This "under age sex" law does not get any better, despite the fact that the Government has now announced that the proposed change is to be withdrawn from the Bill.

One of the links I have is to Mediawatch, a NZ news and media analysis programme that I listen to frequently (right lads, there's your plug...:) )

On this morning's (Sunday 30 May ) programme the progression of this law change through the media was discussed. The analysis was not at all friendly, but rather than second guess I suggest that you read the transcript when (if) it is published on their site. BTW much of what they have said I agree with and included in my previous post, but that is beside the point for what follows.

In announcing the withdrawal of the proposed provision, Phil Goff gave ( for the very first time that I can recall ) a full and cogent explanation of what the new law was intended to achieve. A bit late in the day, Phil.

I still have a problem with it though, and it is a problem that no one has yet aired in public, at least not from my reading.



If the law had been passed as I understand its proposed form, it would have removed any criminality from sexual intercourse between children where one or both were under the age of 16 and over 12 provided that the age difference was 2 years or less. Given that would have been the law...

A 13 y-o gets pregnant to her 14 y-o "boyfriend" at a beach barbeque on New Years Eve. Under the new law there would be no criminal act involved.

But has anyone given thought to the reaction the parents might have when they find out their daughter is pregnant?

The original act might have been totally consensual and hence not a criminal act under the proposed law.

But do you honestly think that the girl's parents would accept that?

The result would be enormous parental pressure on the girl to say that the intercourse was not consensual.

Following from that, where do we go next?

Non-consensual sex at any age is rape. Is that what we want the 14 y-o boy to be charged with?

Apply the new law? That only removes criminality where the intercourse is consensual. We have the girl saying (under parental "guidance") that the act was not consensual. Do the police now have any discretion on the resulting charges (as they do at the moment with the "bad, incomplete) law?

Charge the girl with perjury and laying a false complaint if her evidence that the intercourse was not consensual is proven wrong?

So, the proposal also seems flawed at its very base, because far from removing potential criminality from consenting partners, it would have had the probability of leading one or both into criminal proceeding as bad if not far worse than the present "police discretion" which if the reports have been true seems to operate reasonably well.

At least the present law, with all its problems and the discretion left to Police without the guidance of law, has been working. There has been no complaint; no lengthy appeals; no emotional pleas of justice not done or injustice done; appearing in the media, to my knowledge.

So can I presume that it does work, even if it is a probligo of sorts?