Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member Chris Penk who has just resumed his seat for his contribution to this part of the debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill. Can I turn to the points that he made at the beginning of his contribution yesterday which related to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 which is the provision relating to livestock rustling and the penalties that are now introduced explicitly for that. I thank him for his support for that but I note the question that he posed about the phraseology in it and specifically the reference to livestock or any other animal". I understand that on its face there may be some confusion. Why talk about livestock? Why also talk about an animal when of course we know that livestock typically relates to animals?The term "livestock" typically relates to animals of a particular type or category—namely those from which the owner derives a commercial interest. And one can contrast for example the flock of sheep with the sheep dog. The flock of sheep clearly carries value and it is often sheep that are the subject of livestock rustling. But it would be wrong if the sheep were to be frankly nicked and taken off the property along with the sheep dog and this charge could apply to the sheep but not to the sheep dog. Or I might refer the member to the very tragic and brutal case of Spark—not the telecoms company but actually the miniature horse brutally stabbed 41 times earlier this week. It would be wrong if Spark rather than having been stabbed was stolen and taken off the property could not be the subject of a livestock rustling charge because it was an animal other than one from which commercial interest is derived. So I think there is a very good reason why the wording is as it is.I just want to acknowledge in relation to that SOP the origins of that because I know members will be concerned that it comes here as an SOP. It wasn't considered by the Justice Committee along with the rest of the bill but it was considered by the Primary Production Committee in an earlier guise under a member's bill advanced by Ian McKelvie when he sought to bring that along. As a result of collaboration between Mr McKelvie and Kieran McNulty and indeed in conjunction with myself in backroom discussions we were able to reach an agreement that we could bring it in with the concurrence of members opposite to this bill and make it part of I think a long overdue part of our criminal code.Frankly it beggars belief to me that in a country that pretty much since the inception of its European history has been dependent on its agrarian economy to sustain and survive we have not had an explicit charge of livestock rustling on our statute book. When you go to the Mackenzie Country—and you know the historical origins of the term the Mackenzie Country: it was an area of New Zealand built on sheep rustling and we have not had on our statute book a crime of livestock rustling. Well a historical step is about to be taken by this House and we will place the crime of livestock rustling where it ought properly to be which is in our criminal code. So that is very good.Can I comment briefly on some of the other aspects of Part 1? The repeal of section 71(2) of the Crimes Act provides a protection for spouses of somebody who has committed a crime and they have been protected or harboured by their spouse. That immunity from prosecution no longer exists. It comes from an old historical view about one's spouse—that two spouses were kind of one and the same thing and they were inseparable. That is not the reality of human life today and so it is right that if one's spouse commits a crime there is no immunity from prosecution for obstructing the course of justice from bringing the offending spouse to justice.In relation to blasphemous libel I think it has been said for some time—indeed the previous Government or a former Prime Minister the now Sir John Key said that this was a crime that ought to be deleted from our Crimes Act. It's taken a while to get there but that is now being done.Can I just take a moment to speak on the repeal of what is known as the year and the day rule? This has been a law that has been applied controversially in a couple of cases recently not the least of which was the fallout from the collapse of the CTV Building in the earthquakes in Canterbury. After considerable investigation and exploration of the legal niceties of it the police and the Crown Law Office got to the point where they considered that they could not mount a prosecution on the grounds at least in part of the application of the year and a day rule—that is to say section 162 of the Crimes Act.That law was put in place at a time when science did not allow for the continuation of life when somebody had been seriously injured or injured in a way that was expected to be fatal. Of course that is not the case any more and people can continue to thrive and to survive for some considerable time because of the intervention of medical science. So that provision has no real application today. I know it will be a matter for Part 2 but I do acknowledge that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has lodged an SOP that provides an amendment in relation to it. We will come to that debate except to say that I am totally and utterly horrified by that proposed amendment. We'll come to that debate in Part 2.I just want to say that that issue apart all of this should be uncontroversial. These are tidy-ups to the Crimes Act. I can tell the House that there is other work going on—a more extensive review of the Crimes Act. We need our Act both in language and in practice and in spirit to be reflective of the way life is led today and the way people conduct themselves and to have a criminal code that has the confidence of the people and that can be practically applied by our police force and any other enforcement agencies so that people do know that when they are offended against or when they are harmed whether it's physically or in other ways we have the means to bring justice for them and to bring those who have offended against them to account.So I look forward to the remaining debate but I think there will be a very important issue in relation to repealing section 162. It was debated thoroughly at the select committee but there is now an SOP that does require this House to get to grips with very serious constitutional issues and issues that have been canvassed in other legislation. But we will get to that in Part 2. Thank you Madam Chair."