Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take a call on this Crimes Amendment Bill. I'd like to commend the Minister of Justice the Hon Andrew Little for bringing this bill to the House. We brought this bill to the House something the other side failed to do. I certainly appreciate your excellent speech; I think you covered the sections really well.It is my pleasure to stand and take a call to clean up this legislation. It's outdated it's inappropriate and it's irrelevant to today's society. I'll quote Martin Luther King here and I will read this: Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become … dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress." These three sections of the Crimes Act block the flow of social progress. We've heard today that the bill repeals three provisions of the Crimes Act: section 71(2) spouse or civil union immunity for prosecution after accessory after the fact; section 123 Blasphemous libel; and section 162 the year and a day rule.The member Louise Upston congratulated me on having my member's bill picked up by the Government—this was the repeal of blasphemous libel. Thank you ma'am for those kind words. However it makes complete sense that this bill was withdrawn to be collapsed into what we have tonight. This saves the valuable resources of our Government and this House. The former Government actually had the opportunity last year to remove this section from the Crimes Act in a Supplementary Order Paper in the statutes repeal bill last year and actually the Opposition—the then Government of the time—decided that they would not do so despite the fact that as the member has stated the Rt Hon Bill English actually supported the repeal of this as a very strong Catholic that this part of the principal Act needed to go.Now all of these sections are really outdated sections of the Crimes Act; they're well past their use-by date—no one disagrees with this. To maintain public confidence in the law the criminal code should be relevant to modern-day society. The law must be upheld and issues must not be unaddressed due to historical anomalies. We here in the Government believe that our country's laws should be current; they should be relevant and meaningful. These three sections require repeal because they are clearly not that.It's important to note as well that in repealing these provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 section 71(2) and section 162 will not be applied retrospectively. That means the law as it exists today and as these parts of the Act are repealed will actually mean going forward we are safer. So those who wouldn't be breaking the law today will not be retrospectively prosecuted. So we're forward focused.I'm going to talk very briefly on the year and a day rule. The year and a day rule provides that no one is liable for the killing of another person unless the death takes place within a year and a day after the cause of death. We all know now that modern technology actually means that people live with medical intervention much longer than a year and a day. We need to actually focus on what is relevant now. This isn't relevant now. People are able to live a lot longer after a crime has been committed against them and it's important that we as a society recognise that those people like we have heard tonight who have been king-hit or injured are able to actually have justice served even though they may pass away a year and a day later.I'm not really going to talk any more about that. I'm actually very excited to talk about blasphemous libel and I thank the member Chris Bishop for his excitement tonight around the repeal of this. Who knew—who knew—that there was someone else who shared my excitement of repealing this? Ha ha!Chris Bishop: Oh there's many of us. Seen Paul?ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh whatever. Ha ha! Section 123 of the Crimes Act covers blasphemous libel and we've all said it tonight: it is perhaps the least-used section of the Crimes Act that we have. It is simply no longer relevant to our country. We've all heard its origins date back hundreds of years and of interest we have no definition of blasphemous libel in the Crimes Act. Now that means that we have to look to the common law or for those who don't know what that is—Matt King—case law.Matt King: Guilty.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha ha! So we have to look to the case law. Now we last had a case in 1922; this means the case law is very very slim. I have taken the opportunity to look up what blasphemous libel is and it is defined as—and there is a difference between blasphemy and blasphemous libel. This is the definition: blasphemous libel involves written publication of contemptuous reviling scurrilous and/or ludicrous matters relating to the Christian faith. Now here we come to the part which actually makes this much more irrelevant today. We are a country of many faiths. We are a country where we have the right to freedom of speech. So blasphemous libel actually only includes the Christian faith we believe currently because there is no case law on this to broaden the definition or make it wider. We do not know specifically right now what blasphemous libel may mean or might have meant because we've had no cases around this.The other concern is whether section 123 is also compatible with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act enshrines the right of freedom of speech which includes all information and opinion no matter how unpopular distasteful or offensive those ideas might be. We have that enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.I also note that section 123 may only include or encompass the Christian faith as I've stated which means that internationally we may be in breach of international obligations. It also gives us the chance to be discriminated against on the basis of religion.I'm really pleased to see blasphemous libel actually be repealed and I hope that the conversations and the discussions at select committee are robust and thorough and that everyone has the opportunity to discuss this matter and to understand the difference between blasphemy and blasphemous libel. It is a fundamental difference and completely changes the meaning of what people believe blasphemy to be.So finally section 71(2) spouse or civil union immunity: I would just like to say that when we're looking at protecting people I think it's really important that we remember that de facto partners aren't included in this so again it's discriminatory. It is important that we remove this protection so that everyone is equal under the law but I certainly welcome the conversation that will occur around coercion of partners. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House."