The Crimes Amendment (No 2) Bill aims to eliminate some of the anomalies that have come to light in the nation's courtrooms over the past few years. Thus, for example, it will become illegal for women to have sex with under-age boys. Corrected will be an obvious, and unsustainable, quirk of gender in the present law. But remedying legal inconsistency is rarely so black and white in this area, and never will be in a matter so fraught as under-age sex. Pursuing such an agenda while paying no heed to society's mores and misgivings bestows no credit, even when bureaucratic zealots are the guilty party. And it becomes quite dumbfounding when echoed by a Minister of Justice who believes the public would tolerate a more permissive approach to sex between consenting children.
The legislation proposes to introduce a new defence that would enable an accused teenager to escape prosecution if sex - with a person aged between 12 and 16 - was consensual and the age gap between the two parties was no more than two years. This, according to the Ministry of Justice, would provide the police with a guideline, so the law could be applied more consistently. No longer would a very few cases of under-age sex be prosecuted and the vast majority be disregarded. It is a line that Phil Goff chose to embrace fully, at least initially - even though the police's use of their discretion means the problem is extremely minor.
This, in any event, is no way to deal with such inconsistency. Quite simply, the proposal could not escape being seen as an endorsement of sex between children as young as 12. To say that it would send the wrong message to children is a massive understatement. New Zealand, it hardly needs pointing out, has alarmingly high rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Children are already assailed by a barrage of images encouraging sexual activity at a young age. The last thing they need is for such a message to be legally condoned.
It is, in fact, going too far to say that the bill effectively decriminalises sexual conduct between 12- to 16-year-olds. The legal age of consent remains 16. Nonetheless, the nod in that direction represents a marked moral shift. This makes sense only to those who see decriminalisation as a means of containing behaviour that, although frowned upon by society, is relatively commonplace. The argument is facile. Recognition inevitably equates to endorsement, and to encouragement to partake in a practice.
Mr Goff has, of course, belatedly admitted the error of his ways. He said yesterday that the offending clause would be removed from the bill. This, however, was done with a certain petulance. "The way it's been interpreted it won't find public support, that's why it's being removed ... " he said. Mr Goff still seems to believe that the behaviour of a minority of under-age teenagers should be accommodated within the law; and that only the public's flawed interpretation is leaving the matter up to the discretion of the police.
In fact, Mr Goff's response smacked of the "we know best" attitude that has come to pervade this Government. The public was told nothing of this change when the bill was introduced in December. It could be that Mr Goff did not initially realise the implications of the clause relating to consenting sex between children. If so, he, and his Cabinet colleagues, are guilty of abject carelessness. Certainly, there can be no excuse for his defence of the clause once the cat was out of the bag.
Indeed, it is reasonable to ask whether the Government would have reacted differently to the outcry had it not, at much the same time, been visited by a One News-Colmar Brunton poll that put it 10 points behind the National Party. If common sense has prevailed, it is despite, rather than because of, the Justice Minister's inclination. The Government cannot continue to be so palpably out of touch.
<i>Editorial:</i> Goff's gaffe over sex law bewildering
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.