Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill

Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill First Reading Debate resumed from 20 May. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:05): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This bill seeks to provide closure for victims of families and incentivise homicide offenders to cooperate, and it implements a no body, no parole presumption. It does this by seeking to amend two different pieces of legislation. The first is to amend section 9 of the Sentencing Act to include the failure to disclose the location of a body as an aggravating factor that the courts must take account. Secondly, it seeks to amend section 28 of the Parole Act 2002 requiring the Parole Board to refuse parole unless the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily to identify the victim’s location. Tom Rutherford has brought this bill to the House, and it seeks to address the additional anguish faced by families unable to recover bodies of their loved ones. Labour supports this legislation and acknowledges those families who have been directly affected by these crimes. The Michael McGrath case, the Christchurch builder whose body, sadly, was never found after the perpetrator was convicted. We know from accounts previously in this House, and also through the media, that his ex-partner described fearing for her life as no body or murder weapon was found and the perpetrator was convicted on circumstantial evidence. The other case which springs to mind is the Sara Niethe case where a mother of three was murdered and the perpetrator was convicted of manslaughter and released six years and seven months and no parole exclusion period. The victim impact statement from her son testified that the perpetrator’s failure to disclose the location of his mother’s body worsened the grief and worsened that trauma, and so we support this bill. It is important to note, I think—and I haven’t been on to hear the submissions on this—but the member in charge has highlighted that the cases I’ve just referred to deeply affect New Zealanders and deeply affect those families. Their experiences remind us that justice is not simply just about punishment, it is also about accountability, about truth, and recognising the ongoing impact on those families of those victims of crime. Labour acknowledges the argument that this bill may create a stronger incentive for offenders to cooperate with authorities and disclose information about the location of a victim’s remains. If that results in more families being able to obtain answers, and also achieving some measure of closure, that is a goal worthy of serious consideration. While we do support the bill’s intent, we also believe that there are important questions that deserve careful examination through the select committee process. It is important to note that I’ve just been reading through now, which is the section 28A report—sorry, the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 report on the section 7 report, and in particular, the concern that has been raised as the new section 28A in the Parole Act. The concern that has been raised is that prolonging the detention on the basis of an offender’s failure to cooperate to the board’s satisfaction with the identification of the location of the victim potentially could remain a punitive measure that is at odds with the public safety emphasis of the parole regime. It says in this report that is an insufficient basis on which to justify continued detention in circumstances where there is a period of imprisonment considered by the sentencing court to be necessary to serve the purposes of that punishment, deterrence, and denunciation of the offender, as reflected in the applicable minimum period of imprisonment that has passed, and the offender is not considered to pose an ongoing risk to the community’s safety. I’m sure that that will be one of many things that there are submissions to the select committee on, in terms of understanding how we can make sure that this bill works well and is operating as effectively as possible. That is the benefit of having a good select committee process. I’m sure, like the Justice Committee often is, it will be incredibly busy hearing so many of those submissions. I think that this is one of those bills that is likely to have a wide range of people submitting their views. We would like to consider whether the provisions in this bill can be strengthened, whether they are workable in practice, and understand as to whether there are any unintended consequences that we haven’t turned our minds to at this first reading stage. In particular, I’m sure the select committee will examine the concerns raised in overseas jurisdictions about the possibility of disproportionately extended imprisonment in cases where there may be an offender who is unable or unwilling to provide that information, or, in rare circumstances, where a conviction is later found to be not found or not right. These are important questions in terms of justice in our country. They do not diminish, in any way or means, the suffering of those victims’ families, but they do require us to ensure that legislation is responsive, is fair, and is effective, and, also, is consistent with the principles of our justice system. The experience of comparable legislation in the United Kingdom and Australia will be really useful, and I’m sure that will be drawn upon when this is sent to the Justice Committee. It will be useful in informing that discussion that takes place. We should carefully assess what has worked overseas in similar jurisdictions to our own and, also, what has not worked. We want to make sure that New Zealand’s approach in this place strikes the right balance between making sure the victims and their families are well-supported and also maintaining the integrity of our justice system. I’m sure the Justice Committee will do a good job at striking that balance well. This House has a clear responsibility to listen to those families who have indeed had to live with uncertainty, because the truth has been unrightfully withheld from them. Their voices deserve to be heard, and their experiences very much deserve to be considered. It is for that reason that Labour believes that this bill warrants the full scrutiny and public submissions through that select committee process. We support the purpose of providing greater recognition of the harm caused when offenders conceal the location of a victim’s remains and, also, examining the bill’s legal and practical implications in detail. I’d like to conclude by commending the member in charge of this bill. I know that Tom Rutherford has worked on the ground and has contact with those families that have been personally affected, and I’d like to commend him on doing the job of being a good MP and bringing real-life issues that affect everyday New Zealanders and making that into a bill. That’s often one of the most rewarding parts of the job of being an MP—using New Zealand’s democracy to serve the needs of people—and this bill is a good example of that. I’d like to conclude by saying for those people, anyone who is listening, or those representative bodies with legal expertise or even experience on this, to seriously consider making your submission to the Justice Committee. We know that we strengthen bills like this one through having a good, wide range of views being submitted and taking all of those views into consideration when we look at how we can further strengthen this legislation and make it work as effectively as possible. