Crimes Amendment Bill

When we were last reading the Crimes Amendment Bill, Greg O’Connor had nine minutes and 16 seconds remaining to speak. It appears that the member will not take his call.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Go, Bish!

I hear the good member Chlöe Swarbrick saying, “Go, Bish!” I intend to go, and I intend to go quickly, because this is a sensible piece of legislation that the National Party has supported the whole way through. We’ve canvassed in the committee stages, both at the Justice Committee and also the committee the whole House, the changes around blasphemous libel, which, of course, is outdated and archaic. We support its repeal. Frankly, I think Parliament could have moved a bit quicker in the past to get rid of blasphemous libel from the statute book; although, having said that, the last prosecution, I think from memory, was in 1907—so one could say that after 112 years, it was not going to be used any more.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Was Mr McKelvie in the courtroom?

Mr McKelvie was not in the courtroom. That’s a gross insult to Mr McKelvie, Mr Macindoe. You’re going to live to regret that remark. The manager of the parliamentary cricket team does a superb job.

So we support the blasphemous libel changes, and we also support the other changes around the year and a day rule. My colleague Nick Smith has, I believe, attempted unsuccessfully to move some changes around that at the committee of the whole House.

We support the sensible changes around spousal immunity from being an accessory to a crime after the fact. This is one of those, I was going to call it, “tidy-up” pieces of legislation; I think that’s a bit unfair. It is a piece of legislation that does a bit more than tidying up; it does make some relatively minor but chunky changes to the Crimes Act.

I think it’s good that our criminal law is passed with unanimity or at least some cross-party consensus. It’s the criminal code for New Zealand—or, at least, the partial code for the criminal law. The National Opposition supports the bill, and we commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Crimes Amendment Bill in this third reading. The bill does three main things. It repeals three provisions, and those provisions are repealed because—and it has been canvassed widely over the past three readings and committee of the whole House—they are outdated, and one of the important things within a robust democracy is that the population and the country and the people of the country have trust in the justice system. One of those things, in order to have that, is that they understand and they trust that their justice system is modern, up to date, and applicable.

The three provisions that this bill will be repealing are no longer applicable within modern-day society. Those three things are removal of the provision of a spousal or civil union immunity from prosecution for accessory after the fact, blasphemous libel, and the year and a day after rule. I also want to add that there was an amendment Supplementary Order Paper added that creates two new offences to address livestock rustling, which was added in the committee of the whole House.

I’d just like to say, in this short speech, that, unfortunately, this was intended to be a non-controversial piece of legislation and moved through the House, but, unfortunately, there was an individual that decided to take a very serious matter, which was the one year and a day rule, and try and gain some political points and political manoeuvring out of it. It’s unfortunate that that occurred. I’d like to say, for people that have been following this bill through the House, that Minister Andrew Little actually not only handled that issue well but also gave a very impassioned speech directly to the families of the victims who died in the CTV Building. Exactly why that individual was taking a political stance and not a practical one nor a right one—because if one looked at what that individual was attempting to do, even in its basic form, it would not work. The emotive arguments that were used to try to push that one person’s agenda were, in my opinion—and I think it’s safe to say everyone on this side of the House’s opinion—an utter disgrace.

I would just like to finish on that note, but New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. It’s a common-sense bill. It really does a simple thing, which removes those provisions which are outdated. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The National Opposition supports this bill. It has four important Crimes Act amendments that address long-term issues that are important to improving our justice system. The first of those repeals blasphemy, and in this age when we put a high value on the issue of freedom of speech, we do need to be able to differentiate between what is inappropriate and might not be the social custom and that which is criminal. I strongly support the repeal of blasphemy as a criminal offence.

The second important change of this bill is repealing the exemption that applies for a partner or spouse in respect of accessory after the fact—that is, a crime has been committed; a partner or spouse tries to protect the offence that that person has committed. We are rightly removing that provision off our law books.

The third package of changes in this bill was, unusually, introduced as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but with National support, and that is the serious issue on which I want to compliment my colleague Ian McKelvie and the work of the Primary Production Committee for dealing with the very serious issue of stock rustling, because in rural parts of New Zealand, taking that issue of the protection of livestock and its thievery is something that needs the sort of reform that’s provided in this bill.

