Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I want to refer firstly to the removal of spousal and civil immunity from being unable to be found to have obstructed justice that would otherwise amount to being an accessory after the fact of an offence. I want to reflect that this is one of those anachronistic pieces of law that hasn't kept up with changing circumstance but to put it in a historical context.I was thinking about what the things are that have changed over the last century as we've tidied up these areas of law where there were some unusual rules particularly in the criminal law that used to confer special rights on spouses and latterly the equivalent civil union partners. It's not so long ago that spouses were not competent to give evidence against their spouse in a criminal prosecution. Even if they'd seen the criminal act and they thought it was a terrible thing they couldn't turn up in court and say I saw that happened—he did it." and be heard in court because they were not competent to give evidence. There was some reasoning behind that that asserted that to have it otherwise would somehow undermine the institution of marriage and undermine relationships because you shouldn't be able to tell on your partner even when they've committed a crime.Well that changed and spouses thereafter became in most jurisdictions competent to give evidence in a trial against their spouse but not compellable—so not compellable for the prosecution: competent for the prosecution but not compellable—and then it further changed so that they were both competent and compellable in respect of giving evidence for the defence. I'm not sure of the exact timing of those different events.The other one that came up on radio just a little while ago—it was just in 1967 that Sir Lloyd Geering was tried for heresy by the Presbyterian Church and found to be in doctrinal error for having asserted that the remains of Christ lie somewhere in Palestine and that the Church was in error in saying that resurrection meant resuscitation of Christ's body. The Church also didn't like the fact that Lloyd Geering then practising as a Presbyterian minister denied that God remains a supernatural being who oversees the world. The Presbyterian synod when it went to the next level up had the wisdom to dismiss the charges without trial. It is interesting that that's not that long ago. As people who were listening to the national programme a couple of weeks ago on the Kim Hill show on a Saturday—it was a fascinating interview with Sir Lloyd Geering at the age of 100 still smarter than anyone in this House I suspect. A very very clever man with all his marbles at 100 years—amazing. This is another example of where the law needs to move on and spousal or civil union immunity now needs to be removed in respect of the crime of being an accessory after the fact. The year and a day rule has already been covered by others. Can I thank the Minister of Justice for bringing this to the House. I think all of us saw the distress caused to the families of the people who died in the CTV Building at there being in the view of the Crown Solicitor—it wasn't possible for there to be a prosecution that would meet prosecutorial guidelines in part because of this year and a day rule. At the time the Minister of Justice spoke both publicly and to me saying that he was dissatisfied with the law and the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made the same comments and promised that we'd have a look at fixing it. So here we are less than six months into our term of Parliament having fixed this and making the law better.Again the historical context for this is that people if they were injured badly in an act that might be criminal they didn't live for a year. In the old days they couldn't be kept alive for a year. Nowadays you can be kept alive on a ventilator virtually forever if you're artificially fed. And sometimes you may in the hope that someone will regain consciousness from a coma and therefore they may die after a year and there's still evidence of criminality but the year and a day rule means that no charge can be laid. That law needs to change and is being repealed by this bill.The third area of change is to blasphemous libel and really the example that I gave in respect of Lloyd Geering and heresy fits even more appropriately to blasphemous libel than it did to the antiquated laws relating to a spouse being an accessory after the fact. I enjoyed the contribution of the Green member Golriz Ghahraman pointing out that—sorry that wasn't a literal expression; you're actually looking quite healthy ha ha; excuse me—and making reference to the fact that there are many places overseas where people are essentially tried and sometimes stoned to death for criticising the Church or the Gods that are recognised in those other countries. I think it's timely that that be removed and as my own colleague pointed out it's a piece of legislation that's in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the rights to freedom of expression including the right to criticise religion.Now that's not to say that we should be blind to other people's sensitivities when it comes to how we talk about other people's religion. We're not for one thing saying that you should be insulting about other people's beliefs or religion. I've always been happy in that regard to note that I can no more prove my atheism than other people can prove their faith and on that basis I'm happy to allow other people to have their faith in the same manner that I expect them to be able to respect my right to atheism. So whilst I have a different religious view to other people I think that I should be respectful in the way in which I talk about their faith because it's an important matter to them. I think one of the things that worries me as a consequence of the rise of social media is this rise of sort of hatred and vitriol in a way which is not subject to the normal societal constraints that you encounter if you're speaking to someone one on one. It's not subject to the old constraints where if that was done through the media you had a right of balance and standards being maintained by newspapers who had their own accountability mechanisms through the Press Council and the like; similarly for radio and TV. Social media seems a Wild West when it comes to inappropriate comments in a way that the world is still trying to grapple with. Although we shouldn't have the crime of blasphemous libel it is interesting that overseas countries from Indonesia to Germany are grappling with these issues as to how it is that you appropriately have some level of control of what happens on social media. I wonder if we've made a mistake in the world allowing those that make money out of social media the Facebooks the Googles the internet providers that carry the message to have no financial liability for the irresponsible things that happen on their platforms because I suspect that as a society that has been corrosive. Unlike the fourth estate which maintains scrutiny of the important institutions like Parliament in order to keep them clean and functioning social media is not working that way. Anyway I'm pleased to see the end of blasphemous libel.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice Committee."