Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and congratulate both the justice Minister and the Justice Committee for bringing this to the House but also for unanimously supporting all the much-needed updating of our criminal justice system and the Crimes Act that this bill represents.I will begin with the first of the three key aspects of this bill because I think it's probably the most shocking to most laypersons and New Zealanders out there which is the year and a day rule which we are repealing through this bill. It is a rule that precludes prosecutions being brought for deaths if a prosecution is being brought after a year and a day of the act that caused that death. It does seem incredibly arbitrary but more than that it's just so short.Now ordinarily statutes of limitation for prosecution in the criminal justice system exist because we recognise that unfairness arises if too long has passed since the act alleging the cause of death has occurred—memories fade witnesses pass away and evidence is difficult to find in defence against charges. So that is something that our criminal justice system rightly recognises and natural justice does require that prosecution is brought within a reasonable time for fairness to occur but a year and a day in the age of DNA evidence—and of course as most who have risen in support of this bill thus far have pointed out in terms of things like building code violations causing death which may cause deaths years later and investigations may take a long time—doesn't seem fair and doesn't seem very practical.I do want to mention the CTV case because this is a case that's fresh in most people's memories. One hundred and fifteen people died and I think most of us didn't quite realise when that great tragedy occurred—the Christchurch earthquake—that most of the victims who died in this one building had in fact died as a result of negligence by those who had built the building who had chosen profit over safety. The police investigation rightly was done with great care. It took three years. There was a commission of inquiry and in a very rare finding the police said that negligence—criminal negligence—was very clearly made by their investigations but that criminal charges were not brought because of legal advice based largely on this rule. That was an opportunity lost. Justice was lost for those victims and the families of the victims and something else was lost which is that it could have been a very important precedent case for corporate liability in a real sense—not just fines but the actual architects of this building the corporation who decided to take those risks could be individually held criminally liable. So the true ambit of their wrongdoing could be captured not just through a fine or a civil case that can be curtailed through bankruptcy—companies do declare bankruptcy when they're being held liable for things like this or even if they pay it's the company who pays. So it would have been an important moment where we say Actually you can't put profit before human lives." and that was stopped because of this rule—a very arbitrary limitation that we are getting rid of through this bill.Next I will turn to another arbitrary rule that we are amending or repealing and moving forward from which is the immunity of spouses civil partners or spouses through marriage from prosecution which seems strange given that we have "accessory after the fact" rules and that perverting the course of justice is a crime. Those types of crimes are almost always committed by people in a very close relationship familial or otherwise with the principal party. So it seems a bit weird to say that the closest relationships are excluded from liability and we're getting rid of that because it is an arbitrary rule and it does curtail most of those accessory-type crimes where we are talking about perversion of the course of justice.Thirdly the final aspect that I'll address is something that the Green Party very much welcomes which is that we're repealing the law against blasphemous libel. I do want to acknowledge my colleague and friend Angie Warren-Clark from the Labour Party who brought a member's bill to this effect that's been carried over through this Government bill and looks set to pass unanimously in this House. This is a much-needed updating of our law and it reflects New Zealand's commitment to be a secular society committed to freedom of religion and freedom from religion which I was very happy to find as the Minister has pointed out as well was supported by submitters who included a minister of religion who I think called the law antiquated. That is something that should be reflected. As others have pointed out of course freedom of speech wins through this particular repeal but of course that always does have to be measured and balanced against the kinds of exercises of that right which actually in fact undermine and attack religious freedom too. So it's always a balancing exercise and we're not saying that any right is absolute when it in fact undermines or threatens others' rights and we certainly would want to protect religious communities from that kind of attack guised as the exercise of free speech. But in this particular example we are moving toward representation of our secularism and our commitment to human rights which is also supported by the submission made by the Human Rights Commission who called for this change to be made.So I am very happy to have risen in support of this bill and the updating of our criminal justice system. I congratulate everyone on that committee and of course the Minister."