I want to focus my contribution on this third reading around the repeal of the year and one day law. This is a very old law that goes back many hundreds of years, and its repeal is something that National strongly supports. What we do not support is the loophole of the one year, one day law in relation to killing—that loophole being able to be, under this bill, continued to be used for many decades to come.

Now, it is something of the ugly face of this Government that when members of the Opposition challenge the Government or question its approach, there is a ferocious dose of nastiness. There’s an attitude from members opposite that if we ask legitimate questions about the law, suddenly there is a whole range of personal attacks, of questioning people’s motive, and I invite the House this afternoon to actually focus on the justice and what is right in respect of the application of that one year and one day rule.

I don’t think there is a New Zealander or a member of Parliament who is satisfied that justice has been done in respect of the CTV Building and the 115 people that lost their lives when that building pancaked on 22 February 2011. Subsequent to that collapse, our National Government commissioned a royal commission of inquiry. That inquiry concluded that there were such basic design flaws in that CTV Building, that the engineering was wrong, and I don’t think there is a member of this House that believes it was just that the engineers responsible for the flaws in that design were not able to be prosecuted because of the presence of the one year and one day rule.

But here is the part that Parliament and the Government is getting it wrong on: what we are saying is that that loophole is going to continue to apply, and the part where we are doing a grave disservice to the 115 New Zealanders who lost their lives in the CTV Building—New Zealanders as well as overseas people—is that if exactly the same circumstance occurred into the future, then exactly the same injustice would be repeated. That is, if there is a major earthquake in 25 years’ time and one of those 4,000 buildings that have been constructed in Christchurch collapses, that it pancakes and kills a hundred people, this Parliament is saying that those engineers, again, will be able to walk free, and I do not believe that is a practical sense of justice. I do not believe that Parliament is taking a fair view on that. Members opposite have never answered that question.

💬 Darroch Ball: Oh, nonsense—what nonsense.

Members opposite—well, I invite that member who’s interjecting: I’d love you to take a call. I’d love the member—

💬 Darroch Ball: You got lectured on it—you got lectured on it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! Carry on, Dr Smith.

—who’s interjecting to take a call and explain this to me: in 30 years’ time, a building pancakes because of flawed engineering fault. Why does that member think it’s just that those engineers, just as for the CTV Building—

💬 Darroch Ball: Your SOP would not work.

—will be able to walk free? Now, the member says that my SOP would not address that. Absolutely it would—

💬 Darroch Ball: It wouldn’t. It would not.

—it would—and the member has made no attempt to correct that injustice. What I say to members opposite is just what the CTV—this is not me saying it; this is the CTV families saying it, that this Minister and this Government has badly let down the CTV families—badly let down the CTV families. Now, listen to the interjections opposite. Somehow, raising questions of whether we’re going to allow a repeat of the legal scenario that occurred over the CTV Building—and we have members opposite shouting personal abuse but not prepared to answer the fundamental question as to whether they think that is just. It’s ironic that we’ve just passed a bill where members are applying, retrospectively, particular provisions. National has never proposed that this bill, as members opposite have suggested, would enable the prosecution of Dr Reay or others involved in the CTV Building.

But what we do say is this: for any death that occurs after the passage of this bill, those responsible should not be able to use this loophole to avoid prosecution. There is a fundamental issue here of public safety, and this is the question I would put to the House: wouldn’t it be better for us to send a very clear signal to the engineering profession that if you have been part of designing a building that’s got a flaw or a fault, you will not have the benefit of this loophole; you will be held responsible, and the incentive that goes with that, for us to ensure that there is never ever a repeat of the sort of tragedy that we saw with that CTV Building. The crunch really comes down to this: the crunch comes down to members opposite believing that in 30 years’ time, an engineer should be able to hide behind the one year, one day rule to avoid accountability, that somehow that is just, rather than the needs of families and victims, when we have any sort of repeat of that tragedy. What has happened to members opposite is that they have become slaves to the law and not to justice. They are not thinking about what the consequences of the detail of this provision is, and that is what has caused such deep anger, such disappointment, from those CTV families.

