Little AndrewCRIMES AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill serves two important purposes. First it ensures that the criminal law of New Zealand is kept up to date and reflects the values of the modern and diverse society that New Zealand is today. The bill does this by repealing three archaic laws from the Crimes Act. Secondly this bill now includes two new offences to address the scourge of livestock rustling and the related issue of unlawful entry on to agricultural land. These two new offences were added with the agreement of all parties represented in this House at the committee of the whole House stage for this legislation. At introduction and second reading of the bill I spoke about the repeals that this bill enacts as did other members. Those repeals have come under close scrutiny before the Justice Committee so because they've had that scrutiny I want to begin by talking about the livestock rustling provisions in the bill as it now stands. Federated Farmers has indicated that the theft of livestock is becoming more prevalent. It estimates the cost of this criminal activity to be in the order of $120 million a year. A Federated Farmers survey revealed that approximately one in four of their members have suffered stock theft in the past five years. This is clearly a serious incidence of crime which takes a toll on the livelihood and the quality of life of the farming community who make a huge contribution to the well-being of New Zealand and its economy. This coalition Government has decided to take action as a matter of priority to address the dreadful incidence of this crime. The new offences to be added to the Crimes Act by the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) now in the bill are theft of livestock or other animal which carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and additional and complementary offences proposed relating to unlawful entry to land used for agricultural purposes. It covers the situation where the offender intends to steal livestock or to act unlawfully against specified things such as buildings or machinery on that land. That offence carries a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the contribution of our colleague Ian McKelvie—when I say our colleague" the House's colleague Ian McKelvie—who highlighted the issue of livestock rustling last year in his member's bill. That bill was considered by the Primary Production Committee and it alerted all in this House to the problem and in a real sense provided the genesis to the reforms now contained in the bill before the House. Now while the Primary Production Committee did not recommend that Mr McKelvie's bill proceed it did recognise the nature and seriousness of the problem that the bill intended to address. That committee recommended an amendment to the Crimes Act to make livestock rustling a specific offence. It was then the work of Kieran McAnulty on this side of the House working with Ian McKelvie and in discussions with myself and with the cooperation of all members of this House that we were able to amend this bill through Supplementary Order Paper 185 and to now get on our statute book an explicit recognition of this crime which I think will be of great benefit to the rural community. I'm conscious that the New Zealand Law Society expressed some concern that the new offences hadn't been subject to the usual select committee and legislative process. I understand that concern but I disagree with it because the truth is that these provisions were given close scrutiny by the Primary Production Committee through consideration of Mr McKelvie's member's bill. I'm satisfied that the bill presents as it now stands an opportunity to expeditiously enact these much-needed new offences.Can I turn now to the repeal provisions in this bill. I'd like to once again acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee that they put in in carefully considering the submissions made on the repeal provisions of this bill. The repeals are relatively straightforward but they understandably generated a range of views from submitters and this was particularly so of all things with the provision in relation to blasphemous libel. An offence that hasn't been prosecuted for nearly a century which conflicts with freedom of expression and which almost certainly would never be prosecuted in the future serves no useful purpose in the criminal law of New Zealand.It undermines this country's ability to criticise other jurisdictions when appropriate for having blasphemy laws which result in persecution and injustice in those countries overseas. It's out of place with New Zealand's position as the bastion of human rights including recognising freedom of expression and religious tolerance for all faiths. It is telling that as this bill progressed through its legislative stages last year both Canada and Ireland repealed their blasphemy laws. This simply reflects that modern democracies see no place for such laws in their criminal codes or constitutions. I'm confident that New Zealand will be aligning ourselves with like-minded liberal democracies across the globe and improving the criminal law in this country by this repeal. I acknowledge that some who made submissions on this bill have genuinely held concerns about this repeal. I don't believe that repeal of the law will encourage hate speech incite violence or remove a protection for religious freedom.Can I now turn to the year and a day rule repeal. There is broad support in this House for this repeal although there has clearly been some disagreement about its scope. I was disappointed that the debate on this part of the bill descended into what I think was quite an unseemly affair when it went through the committee of the whole House stage. But as I noted in the second reading in any case even historic cases prosecution will not be barred if death occurred within a year and a day of the relevant act or omission and indeed it won't preclude prosecution of offences other than those related to a death. It might preclude manslaughter in some cases in the very rare cases where it might apply but it won't prevent prosecution for other types of offence.The effect of the repeal is that any person whose act or omission after the repeal date is responsible for death will never be able to rely on the rule to prevent prosecution. I understand the concern expressed by some that where the cause of death occurs many years possibly decades before the repeal date but death does not result until after the repeal date the rule may be relied on in a narrow range of cases. However we have to look at the principle and the rule around retrospectivity in criminal law. As I noted in the second reading where a person is liable to life imprisonment which is a possibility in relation to a prosecution or relating to a death it is very important that the retrospectivity principle applies as is laid out in the Crimes Act now and is also laid out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Dr Nick Smith says that it is not National's intent to apply the law retrospectively but that would have been the effect of his Supplementary Order Paper 192 had it been agreed to by the committee. If the date of death is the only date that matters as it would have been under Dr Smith's proposed change to the transitional provision in the bill the law will necessarily be retrospective in effect. It would have meant that a person who acquired the bar to prosecution by reason of a period greater than a year and a day elapsing between the cause of death and death perhaps decades ago would not have been able to rely on the law in force at the time. This is a clear example of retrospectively removing a prohibition on prosecution that existed before this repeal occurred. That's not a legislative reform or an indulgence that this Government is prepared to countenance.Can I just finally turn to the provision in relation to spousal immunity from prosecution which is the final area of repeal. Before I do that can I just make this point in relation to the year and a day rule: the Government is actively considering a corporate manslaughter law which was—in addition to the undertaking I made to the families of the CTV Building disaster victims I also undertook to consider that particular law.In relation to spousal immunity can I just say that I think all of the House agrees that the current law is an anachronism which protects certain people from criminal prosecution solely on the basis of their marital or civil union status. It's discriminatory in that it doesn't also extend to de facto and other close personal relationships but actually it's wrong because of the way it characterises relationships and the nature of spousal relationships. It is out of step with criminal law generally and no longer belongs on our statute book.As with other repeals in this bill the criminal law will be modernised and improved to reflect contemporary values. I commend this bill to the House."