Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Crimes Amendment Bill and as deputy chair of the Justice Committee I was present for many of the submissions. Many of the points that the previous speaker Andrew Little has made are ones that I will touch on but perhaps give a different emphasis to. I think all of us on the Justice Committee were of the view that the work that we can do to amend laws that are out of date irrelevant and frankly can bring the law into a laughing stock are ones that we need to look at carefully listen to what people have to say and then in the sense of this bill bring together a number of laws whose time has passed.So when we look at the legislation which moves to remove those outdated parts of the Crimes Act I commend the current Minister and also the Hon Amy Adams—in the previous Government—who did a lot of work on this. A lot of work has to go into these things. There's a great deal of careful examination. You don't want to have unintended consequences and repeal outdated laws that actually prove to have some kind of purpose.So blasphemous libel was the one—out of all of the various submissions that we had—that certainly was the most colourful. I think we had 42 submissions on the bill and with the blasphemous libel—I think most of the submitters touched on it but it certainly formed the vast majority. No doubt about it there were very strongly held views—that life as we know it would cease to exist if it was possible to use hate speech against God. There were some very passionate exchanges really from people who believe that from a spirituality perspective if you like. But when you have a piece of legislation that hasn't actually been used since 1922—almost a century—it becomes apparent that New Zealand needs to join the ranks of other countries and get rid of it. So I'm delighted to see that it is in here and I think that the people who made their submissions were heard were listened to and I think as well some of their fears were allayed—let's put it that way because I think that there wasn't too much that was going to change and that was the fear that they came to the select committee to express. So we did hear that but none the less it doesn't need to be there any more.The spousal immunity is an interesting one. So in a more modern age—as we are now—who do we want to protect? There are a range of people who perhaps would have used that ability for spouses and civil union partners to be an accessory after the fact to an offence. So they were using this law to perhaps prevent something occurring to them. It would take longer than I want to take on this to explain it in more detail but this is one of those laws that I felt was a basic aspect of fairness—that this law did not apply to classes of people who are protecting someone in a close personal relationship. I remember the Kahui twins and that group of people who would not speak forward. They were taking I think an aspect of the law and using it. The essence of what this particular law repeal is doing is I think absolutely sound and modern and fair. It is not going to be retrospective either which I think is an important element. My friend and colleague Ian McKelvie has long been—I came in with him in the class of 2011. I think this is a topic of conversation that he's had for many years and for those of us who live in urban environments—and I acknowledge the presence of the member smiling now as he tries to win over someone from the city to understanding the terrible nature of what livestock rustling can do. I'm delighted that this has come through in the way of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and is being supported. The theft of livestock and other animals—I remember a case that Ian McKelvie regaled us with one night about a number of sheep that were squeezed into a Mini. You know there's just some outrageous cowboy-like activity. I don't know whether it ever got into the Guinness Book of Records but it was certainly a feat and I'd have to say very cruel on the animals of course. But one of the things that this law change will do is make the entry on to land an imprisonable offence and it's also going to be a very big wake-up call for people who think that they can continue to steal from others. I think $120 million a year is the estimated cost to farmers and to communities from this activity. So it's not just a bunch of kind of maverick young people who try and do things with sheep in a Mini. I was at Lincoln University; I can speak about all kinds of incidents around that stuff but I won't.Hon Tim Macindoe: Perhaps not tonight.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Perhaps not tonight. But I think you know really with the Mycoplasma bovis—the issues that we are confronted with now as a nation; you know we have fruit fly to contend with—as far as the cattle go it is a massive issue Mycoplasma bovis and this law will help prevent bad things happening and the unintended consequences of the infections being spread. So I think the call to take action needed to have some law change around it and I think this is a very suitable tool to assist farmers businesses police and others to do the work that they need to do and for people's safety as well in parts of rural New Zealand.Ian McKelvie also talked about the psychological effects from the stock thefts—that sense of powerlessness and the mistrust among locals and the general rift that it causes in some rural communities. So it's an important part of what we can do as legislators as part of this Parliament to reassure people in the rural areas and the victims of livestock rustling that there is another deterrent in place to discourage this type of crime. It does send that strong message to potential rustlers not to do it. The other aspects that we have looked at and that will be changing have also been touched on by others—and with some fire and brimstone last night in the House. The repeal of the year and a day rule and the SOP 192 which ultimately was not supported—but I think that it serves to draw attention to the need of a community to feel that people who do the wrong thing are not going to get off the hook because of the law enabling them to have a loophole. But that one has been discussed at some length and I don't know that it's useful for the House's time as we approach the six o'clock hour to go through that in more detail. So I think that as a general principle those of us who sit on the Justice Committee—it's a robust committee. A lot of discussion goes on. There are occasions when it's very hard to find agreement but on these measures and listening to well-informed submitters and excellent advice from officials whom I commend around this I think that we came to a very good place and I feel that the Crimes Amendment Bill is an excellent addition to the legislation that we have. By repealing and getting rid of obsolete anachronistic laws that no longer have any real relevance to people's lives it does the law a favour. It makes people aware that things that are wrong are put right things that are old and dusty and hiding away and never really used are cleared away from the statute book and I think that in the case of this bill it brings together some really good provisions that have been repealed—three of them in the Crimes Act 1961. So this is a piece of legislation that will I think be welcomed by the public of New Zealand. It is certainly welcomed and supported by us in the House including me and I commend this bill to the House.