So, again, I say I am very proud that National is saying this is a loophole, it should be blocked, and it should be blocked now, and it will not be on our conscience that at some time in future years, if—and I hope, more than anybody, nobody ever has to witness a tragedy again like CTV, but at least members on this side of the House will know that we backed a law that would ensure accountability, that would ensure justice, whereas members of the Government were more interested in legal purity than actually blocking this loophole and ensuring that justice in future would be properly served.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, and I would say I probably will take a very short call, because it does take care of some overdue changes to our criminal code in just bringing it up to the 21st century.

The first change that I would address is the removal of blasphemous libel, and I’d like to acknowledge my friend and Labour Party MP Angie Warren-Clark for first introducing her member’s bill to do this, and the Government has made us all proud by picking it up in this Government bill. Of course, in any modern secular democracy, it would be bizarre and a little bit perverse to have the crime of blasphemous libel. It breaches our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it creates discrimination, and it sends the wrong message about the kinds of values that we’re upholding in our justice system. In fact, happily, it hasn’t been prosecuted since 1922, so this bill, this change, really just reflects modern practice in New Zealand and our proud culture of secularism in our democracy. I’m particularly happy to see this removed given I’ve lived under a theocracy in Iran and seen the very damaging effects of this kind of religious law leaking into especially the criminal justice system, where sanctions are so serious for individuals being prosecuted—shouldn’t really hang over anyone’s head.

The second change is about spousal immunity in terms of giving evidence, and that’s another one that’s really amusing, almost, in its outdatedness, and something that I remember used to come up in films where people would quickly get married—or join in civil union, as it might be now—where then you would be free from prosecution or free from being made to give evidence against your partner, and that, of course, impedes the work of police in taking away their ability to sanction someone for being an accessory after the fact, for example, to a crime. So it’s time to probably clean that up.

Lastly, the big other change is removing the year and a day rule, which prevents prosecution for death caused more than a year and a day after the charge would be brought—again, an incredibly outdated time frame, though, of course, we do need some acknowledgment in our law, and we do have it, that very lengthy delays in prosecution cause unfairness. That’s where this law comes from; it’s the idea that no one should have prosecution hanging over their heads for many years. Of course, we have undue delay as a defence now, where, for example, witnesses could’ve died or evidence destroyed when a very lengthy amount of time passes, but with the kind of evidence that’s available now to our courts with DNA evidence, other scientific types of evidence—and we’ve seen in very recent cases: the horrific case of Malcolm Rewa that just went through the courts now, and the exoneration of Teina Pora, who’d been wrongfully imprisoned for that murder for over two decades. We only have that now with evidence that’s been able to be preserved and analysed so many years later. So this law really is not only outdated but, again, would impede the proper administration of justice in New Zealand, and so we are removing it, again to reflect modern-day reality.

Of course, we also have had some impassioned talk of the effect this could’ve had or did have on the CTV tragedy prosecutions. It did stop them at the time, and it is a shame that this law wasn’t changed over the nine years of the National Government, as we might have seen other prosecutions go ahead. Of course, the suggestion that we pass law now to apply retrospectively would breach a fundamental constitutional norm which says that no one can be liable for a crime—especially a crime, but any type of legal liability—that didn’t exist at the time that they did the act for which we are holding them accountable. So that really is some perverse politicking from the Hon Nick Smith just now. We won’t do that because we do respect the rule of law, fundamental human rights, and our justice system. They didn’t change the law when they had the chance, and they want us now to change it in this very perverse way. What we’re doing is securing the rights of New Zealanders in securing prosecutions in future, in the way that lawmaking should work. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to stand and take a call on this third reading of the Crimes Amendment Bill. We are supporting this bill. This was a bill that was started whilst we were in Government. It was good to see that it was picked up by the incoming Government. Can I acknowledge the chairman of the Justice Committee, Raymond Huo, and the committee themselves that worked on this bill.

There are just a couple of issues in the bill that I wanted to address. The first one was actually an amendment that was put in during the committee of the whole House by Ian McKelvie. Of course, those that know Ian McKelvie would know that he’s from a very strong rural, primary industries farming area of the country. He’s a farmer himself, and he’s very much in touch with and understands the challenges that our farmers and those in the primary industries face, and he wanted to deal with livestock rustling. It’s not something that we always see in the media or in the news much, but it’s something that does happen, and it actually has a massive negative impact on the farmers that fall victim to unscrupulous and dishonest cattle rustlers or stock rustlers. The fact of the matter is farmers are not flush with money. Cash is king for them. They run very, very tight budgets, and, often, they’re reinvesting and putting money back into the farm—whether it be fertiliser or fencing or upgrades on materials and equipment or whether it be replacing stock. So although we may think that the loss of even two or three cattle or a dozen sheep may not impact them, it actually does.

