Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Before we pass this bill, which appears likely, I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Goff, to explain whether I have been misinterpreting the peculiar clause 6, which inserts new section 98AA. I ask that because, although it is obviously well meaning to set a penalty of 14 years imprisonment for people who exploit others under the age of 18, remove their body parts, or force them to engage in forced labour, something is a serious offence when it carries a 14-year sentence. Schedule 1 puts it into the range of offences for which offenders can be extradited. Extradition is a serious matter because it submits a New Zealander to another country’s legal regime, where the range of protections may not be nearly as careful in terms of evidence.

When I read new section 98AA—and I do not find the committee’s commentary helpful on it—I need to know what is in place to ensure that a parent who obliges a child to help on the family farm, help in the family business, or even just to do chores cannot be at least threatened by that child with liability for the forced labour of someone aged under 18 years.

It is easy to say to not be ridiculous. It is easy to say that that is not what was meant. It is easy to say that no one would do that. But it is not true. People misuse law and use rules all the time for purposes that no one ever anticipated. We saw it in this Chamber last week when Dr Cullen misused Standing Order 38 and collapsed the House by disappearing. That was something that had never been thought of in 100 years in this Parliament.

Children will be taught their rights. Some nut will one day evolve a theory that it is wrong for kids to have to do chores around the house. There will be people, such as those who want to criminalise smacking, who will decide to use or misuse the Crimes Act and try to force the police, or someone else, to use the new section 98AA.

So I want to know before we pass the bill—and what we are considering now includes the commencement provision—just what the Minister will be able to do to ensure that those nutters do not get a chance to misuse the slogans that Mr Goff is sticking into our criminal law so that he can peacock at the United Nations. Because that is why this kind of thing goes into our law—so that the Government can parade about and say how virtuous it is. The committees in New York do not ask what kind of enforcement resource gets put in. No one in New York will be asking about the 1,000 cases that have not been allocated by the police. No one in New York will ask how soon people get out of jail when they have a 14-year sentence. Even if someone is convicted under this legislation, he or she will probably get out of prison in less than 5 years. But Mr Goff will be able to say that he did the UN’s bidding and stuck this stuff into New Zealand law. He can say: “Aren’t I a good boy pulling out this plum?”.

I want to know what will protect New Zealanders against someone also using Part 2 to argue the defence in new section 98AA(1)(a), which states that if a person kidnaps someone, imprisons them, takes their body parts, or forces them into labour, then as long as the victim is over 18, it is OK. I know that no one intends that, but who knows what use sloppy drafting will be put to. A Government that shoves through law in slogan form will one day cause damage.

I would like the Minister to read into the record of Hansard, so that judges can see it, at least what he thought this bill means in terms of the defence in new section 98AA(1)(a) and in terms of the sentence that could come from requiring children to do their chores. Judges look at what a Minister has said. If a Minister said that he or she never, ever intended something, it helps a judge to apply common sense, despite what the UN may be asking us to do.

I am glad that we have had this general debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill has a whole lot of political correctness in it and it changes time-honoured, time-explored, and time-developed definitions.

Frankly, I do not know whether the member’s questions merit a reply because they are so far wide of the mark. They are such a fantasy and so out of touch with reality, as any other member of this Chamber would see it, that perhaps I should not take them seriously, but I will.

These provisions are the provisions set out under the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Those provisions have been passed by the United States Congress, the Canadian Parliament, the Australian Parliament, and the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom. For the member to suggest what he is suggesting is, sadly, an absolute fantasy and a nonsense.

💬 Stephen Franks: Where is the “forced labour” definition?

The definition of “forced labour” that is applied by courts across the world is, obviously, labour used as a sanction or as a penalty. There is not a court in this country that would interpret it in the manner that the member is suggesting. He knows that. Frankly, he is wasting my time and the time of this Committee.