to where I began in congratulating Dianne Yates on having the courage and the determination to bring this legislation to the House. I hear what some of the other members have said about their reservations. As a member of the Law and Order Committee, I will be mindful of what they have told us, but the thrust of this legislation has my very strong support.

I rise to commend my colleague, Dianne Yates, not only for presenting this bill to the House, but also for the work that has gone on beforehand. My other colleague, Ruth Dyson, made the comment that to make a bill effective in the House, particularly when it is a private member’s bill, an extraordinary amount of community work must be done to network with people—not only with the police, the community, and social work agencies, but with MPs from all around the House. Dianne Yates has done that.

As a parent, I have been very concerned about this notion of drug rape for some time. My poor, blessed daughter barely goes out the door than—about every 3 months—I am asking her not what bars she goes to, but what she does when she gets up to dance, or to go to the loo, and where she leaves the alcohol behind afterwards. I ask all of those sorts of questions because I am really concerned about this issue.

What I have become very aware of is that this is not just a teenage female issue. First of all, this can happen to young men, and also to older women. I think it is a popular assumption that we will put the problem in wee boxes and say that it is for the wee partygoers going out and having their fun. It is a bit like the myth about “stranger danger”—it is something that goes right through our communities.

In a past life, I can remember when conferences were things that happened once a year. They were highly exciting, and the adrenalin was up. Now conferences occur once a week in God knows how many places, and the adrenalin is not quite so high when one addresses them. But when it was really exciting to go to Palmerston North—sorry Palmerston North—for a conference with colleagues, one could be carried away with the friendship. What I became aware of today is that conferences attended by middle-aged, professional people are equally places where someone can suffer from having his or her drink spiked by someone who has always had a bit of a crush on that person and decides to move at that particular moment. That is a very sobering thought. It takes the issue well away from teenagers drinking in bars and really livens it up.

The issue that was brought to us today was the problem of consent. I recognise that this is something that will really have to be teased out in the select committee. It is the issue of people being in situations where they do not know what has happened to them because they have been drugged or their drinks spiked. They do not know whether consent has been given or not. They are not in a position to actually give that consent.

I thought I heard the ACT member say very clearly that there was a danger of a grey area. What worried me about what that member was saying was that he seemed to assume that it was normal behaviour for a person to offer someone enough drinks that he or she would think that that person was a pretty good sort of guy and would end up going to bed with him. I think there has to be an absolute end to that sort of culture, and that is what I was reacting to. I do not mind going to bed with—well, excuse me—

💬 Rodney Hide: What about the poor guy?

That is exactly right. I do not mind people choosing to go to bed with someone, but they should do it honestly, not because they have been persuaded by drink—on a grey line or otherwise. That is what concerned me, because for too long in our culture it has not been the actual persuasion of: “I’m a really interesting person, I like you and I love you.”, it has been: “I’m a really interesting person, but I really haven’t got the courage to do this to you, so I’ll get you drunk.” That is the kind of culture that leads to people using drugs as a means of securing their particular ends.

The other thing I became aware of today is that this problem results not only in rape, but also in other long-term physical damage that has nothing to do with actual rape. People are being left, as I think my colleague across the floor said, with broken limbs, or effects on their memory, or neurological damage, because of the kinds of drugs used—drugs that one would never have chosen to take in one’s life. I think that is equally important when we consider this issue.

The “no-one believes me” syndrome is an absolutely heart-rending thing, and it reminds me very much of young children. Again I think back to the speech made by the ACT member. For too many young people it has always been that no one has believed them when they have complained about child abuse. Here we have a similar situation, whereby people who have had their drink or food spiked have woken up and found that no one believes them. That is not good enough, and I therefore support this bill and my colleague’s excellent work.

I thank the members of the House who have spoken in support of my bill, and those parties who are supporting the bill—particularly those members who have been on the Law and Order Committee and who have heard from the victims. Some of the victims of drug rape who appeared before the public hearings of the select committee are the people who have been very strongly lobbying, and who originally came to me advocating for a change in the law. They are people who have been through the courts. They are people who have seen what has happened when they are not believed in what is often a witness-less crime. They are people who did not get to the police and doctors in time to ascertain that the drugs were still in their system. They are people whose lives have been dramatically affected, as Marian Hobbs has said, and who have been affected for life. Their relationships since have been affected by their traumatic experiences with drug rape.

I admit that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) has superseded this bill, and I have already said in my introductory speech that I prefer the wording of the new bill. I thank those people in the office of the Minister of Justice and at the Ministry of Justice, and the Minister of Justice for the work they have done on the bill. They have more resources and more time, and I believe they have come up with better wording. I remind Mr Franks that the word “stupefy” is not in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I ask him to refer to that bill. A much more comprehensive definition of consent is in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). The two major points are there, however. It includes proper definitions of consent that are clear and will be clear in the courts, and, secondly, it also makes clear that to disable or stupefy—or whatever word we use—someone for the sake of sex is not approved by society and not approved in our law.

To the United Future members I say that I seek their party’s support for this bill to go to the select committee. I am asking that it be heard, and I say to the United Future party that I cannot see how anyone would be pro-rape, and therefore could possibly vote against this bill and the considerations that would be made when both bills were before the Law and Order Committee.

I would also point out that it is not necessarily—as people have said—just young women or young men who are involved. The police assure me it is often men and women who are a little older who come back into the dating scene and the pub culture, after having been in a stable relationship, who are the most vulnerable and the most trusting, and the ones who are the most likely to be victims of what is quite often a crime of professional people. They are the people who are most likely to be victims of that crime.

As I have said, I am looking forward to further consideration of this bill and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Law and Order Committee. I thank, once again, my Labour colleagues, and members across the floor of the House generally, for their support on this bill, and, once again, I thank those very brave women who have allowed their stories to be heard in public. It is not an easy thing, as members of the select committee have already said, to appear before a select committee and talk about rape of oneself. It is a very brave thing to do. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2).