I had my own very direct experience of this when I was policing up on the East Coast of New Zealand, out of Gisborne. I remember clearly one night stopping a vehicle that there seemed to be very unusual movement inside the vehicle. It was a station wagon.

💬 Hon Member: Well, you’d have seen a lot of that done!

That’s right! No, no. It was a station wagon. There was a fair bit of movement inside it, and so I pulled it over and there were a couple of gang members inside it. But in the back seat—they’d laid the back seat down—there were half a dozen sheep. What they’d been doing—it was really the first indicator that we had that the Gisborne branch of the Mongrel Mob had decided that they would start to steal stock out of farmers’ roadside paddocks.

And, although it was only a dozen sheep, in actual fact there was an investigation initiated by the crime control unit, and they went back and they found out that there were large numbers of cattle and stock being taken, and, actually, it had almost sent one farmer to the bank—the amount of stock losses. It hadn’t been big stock losses; it had been over a long period of time. So it had been two or three cattle, half a dozen sheep—and, actually, it does have a real genuine impact on their business and on their livelihoods and on their families. So this is actually a very good Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was brought by Ian McKelvie.

I think the other thing that we have to think about at the moment, which has been a massive threat to our dairy industry, has been M. bovis. I want to acknowledge, again, the Government have picked up a programme that our Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Nathan Guy, had already put a lot of work into along with the Ministry for Primary Industries and are rolling out a very, very big, expensive programme in terms of trying to eradicate M. bovis. Well, you can imagine the controls that are put in place to try and deal with that. And, if you’ve got people that are rustling or stealing stock and moving those stock around, especially livestock, then, of course, you risk breaching all the protocols that are being put in place to actually try and contain something that would have a massive, negative economic impact on New Zealand if there was a breach due to some livestock rustling.

The other issue that I just wanted to very quickly touch on in the bill, because the Hon Nick Smith has done a very, very good job and delivered an impatient plea speech tonight, is around his SOP on the year and one day rule. I completely support him. As he said, God forbid that we ever have to deal with another issue like the CTV building, but the reality of it is New Zealand is on a fault line—it’s on several fault lines—and it’s possible that we may have another earthquake or another incident like that in the next 10, 15, 20, or 30 years. Actually, I would say that the people involved or the families involved, if there is a loss of life or serious injury, want to feel that there is the ability to be able to go back and actually deliver some justice. So I support his speech and the work that he’s done on that.

The other issue that I really wanted to talk to was, quite simply, the removal of the spousal immunity for accessory to a crime after the fact. I’m just going to talk to this in somewhat of a broader context. I’d be surprised if all members in the House tonight didn’t agree with me when I say that one of the big challenges that we’ve had is offending against our children, against babies. We’ve seen many cases in this country where there’s been terrible offending. I remember a case clearly in Rotorua where a young child, 18 months old, was subjected for weeks to ongoing physical abuse—burnt with a cigarette, put into a clothes dryer, and having the clothes dryer turned on. And, finally, of course—it was inevitable—the child died from internal injuries that had been sustained over a long period of time. The issue with that is that the family and friends and whānau all decided to circle the wagons and not cooperate with a police investigation. And, actually, in a police investigation in New Zealand, we have a standard—it’s called beyond reasonable doubt—when they take a case to the criminal court. For the police to be able to put a case together that strong, that puts it beyond reasonable doubt so that you can deliver justice for a baby like that, means that they have to have—or, if it’s available, they can have—good strong witness testimony.

So we think that this is a very good move in repealing this part of the bill because we consider that there’s no justification that exists for protecting anyone who interferes with the execution of justice as an accessory after the fact. It wasn’t clear in terms of who was actually protected under this Act anyway—whether it was a de facto spouse. So we think that the repealing of this section under the Crimes Amendment Bill is actually a very, very good piece of the bill, and I’m very happy to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I understand this is a split call. Dr Duncan Webb.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. There are two things I would like to touch on in my contribution on this bill. The first is the repeal of blasphemous libel that Angie Warren-Clark’s bill first dealt with, and it was taken up by the Minister in this amendment bill.

