Little AndrewCRIMES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Before I come to the substantive measures of the bill I want to place on record my out-of-scope Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 which was introduced earlier today which addresses the scourge of livestock rustling which is hurting our rural communities. Subject to the deliberations of the committee of the whole House that SOP contains two new offences to be added to the Crimes Act. Those offences are theft of livestock or other animal carrying a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and secondly unlawful entry to land used for agricultural purposes where the offender intends to steal livestock or act unlawfully against unspecified things such as buildings machinery and the like that are on that land. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the Primary Production Committee and especially the National Party's Ian McKelvie and Labour's Kieran McAnulty for their work in putting this together and their bipartisan assistance so that that now may be considered as part of the Crimes Act. I know that will go a long way to meeting a lot of the concerns from the rural community. As the whips will be aware there'll be a procedural vote to bring that SOP into scope during the committee stage of the bill. I want to thank all parties represented in the House for their very positive indications about that so that we get to debate that as part of this bill.But now turning to the bill as reported back from the Justice Committee this bill reflects the Government's ongoing commitments to keep the New Zealand statute book up to date and current. The Crimes Act 1961 which is our principal criminal law legislation in this country should not contain archaic laws that do not reflect contemporary societal needs and our values as a modern forward-looking nation. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Justice Committee for their work on the bill. Forty-two submissions were received on the bill mostly commenting on the repeal of blasphemous libel. Those submissions including those who presented in person both for and against the repeal of that provision were given very careful consideration by the committee.However the issue that came under the most intense scrutiny by the committee was the repeal of the year and a day rule. I want to return to this issue shortly. The committee has recommended one small technical change to the transitional provision in the bill which is for clarification only. It ensures that Acts and omissions currently referred to in section 162 of the Crimes Act are those to which the transitional provision applies. Turning to that year and a day rule section 162 of the Crimes Act provides that no one is criminally responsible for the killing of another person unless the death takes place within a year and a day of the cause of death—that is to say that the action by the person charged that leads to the death all happens within a year and a day.The Justice Committee was particularly interested in this aspect of the bill. There were some robust discussions about the nature of the transitional provision in the bill as it applies to the repeal. As I noted in the first reading the rule has its origins in medieval times when there was a distrust of science. There have been calls for its repeal in this country for decades.The rule simply has no place in New Zealand's statute book today. There was no disagreement from any member of the Justice Committee that the rule should be repealed. However there was some concern about the effect of the transitional provision in the bill which preserves the rule for any actual remission which occurs before the repeal date. I understand the unease shared by some that for a historical case where the cause of death occurred say 30 years ago and the death occurs after the repeal date the person responsible will still be able to rely on the rule. However as I publicly stated earlier this year the repeal will not be made retrospective. It would be unjust to deprive people of the law as it applies to them before the repeal date. That is a basic constitutional convention that Westminster democracies apply around the world. Under the existing law the clock starts ticking from the time of the cause of death. In my view it would violate a fundamental principle of criminal law to backdate laws to remove a bar on prosecution.The repeal of such a provision should not remove the right of a person to claim the benefit of the law as it exists before the legislature removes it from the statute book. Where a person is liable to the ultimate criminal sanction which in our country is life imprisonment it is very important to respect a law whether we like the law or not that can be relied on by a defendant. Let me be very clear. For those responsible for death whose acts occur before the repeal date if death occurs at any time within a year and a day prosecution will of course be possible whether or not the death occurs before or after the repeal date. That is the case for historical cases as well. For example if the cause of death occurred in 1980 and the victim or victims died in 1981 but within a year and a day the rule does not currently and will not under the bill preclude prosecution. It's important to note that for those whose conduct is responsible for deaths after the repeal date they will never be able to claim the year and a day rule to prevent prosecution.I'm pleased that there was unanimous support for repeal of the year and a day rule from the Justice Committee and I'm satisfied that the transitional provision in the bill is appropriate. The legislature in this country should be extremely reluctant to retrospectively change the substantive criminal law by removing statutory bars to prosecution that have already accrued.Turning to other parts of the bill I just want to make it clear that following the deliberations of the committee section 71(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 provides that no person whose spouse or civil union partner has been a party to an offence can become an accessory after the fact to that offence even where they assist the other to evade justice. There were a couple of submissions to the Justice Committee on this issue. Concerns were raised about repeal undermining the sanctity of marriage and the potential impact on children of the relationship. I'm not satisfied that those reasons justify retention of a law which is discriminatory in that it does not apply to others in a close personal relationship with the offender including those in long-term de facto relationships. Children of the relationship are not only an issue where the parents are married or in a civil union. Further the law is anomalous in that the protection afforded by this outdated law is not reflected in other criminal laws. For example a husband or wife may be charged as a co-conspirator or a party to an offence.The law reflects an outdated notion that husbands and wives are in essence one and the same and neither has individual autonomy to make their own decisions good or bad. That is not the world we live in today thank goodness. The repeal of section 71(2) of the Crimes Act will ensure that all people who help someone including those with whom they're in a close relationship to break the law can be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact.In relation to blasphemous libel as I thought would be the case when I introduced this bill there were some strongly and genuinely held views expressed both for and against repeal by submitters on this provision. Submitters were pretty much split down the middle with 22 submitters opposing repeal and 20 submitters supporting repeal. Themes that emerged from those opposed to repeal included that it would encourage hate speech that it would incite violence and that it would remove a protection for religious freedom. While I have no doubt that those views are sincerely held I do not share them. The retention of a provision which has not been prosecuted for nearly a century and which criminalises certain conduct against only one religion has in my view no place in the criminal law of New Zealand. To presume that the repeal of a hitherto little-known law will suddenly result in a wave of anti-Christian sentiment in this country seems completely untenable to me. I agree with the submission of the Human Rights Commission that section 123 of the Crimes Act is out of date is based on English law that has been abolished and is inconsistent with New Zealand's human rights obligations.One of the most compelling submissions received on the bill came from a minister of religion who was in favour of repeal of blasphemous libel. The good reverend noted that laws protecting free speech are an important part of the common good and they must not be weakened by antiquated blasphemy laws which are actually so unnecessary that there has not been a prosecution under them for a hundred years. So that provision as reported back by the select committee remains unchanged.I want to thank all those who submitted on any aspect of the bill. While all will not agree with the repeals you've all played an important part in the democratic process. Your views have been heard but it is ultimately the role of Government to determine those laws that are most appropriate and relevant in contemporary New Zealand and ultimately the role of Parliament to decide on what stays and what goes. I commend this bill to the House. It will modernise and improve the criminal law in New Zealand and bring New Zealand into line with like-minded countries that have abolished or are in the process of abolishing their laws on blasphemy and the year and a day rule. I commend the bill to the House.