Radio New Zealand - Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa

The "age of consent" panic

Comment by Tom Frewen

Sunday, 30 May, 2004

SFX: WHO'S RIGHT? THE MINISTER OR EVERY NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL IN THE COUNTRY TODAY?

There can be no doubt about answer to that question to Justice Minister Phil Goff from National's law and order spokesman, Tony Ryall, in the House on Tuesday.

The editorial writers that day had got almost everything wrong as they whipped themselves into a self-righteous frenzy over an issue that blew up out of nowhere and disappeared just as fast.

It began last Sunday, and if there was a Qantas prize for the worst story of the year it would surely go to the Sunday Star Times and its reporter Oskar Alley for his front page lead.

SEX AT AGE 12 OKAY UNDER LAW CHANGE. OUTRAGE AT PLANS TO LOWER AGE OF CONSENT.

SEX BETWEEN CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS 12 WILL BE ALLOWED UNDER A SHOCK LAW CHANGE, HORRIFYING TEEN PREGNANCY EXPERTS, EDUCATORS AND COUNSELLORS.

If journalists were the professionals some of them claim to be, they'd be struck off and sent to gaol for writing those words. They're not just wrong, they're the exact opposite of the truth.

The law change did not okay sex for twelve-year-olds; there are no plans to lower the age of consent; no-one was shocked at the proposed change, nor was anyone horrified by it. Before Oskar Alley and the Sunday Star-Times got hold of it, the proposed law change had attracted just the one critic.

Of the 22 submissions to Parliament's Law and Order Select Committee on the Crimes Amendment Bill Number 2, only four express an opinion on the proposed change which effectively confirms current practice of not prosecuting teenagers for having consensual sex when they're aged within two years of each other.

One of the 4 submissions, from Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care, actually recommends a more liberal approach - a wider age gap, of 3 to 4 years.

The other 3 are effectively from the one person, Elisabeth McDonald, a senior lecturer at Victoria University's law faculty in Wellington.

Its no coincidence that the wording of her submission is virtually identical to the one from the Women's Consultative Group of the New Zealand Law Society. And as she brought the proposed change to the attantion of the Wellington Independent Rape Crisis Inc, she is probably the reason why they included it in their submission.

On the Wednesday before last, Elisabeth McDonald left her law faculty office and crossed the road to present her own submission to the law and order select committee in Parliament Buildings.

Although she made passing reference to the change, there was no fuss and no mention in news reports which concentrated on another submission about incest.

As the amendment's chief and only critic, it was surprising that Oskar Alley failed to quote Elisabeth McDonald in his story. He didn't talk to her, or quote from her submission. Instead, he appears to have relied on one of the committee members.

NATIONAL MP TONY RYALL SAID THE NEW CLAUSE SHOULD BE SCRAPPED AND ACCUSED THE GOVERNMENT OF BEING OUT OF TOUCH.

Within a day and a half, on Three News, Mister Ryall was quick to take credit for putting that right.

SFX; IT'S ONLY BECAUSE THE NEWS MEDIA AND THE NATIONAL OPPOSITION HAVE TOLD NEW ZEALAND FAMILIES WHAT HELEN CLARK AND PHIL GOFF WERE PROPOSING, HAS THE GOVERNMENT CHANGED THEIR MIND.

But the news media and the National Opposition had been telling the public that the government planned to lower the age of consent. That's what got talkback going on Monday.

SFX: TALKBACK COLLAGE

From Monday's radio takback to Tuesday's newspaper editorials which, in varying degrees of hysteria, developed along three lines.

Theme one: The government was promoting teenage promiscuity.

DON'T ENCOURAGE YOUNG, FOOLISH SEX - THE DOMINION POST.

Theme two: The government was out of touch.

THIS WAS THE MOST STUPID PROPOSAL TO COME OUT OF THIS GOVERNMENT - IN FACT ANY GOVERNMENT - IN LIVING MEMORY - THE SOUTHLAND TIMES.

Theme three: The government was up to no good.

THE PUBLIC WAS TOLD NOTHING OF THIS CHANGE WHEN THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN DECEMBER - NEW ZEALAND HERALD.

Of all the many errors of fact in Tuesday's editorials, the Herald's is the worst. And it was repeated up and down the country by leader writers. Our most senior journalists, they swallowed the Sunday Star Times boast of having uncovered something that had been hidden. Had they practised what they constantly preach and done the most elementary check, they would have discovered that the information had been in the public arena for more than five months.

Had they read the bill, as it was introduced in December they would have found a warning about the change on page four.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO BALANCE THE NEED TO PROTECT CHILDREN PARTICULARLY FROM OLDER MEN AND AT THE SAME TIME TO ENSURE THAT TEENAGE SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT RESULT IN YOUNG PEOPLE BEING INVOLVED IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. TO BALANCE THESE TWO CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS, THE BILL INTRODUCES REVISED DEFENCE PROVISIONS IN REGARD TO SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH YOUNG PERSONS UNDER SIXTEEN.

More detail on page 12.

NEW SECTION 134A ... IT WILL BE A DEFENCE IF THE PERSON CHARGED IS OLDER THAN THE OTHER PERSON BY NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS.