Obviously, the House thinks that this is an appropriate repeal. I just want to recognise and acknowledge that there were a small number of submitters who opposed it, and they did oppose it on grounds of their own personal faith. I just want to make an observation that we should, quite appropriately, defend people’s right to have religious views, and it’s something which this House sees on a number of occasions. But those views, whatever their religion may be, should not influence the content of the law itself. That’s a separate thing altogether. So whilst I utterly respect the right of those submitters to their religious views, there is no place in our law for the enforcement of religion through the arms of the State.

The other thing I want to do is touch on the year and a day rule. Obviously, the House is unanimous in agreeing that it should be repealed. But I want to address squarely the objection of Dr Smith—his view that it should be retrospective in application. I want to say right away that it was not accurate. He must have misheard, because there was no personal abuse hurled across the House, but there was considerable disappointment in his view. He asked: should it be the case that for a person who builds a building today or yesterday and it falls down in 30 years’ time, the engineer should be able to avail themselves of the year and a day defence. And I say quite clearly yes, because what we are not in the business of doing is making something a crime tomorrow in respect of which the act occurred yesterday. If you did the act yesterday, you are subject to the law that was in place at the time you committed the act. The crime and the defences at the time the act was committed are applicable. To do otherwise would be to take rights—vested rights—away from people retrospectively, and there is no place in the law for that. Madam Assistant Speaker, that is my contribution.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the Crimes Amendment Bill and to support the bill and support the work of both the current Minister of Justice and those Ministers of the previous Government who put some work into this bill as well.

Interestingly, this bill was designed to repeal a whole lot of stuff, and it’s ended up adding a whole lot of more important stuff, which I’ll get on to in a minute. But it does repeal blasphemous libel, and, if you go on to what now is section 220A and 231A, I’ll bet there was a fair bit of blasphemous libel that took place around stock rustling in the early days—and it probably still does. None the less, it’s no longer prosecutable—well, it won’t be when this is finished. The other two are, of course, spousal immunity and the repeal of section 162, and much has been said about that tonight, and I don’t need to add to that discussion, because I think the merits of that discussion or otherwise have been well documented in the House and certainly were well covered by Mark Mitchell.

I want to now just briefly talk about, though, what was Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 introduced in Minister Little’s name, which has now become new section 220A and 231A. I just wanted to compliment the Minister—or thank the Minister, I suppose—for picking that piece of work up, and also Kieran McAnulty, and the Primary Production Committee, actually, who got this piece of what was a member’s bill introduced into this bill as an SOP, and now it becomes those sections.

Interestingly, it introduces two new crimes, as I said: 220A, for theft of livestock, and 231A, which is entry on to agricultural land with intent to commit an imprisonable offence or a crime. The interesting thing about that is that that has never been a crime that you could very easily get a prosecution for before—in fact, you couldn’t, really, unless you trespassed or had a massively complicated system that would’ve been to trespass people as well—but it now enables both of those crimes to be prosecuted, and prosecuted at a level that is much more serious and severe than it was previously when it was included in the Sentencing Act. So it’s been introduced to the Crimes Act, and that’s made a big difference to it, and I think it will give the police many more tools in their pursuit of these people.

But it also gives us more protection, or our communities more protection, in the instance of livestock rustling or theft of livestock or even illegal activities on agricultural land with respect to the Biosecurity Act. That’s hugely important for New Zealand and I guess became much more pronounced with the outbreak of M. Bovis and the potential outbreak of any other infectious diseases that might attack livestock in New Zealand, because the theft of that livestock when it’s infected, and taking it down the road and putting it on someone else’s land, is certainly a big risk to New Zealand’s biosecurity system. So I think the addition of this piece of the bill is quite an exciting opportunity for rural New Zealand, for provincial New Zealand, and for our farmers of New Zealand, whether they farm bees, trees, or whatever.

It also, interestingly, brings to bear a new, I guess, thought around the treatment of animals and what animals might think about being stolen. I know that’s a slightly odd thing for someone like me to say, but if you think about it, and someone steals your pet dog or your cat, I guarantee they get much more upset than we believe they do. That becomes a crime, in a way. So it adds to the crime, I suppose.

