Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. We are debating a rather unusual range of amendments to the Crimes Act in Part 1 of this bill. There's the repeal of blasphemy which is actually an important step in the direction of enhancing free speech. We need to be able to differentiate between what is bad language which isn't appropriate and that which should be unlawful and a criminal offence.The bill also deals with the issue of an accessory after the fact and quite appropriately a repeal that allows a wife husband or a partner to be exempt of breaking the law around either hiding or assisting a person who has committed an offence. With the third provision which has been also through the select committee is the important issue around getting rid of the—I think it's 800 years old—800-year-old provision where death must be within a year and a day.Now the provision I'm particularly interested in and the committee does need to take some time this evening to debate is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 in Mr Little's name around the issue of stock rustling. And it is very unusual for Parliament to be asked to accept an amendment that has not gone through the select committee like the rest of the bill. It's on that issue that I have some questions for the Minister. Now I want to acknowledge as my colleagues have Ian McKelvie for this excellent amendment and for the sort of very grounded and sensible comments we had from my colleague Nathan Guy who is so connected and practical around the issues facing our rural communities.But I'm confused and let me explain why. The Minister of Justice has come in to this role almost repeatedly over the last 18 months saying that his agenda is to reduce the penalties that Parliament has for the last 20 years committed this awful business of continuously raising penalties. He's given very bold commitments that this Government is going to reduce by 30 percent the number of people in prison. And so I'm a bit—I know my colleague Simeon Brown has tried to move some quite sensible amendments around the issue of psychoactive substances and increasing the penalties for those things that do enormous harm. But here's the bit where the Government's justice policy is a bit of a shambles. Here we have the Minister of Justice introducing a bill that is going to increase the term of imprisonment for a person found guilty of stock rustling from two years to seven years and in respect of where they enter onto agricultural land with the intent of causing damage to buildings or property or livestock or machinery the person could be subject to up to 10 years.Now I'm actually with my colleagues Nathan Guy and my colleague Ian McKelvie that people in rural communities are vulnerable and we are on this side of the Chamber are a law and order party and that when people breach those laws I think those penalties are entirely appropriate. The part that I'm stunned by is that a Minister of Justice who said that he is going to spend his time reducing penalties for crime is backing us. And look I'm happy to win the arguments. We are the party that won the most votes at the last election. We're the biggest party in this Parliament. We love it when our policy is adopted. But I'd like the Minister in the chair I'd love the Minister in the chair to provide some explanation.Now my colleague Greg O'Connor who's on the justice select committee has been continuously arguing along with his Labour colleagues that their policy is one to stop increased penalties for such offences. So this is so out of step with the promises that the Labour Party has made with the very agenda that they've set at their justice summit with their constant criticism of us on this side of the Chamber that want to have appropriate penalties for crime. I think introducing an SOP in a committee stage where he's proposing to increase the term of imprisonment from two years to either seven years or 10 years requires some sensible explanation. And that's where I would invite the Minister in the chair to say how does this fit in with your broader justice policy and how does this fit in with your criticism of previous Governments that have increased penalties.