McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Just an opportunity to take a brief call on the Crimes Amendment Bill. One of the things that I kind of like in this place—I'm a bit unusual because I'm not someone who loves to make more legislation but I'm quite excited about getting rid of a bit that's no use. And I think that's the thing that appeals to me about this bill—well there's another thing that appeals to me about this bill but that's one of the things that really does appeal to me about this bill.I listened to the debate led by Nick Smith actually earlier on on the year and a day rule and then the previous speaker Dr Duncan Webb just referred to the exact same point. It will be an interesting debate during the committee stage to just see where that lands or where some of the commentary on that lands because I have a bit of difficulty myself with being found guilty of something that I wasn't guilty of at the time I wasn't guilty of it and I think that that's going to be an interesting discussion as we go through it. But you can see that the law really is a bit of an ass and particularly in the modern day and age with medical science being where it is and the fact that we can whether we like it or not be kept alive even against our will for considerable periods of time.And so whilst there's that aspect to it there's also the aspect to it of things that we built and did in a bygone time really and they then fall down as a result of a modern event. There's a great argument as to whether that is a criminal offence or not as to whether it should be included in this kind of bill. So I think that debate will be really interesting as we go along.The other thing that kind of intrigues me is the blasphemous libel thing. There was a time of course when New Zealand was made up of a few Presbyterians a few Catholics a lot of Anglicans and one or two atheists and it was pretty simple in those days—the atheists weren't allowed to be miserable about the rest of us and that's how it worked. But nowadays of course our society's hugely diverse and so what was thought of as blasphemous libel I suppose 150 years ago really anyone could take offence at that sort of thing nowadays but we are such a diverse society and such a diverse community that the way we deal with those sorts of things—I think it comes down to a lot of things in life—really results in mutual respect basically. So I don't mind what anyone else wants to do as long as they don't want me to do it for them or with them and I think that's the kind of issue that we're dealing with—that blasphemous libel thing. And I think to get rid of it is absolutely appropriate.The other thing that I think is an ass—and we've seen a number of examples of this in recent times too—is where people are protected against prosecution because of their association with the guilty party. There's no question in my mind that that's a law that no longer should exist. And again that's because society has changed dramatically even in our lifetime—it's certainly changed dramatically in the last hundred-odd years. So getting rid of that I think is an appropriate use of this bill as well.I think those people who have done the work on this bill should be congratulated. It does tidy up a few things that are untidy and two of them have interestingly been quite topical in the last few years in debates in this House; so to tidy that up I think is really good. I think it keeps the statute book up to date; it's pretty positive.The only other thing I just want to very briefly touch on with the Minister—I want to congratulate him on his great taste in bringing a very good Supplementary Order Paper to the House which no doubt will be dealt with during the course of the committee stage and I want to thank him for that. Thank you Mr Speaker.