So it is quite interesting, and I think a lot of discussion has taken place on this particular piece of this bill in the last 18 months in this House, and probably for a lot longer than that in our farming community—well, our agricultural community—and even in this Parliament. To get a result through the Minister inserting it into this bill is, I think, a great result for rural New Zealand, and it’s very exciting. I have a great deal of pleasure in commending this bill, and I look forward to its implementation. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I too wish to rise and take a short call in support of this bill. I do want to acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie, who has been, I guess, honoured by many speakers in the House for his tenacious will to bring to the fore the agenda of cattle rustling. I recall that in my first term of Parliament, when I saw that bill, I sort of laughed, but as the issues have been highlighted and the Primary Production Committee has considered that particular piece of work, this Government has picked it up and, I think, made it into a strong piece of legislation. I want to commend Ian McKelvie for continuing that fight, and, of course, the Minister of Justice and the Primary Production Committee for picking up that piece of work.

The House has really touched on a lot of the key facets of this particular bill. As we know, in social democracies and modern civilisations, the norms change regularly, and what seemed OK 20 years ago now, with today’s generation, is simply laughable or a distant memory. So this particular bill will, obviously, bring archaic laws in line with our social norms and in line with the contemporary values of this country. I think it’s timely. The law around blasphemy—I’m sure my grandmother will be turning in her grave, but her great-grandkids certainly don’t see a need for it, and I think this is a move in the right direction.

The member the Hon Mark Mitchell also mentioned in his contribution the importance of making sure the repeal of spousal immunity. He highlighted a really good case there that I think really shows the importance of this particular piece of work, to make sure that in circumstances like the one he described, we don’t protect those who perpetrate crimes, and to make sure that, in fact, those who in the eyes of the court have a case to defend—I think they should be able to be brought in front of the court to defend that case. He highlighted a particular case of importance to the entire country, which I’m sure has left a scar on the memory of our country, and I want to commend him for using that example, and, of course, the Minister for making sure that that particular part of the Act no longer applies—is repealed.

Just in conclusion, I thank the Justice Committee for the work that they have done on this particular bill, the Minister, and the previous Minister for continuing the work that’s done in this space. As we look towards many of the more contemporary issues that confront us—and the biosecurity issue was mentioned—I think this is a move in the right direction that best reflects where our country is headed to and where we like to see ourselves. In actual fact, when we look across much of the law and legislation in this country, it isn’t in line with that. So without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Crimes Amendment Bill. I acknowledge, but not by name, the various who have been involved in its passage from start to finish. I’ll highlight a couple of those individuals on the way through, but to briefly wrap up from this side of the House in this, the third and final reading, please allow me to touch on each of the four significant points within the bill that is shortly to be passed.

The first is blasphemous libel. On this side of the House, we support its repeal. I would like to propose, on my own account, a short three-stage test of considering such matters. The first stage is that there should be a presumption in favour of free speech. I note merely as a footnote that in our society today, we are becoming more precious in many regards regarding free speech, but I think the appropriate starting point is that we should be free in our speech and that we must be able to offend and to risk causing offence, as a starting point.

The second stage of the test that I propose would be that there could be a rebuttal. There could be a reason to rebut that initial presumption in favour of free speech, and so, for example, we have defamation to protect individual reputations, we don’t allow incitement to violence—the sticks and stones that may break bones, according to the old proverb—and so forth. Then a third stage might be that if we decide that speech is able to be limited in that way, then we would deal with that in some way that’s appropriate. Civil versus criminal sanctions might be available. In this case, we are saying collectively that it is not appropriate to have the crime of blasphemous libel on the book, and, therefore, it will be removed from our criminal statutes.

A brief note on retrospectivity, because it’s a theme to which I would like to return, if time allows, in another context: one of the problems with a crime such as blasphemous libel is that if you don’t have an exhaustive list of all the things that might be deemed to be blasphemous, then it’s impossible to be certain, at any point at which you utter such words, that you are committing a crime. So to find out retrospectively that you’ve committed a crime is an offence against the rule of law, in the way that Dr Duncan Webb and others have described in another context.