That was in the bill as introduced on December the ninth. Reports on its contents, by Tracy Watkins of the Dominion Post and the New Zealand Press Association, led with the changes relating to sex between women and boys, reflecting a recent controversy over an affair between a Wellington swimming coach and one of her teenage pupils. The journalists were not alone in overlooking the new defence in Section 134A. It also escaped the notice of all the MPs who spoke in the bill's first reading debate. That was three months later, on March the 2nd, and despite a reference to the clause by cabinet minister, David Cunliffe.

THE BILL PROPOSES INSTEAD THAT IT BE A DEFENCE TO THE OFFENCE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A YOUNG PERSON UNDER 16, IF THE ACCUSED CAN PROVE THAT HE OR SHE IS OF OR UNDER THE AGE OF THE YOUNG PERSON, OR IS OLDER THAN THE YOUNG PERSON BY NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS, AND THE YOUNG PERSON CONSENTED.

Again, the proposed amendment went unremarked, both by the media and the MPs who took part in that first reading debate. Which is what you'd expect of a technical change in a fairly technical bill. Updating law written more than 40 years ago, one of its objects is to modernise the language, making it more gender neutral.

That's what's interesting about Elisabeth McDonald's submission. While endorsing " the Government's commitment to on-going refrom of sexual offences" , she admits that gender neutrality can have a downside for women in situations where they traditionally have less power.

She believes the new defence would remove a powerful reason for a young girl to say no. It would be better, she says, to keep it simple - no sex under 16. While the editorials shared that view, it was for another reason. That was that the new defence would encourage teenagers to risk breaking the law, knowing that they wouldn't wind up in court.

As well as revealing that they've clearly forgotten what it's like to be a teenager, the leader writers assuming that young people are better informed about the law than they were, before the Sunday Star- Times blew up an obscure change to it that would otherwise have remain hidden from view, from everybody including the media and teenagers.

Tuesday's newspaper editorials also echoed the Monday's talkback in their anti-government sentiment.

THE PUBLIC IS INTENSELY SUSPICIOUS THAT A SURFEIT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS BEING FOISTED UPON IT - THE CHRISTCHURCH PRESS.

Other leader writers scoffed at the Government's political judgment.

WHAT IS SURPRISING IS THAT CLAUSE WAS EVER IN THE BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE - THE DOMINION POST.

GOFF'S GAFFE OVER SEX LAW BEWILDERING - NEW ZEALAND HERALD.

THE SPEED OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BACKDOWN COMES AS NO SURPRISE - THE DOMINION POST.

After accusing the Government of being out of touch, some then accused it of being too reponsive to public opinion, among them The Otago Daily Times.

THE AMENDMENT, FAR FROM CONDONING OR 'LEGALISING' UNDER-AGE SEX WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCARD ANACHRONISTIC LAW AND SERIOUSLY ADDRESS TEENAGE SEXUAL HEALTH ISSUES THROUGH COMMUNITY DEBATE.

The ODT argued that the amendment could only improved by provision for greater access to health education.

INSTEAD, AN OBSOLETE AND ABSURD LAW WILL REMAIN ON THE STATUTES AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE HAS BEEN MISSED.

Also of this view was Lin dsay Perigo, Political Editor for Global News, in his regular Monday night comment on TV One's late news.

I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE IN HIS OR HER RIGHT MIND WOULD SERIOUSLY ARGUE THAT, LET'S SAY TWO 15-YEAR-OLDS WHO HAVE SEX SHOULD BE TREATED AS CRIMINALS, CHARGED, JAILED PERHAPS, AND ALL THIS WAS TRYING TO DO WAS PUT A REASONABLE DEFENCE IN THERE. bECAUSE AT THE MOMENT THE POLICE DO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO PROSECUTE IF THEY WANT TO. AND THEY STILL WOULD. BUT THIS WOULD BE A DEFENCE, YOU SEE, IF THE AGE GAP WAS LESS THAN 2 YEARS. THAT'S ALL IT WAS. tHE AGE OF CONSENT WASN'T GOING TO CHANGE. BUT THERE'S BEEN THIS ENORMOUS BROU-HA-HA. AND, OF COURSE, AS SOON AS YOU MENTION YOUNGSTERS AND SEX THERE'S ALLWAYS GOING TO BE AN OUTPOURING OF MORAL OUTRAGE. AND I HAVE TO SAY, SOME OF THE PEOPLE FROM WHOM I HEARD THAT OUTRAGE TODAY, AND THEY PRATTLE ON ABOUT FAMILIY VALUES, AND I KNOW THAT IN THEIR OWN LIVES THEY PAY NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER TO THOSE VALUES THAT THEY PONTIFICATE ABOUT. SO I THINK THE WHOLE THING HAS BEEN MOST UNEDIFYING AND THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS THAT WHAT WAS GOING TO BE A VERY SENSIBLE MOVE NOW WON'T TAKE PLACE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT'S JUST THROWN UP ITS HANDS AND SAID: "WELL, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T PROCEED WITH THIS."

Lindsay Perigo, with a keen nose for hyporcrisy which reached its height on Tuesday in the Dominion Post's editorial which, discussing the pressures already on young people, said

TEENAGERS HAVE SEXUAL IMAGERY CONSTANTLY THRUST UPON THEM. IN TELEVISION SHOWS, FILMS, MAGAZINES, ADVERTISING, MUSIC, BOOKS AND CLOTHING . . .

And newspapers. The Dominion Post is owned by the Australian Fairfax company which also owns the Sunday News which relies heavily sex and sleaze and the Sunday Star Times which distorted the facts last weekend in order to boost sales by putting sex on its front page.