On 24th November 2009, I was proud to be a member of the New Zealand Parliament which voted to repeal the discriminatory and archaic defence of provocation. Almost unanimously, the House affirmed that New Zealand is no longer a country where we accept prejudice or anger as excuses for violence.

“Gay Panic Defence” was a shorthand label, not an accurate legal description. In reality it was one of the ways that the law of provocation operated. Provocation was a defence to murder contained in section 169 of the Crimes Act 1961. When pleaded successfully, it reduced a murder charge to a manslaughter conviction.

The defence was unacceptable, as it allowed the killers of gay victims to say that their violence was the “fault” of an unwanted advance. There is a big difference between saying “no” and killing a human being. The defence also denied fair processes, letting the accused to tell (or fabricate)  their side of the story, denigrating their victim, with no right of reply for that victim. In this way, the damage caused by the defence extended to victims outside of the LGBT community, too.

Many believed that the decision to repeal the partial defence was a knee-jerk reaction to the violent murders of Ron Brown in December 2007 and Sophie Elliot in January 2008. The sad reality however is that its abolition had been suggested prior to these tragedies. The Law Commission published an excellent report – The Partial Defence of Provocation – recommending its repeal made public on October 26th 2007. In 2009 my colleague Lianne Dalziel and I formulated a Member’s Bill that would do just that, and I was delighted when the Government effectively adopted this bill.

I was proud to sit on the Justice and Electoral Select Committee and hear a wide range of submissions, overwhelmingly in support of repeal. A few submitters opposed the bill, citing concerns that it would adversely affect mentally ill defendants and victims of family violence. The committee went on to recommend that the defence be repealed. The issues raised are addressed well in the Law Commission’s report, which I recommend as reading to anyone interested in provocation. I also deal with them in my speeches on the bill which can be found on this website. I would never vote for a law if I truly believed it would have unfair results for people who are already marginalised in our society.

It was disheartening that, although the bill was passed easily, it did not quite do so with the unanimous support of the House. I was disappointed that the ACT Party withdrew their support for the bill at the last minute, making the same arguments which had been so deftly disposed of by the Law Commission’s report and the vast majority of submitters to the Select Committee.

Nevertheless, all those who have pushed for change for so long should be congratulated. We have really achieved something. New Zealanders can be proud that our country has seen the end to such a discriminatory and archaic law.

You can read my speeches in Parliament on the second and third readings of the repealing legislation here and here.