The second of the four main points is in relation to spousal immunity. Of course, this is to protect, historically, a person who’s giving refuge, essentially, from prosecution or even to evade capture to a person who has assisted in the commission of crime or, perhaps more likely, committed the crime themselves. I would sound a note of caution, however, which is to say this is analogous to some other situations in which we do protect particular relationships where a person has committed what would be a crime, if it were found to be such—for example, confessionals, maybe with a spiritual person or a guidance counsellor, or even legal privilege. It’s too easy simply to say that we don’t allow people to be assisted after having committed a possible crime and to be advised, because, of course, we do. And if we’re going to make such blunt statements as we’ve heard on that subject across the House today, then a principled approach on that, in my view, would compound the error, but at least should be considered from a principled basis.

💬 Third: livestock rustling. As has been noted on both sides of the House—with a certain amount of graciousness, for which I am grateful—this has arisen from a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of “Lord Ian McKelvie” of Rangitīkei, and I join with others in expressing somewhat disbelief that it’s not already on the—

💬 Brett Hudson: Chief of Rangitīkei.

I’ve been having further possible suggestions for the elevation to the peerage, and beyond, of Ian McKelvie—

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Why not.

Why not, indeed, as Jacqui Dean says. It’s an idea whose time has come. It’s an idea whose time, in fact, had come many years ago. So it’s righting a wrong, I suppose, in legal or legislative terms, that we are catching up now and making that very clear indeed.

Finally, I wish to touch on the so-called year and a day rule. Much has been said about this in the context, first, of what is in the bill itself, but also in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper, proposed amendment, by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I’ll just start off by noting that the nature of the rule, so-called, in the Crimes Act is actually in the nature of a limitation or might actually be viewed as a brightline test. In this House, we’ve been talking earlier today about a brightline test in connection with tax so that we say—while it’s difficult to gauge intention, it might be that we can say within the period of two or five years, as the case may be, that we deem that someone has bought property with the intention of on-selling. Well, there’s a brightline that can be drawn at the hundred-year mark—traditionally, a nice round century—that would say, well, if you’ve committed an act or, perhaps, an inaction such that a person loses their life, for example, outside that period of time, we’ll be drawing a bright line there and saying that you’re outside that now. So because it’s difficult to prove causation so long after the event, we are saying that that person should be found not guilty of what would, otherwise, be the crime. So that’s the intention.

As for the question of retrospectivity, I believe there’s a bit of a misunderstanding or at least the opportunity for education—and I say that with some humility—but across the House a number of speakers have indicated that they have a particular view of retrospectivity in the criminal law that I believe deserves challenge. In the committee stage of the debate, Minister Andrew Little made a statement not unlike that of Dr Duncan Webb’s tonight, which was along the lines that a person should not be found guilty of a crime, let us say, tomorrow in respect of an action that he or she committed today if it were not a crime at the time that it was committed. So far, so good. I believe we can all agree on that. So much is well established in our rule of law, and that’s to protect the idea that a person shouldn’t be found retrospectively guilty, for the reason that they must be able to rely on the law as being certain at that time. The criminal law is a code and people should not be found guilty retrospectively.

However, what that ignores is the clear wording of the relevant sections within the Crimes Act and also within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that talk about a thing being done or not done, the element of the crime, as it would be, being committed at a time that the act would not be regarded as a criminal action. So, in other words, the explicit words actually protect against the action and the actus reus, as we would say within the criminal language, as opposed to the availability of a defence. And if the defence is, essentially, a spurious one, and I say “spurious” because it’s been acknowledged across the House as being nothing more or less than that, then it seems to me a nonsense that we should have such a narrow and, dare I say it, legalistic view of what retrospectivity actually means.

So my challenge across the House before my time is up is that if that’s the genuine belief of those who have offered that opinion tonight, then I would encourage them to consider amending the words of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and, indeed, the relevant section of the Crimes Act to ensure that that actually says that every defence that is available, including the so-called year and a day rule, should be available and not merely the fact that something which is done which is already unlawful should not see a person being able to escape prosecution merely because they have the good fortune that someone dies a considerable period of time after. Put around another way, it seems absurd to me that if you do a thing that is so negligent or so unlawful that it causes death that much more quickly, effectively you should be rewarded. It seems to me illogical absurdity that the treatment of a person’s actions rely on the luck or bad luck, the misfortune or fortune, of the victim and the particular circumstances of something so capricious as an earthquake.

On that note, perhaps unfortunately, because overall our support for the Crimes Act amendment is complete—we support all those four different amendments, so I close my contribution on this side of the House by saying that we support it and we congratulate those involved in its passage throughout.

Today’s a great day because we get to pass a law that should have been passed a long time ago, but we also get to demonstrate to the New Zealand public that at times this House can work together. Now, I am a very proud product of a farming family—on both sides, actually—and I’m very proud to come from the rural area of Wairarapa. I am no stranger to the issue of livestock rustling, so I do remember when I spoke in favour of this when the issue was first raised in front of the House, when Ian McKelvie brought forward his member’s bill to us all last year. We did vote in favour of it, because it is very clear that this is an issue that is facing rural communities.

Federated Farmers estimate that livestock rustling costs our rural communities $120 million a year, and it is also estimated that one in four farmers have suffered from livestock rustling at some stage in their life. Now, we all know farmers, probably many, and it is quite phenomenal to think that 25 percent of our farmers have suffered from livestock rustling. So good on Ian McKelvie, whom I’ve got to know quite well over the last few months, whom I consider to be a gentleman, not only because we play on the same parliamentary cricket team, and I’m standing there on the cricket pitch and I’m fielding the area in front of me and the area behind me—he’s such a gentleman that he lets me field the area behind him as well. The thing is that we work together on the cricket pitch and we work together in Parliament, and this bill contains the inclusion of two crimes: the theft of livestock or other animal, carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, and, of course, the unlawful entry to land used for agricultural purposes where the offender intends to steal livestock or act unlawfully against specified things, such as buildings or machinery, on that land. That offence carries 10 years’ imprisonment.

This is actually an improvement of what was originally proposed. Unfortunately for Mr McKelvie, when he brought his member’s bill to the Primary Production Committee, the advice that we got at the committee was that this was not workable. I don’t blame Mr McKelvie for that; it was just the way that it was. The rules of Parliament said that we couldn’t make the changes to it that we wanted to. Submitter after submitter after submitter said that we just simply needed to include a crime of livestock theft into the Crimes Act and we would achieve what Mr McKelvie wanted to achieve, but unfortunately, because of the rules of the way that they were, we couldn’t continue—we couldn’t progress. The options that were in front of us were that we bring it to the House—because that was the advice—and it gets voted down, or that the bill be withdrawn and then it goes back to the luck of the draw into the ballot.

I had a bit of a thought, and I was only new and I wasn’t all that confident, but I thought why don’t we try and include this in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) into the Crimes Amendment Bill? I did it on the quiet, because I didn’t want to make a fool of myself at the select committee. I got really excited. I drew it up, and I went to the people that give us advice, and I said, “Can we do it?” And they said no, because the Crimes Amendment Bill is about withdrawing things; it’s not about including things. If there was a provision within it that included the inclusion of a new law, a new crime, then we could’ve, but it didn’t, so we couldn’t. However, if we got the approval from every party in the House, then we could do it.

I put this to Ian McKelvie. He thought it was a great idea, and both of us went to the Minister of Justice and put it to him. It was ultimately his call—it’s his bill. He didn’t have to approve it, but he did. So not only do I want to acknowledge Ian McKelvie; I want to acknowledge the justice Minister, Andrew Little, for seeing that this was an issue and seeing that, in a roundabout way, we could include this as a law into this bill, which in a few minutes time, hopefully, will likely pass.

And so what it says to rural communities and anybody out there that’s watching and listening at home is that with issues that are important to rural communities, the parties are working together. I know members opposite, like Barbara Kuriger, Ian McKelvie, Hamish Walker, Lawrence Yule, and all those over there that live and represent rural areas, will celebrate this fact as well, because back home, people see this House arguing and bickering and carrying on, and too little do we celebrate the times that we come together and actually work together to achieve something that’s important to this country. This is an example of that. I’m pleased to be a part of it. It was an honour to work alongside Ian McKelvie, and I’m very pleased that Andrew Little, the justice Minister, allowed us to do it. I very strongly commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.