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:14): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge the harm and trauma of the families and the need they have for closure, and I want to thank Tom Rutherford for bringing this bill to the House. We are very concerned, and we share the concern of Tom Rutherford, at the trauma and harm that a murder victim’s family has when the victim’s remains are still concealed. This is something that, I think, it would be very difficult for us to understand if we’re not in that situation. We’re really concerned by that. But we don’t see that this bill is really going to address the issue. As my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan wrote to Tom Rutherford back in May this year, the Australian example is that “no body, no parole” laws have been in place in many states of Australia for around a decade, and, unfortunately, have not increased the rate of disclosure. While there’s a good motivation behind this legislation, it’s not necessarily going to achieve the stated goal. We don’t see any evidence that these reforms have achieved their aims. In fact, we’ve heard from the Attorney-General that—the quote is: “I have concluded the Bill appears to be inconsistent with the right to be free from arbitrary detention affirmed by s 22 of the Bill of Rights Act.” What we’re seeing here is that there could be harmful consequences of those wrongfully convicted. Most importantly, we can’t always tell if we’ve got things right in the courts. We’ve heard here that this is a punitive measure on parole. It’s against the purpose of the parole regime, which has resulted in the section 7 report. It says here that the “no body, no parole” law is an understandable reaction to the emotionally fraught situation, but it’s unlikely to accomplish its goal of providing closure to victims of the crime in most cases. As a review of these laws state, prolonged detention on the basis of an offender’s failure to cooperate to the board’s satisfaction with the identification of the location of the victim’s remains is a punitive measure that is at odds with the public-safety emphasis of the parole regime. We will continue to use evidence-based solutions and best practice to provide closure for families, but we are concerned that this bill, while it has a good intention, will not achieve that aim, and for that reason we are not supporting it through. However, we commend the member Tom Rutherford for bringing it to our attention. Thank you. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (16:18): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill. Firstly, I just want to congratulate the member Tom Rutherford, who is in the House, for bringing this bill to Parliament. It’s awfully horrendous when you hear of somebody who’s lost a loved one under really extreme circumstances, the likes of murder, and then to have to be continually re-traumatised and unable to heal and move on because they don’t know where their loved one is. That is deeply, deeply hurtful, and I know that other speakers have spoken about some cases and some ones that are in Christchurch, where I’m from. It’s not just the families involved; it’s actually the whole entire community that can feel this. It definitely slows down that healing process for the family and for the community. This bill amends the Sentencing Act to make an offender’s failure or refusal to reveal or cooperate in identifying the location of a homicide victim’s body or remains an aggravating factor at sentencing that the courts must consider. It also requires the Parole Board to take into consideration, or it amends the Parole Board’s ability when it comes to looking at whether there has been a justified reason or an attempt in order to identify where the location of the remains of could be. There, obviously, could be situations where an individual may no longer exactly remember the location or they may have attempted to locate and that may not be able to be located, so I think that there are some exceptions to this. But I think that, overall, families of homicide victims who may have greater leverage to obtain information about the location of loved ones’ remains should have that ability to do so. Actually, I found it quite ironic when the previous member was speaking around evidence-based solutions in this area. Look, I think that, actually, the evidence does show that when there is some kind of incentive to get parole, for example, that that is something that I think someone would consider in revealing other details. Actually, evidence does show that that does help with this. There could be some costs associated with this, of course, because the Parole Board will need to assess offender cooperation and there might be some administrative changes with that. ACT, obviously, is going to support this bill, because we think that victims deserve a justice system that puts the interests ahead of the interests of the offender. I commend this bill to the House. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) (16:21): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill. I do genuinely commend the member for bringing this bill forward, not only because it is very hard to interact with victims who have suffered such a loss, but, also, he has taken that and turned it into a positive programme of work to ensure that we actually, as a country, start a very serious conversation about how we deal with these issues. The loss of a loved one through violent crime is horrific and, having been in the position of having to inform loved ones of that loss to investigate homicides and serious violent crime, it is traumatising to the extreme. But to not be able to give the family an opportunity to grieve, to put their minds at peace, and to know that their loved one is at rest is beyond horrific. I would recount that I was fortunate enough to be able to work on an investigation where a young woman was concealed after being murdered. Only after the offender who had committed the horrendous crime died were we able to recover her remains and return her to her whānau. It is an incredibly honoured position to be able to do that and put a loved one at rest, so any effort we can to ensure that there is opportunity to create some level of leverage to force those that have been responsible for these crimes to come forward and to give some alleviation to the suffering of families is really important. New Zealand First is, of course—our foundation pillar is about the protection of country and protection of our communities. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the very best of law and order and reducing violent crime. I think this Government has done an exceptional job in working towards reducing violent crime. This is an area that is going to be challenging. It is a complex piece of law around how we deal with the deprivation of rights until a certain condition is met. It is going to be a complex piece of law to navigate, and I’m sure the Justice Committee will receive a number of submissions on both sides of this position as to how we make this law come into effect. It is important that we do have this conversation, however, and we do work out how we navigate this law. We do know of cases in New Zealand where people have been in custody for long periods of time and are later reprieved of that conviction. If we look at the case of Teina Pora in terms of his release, if it had been a circumstance where someone’s body had been concealed, how long would we detain someone who in the end was found not to be guilty of the offence for which he was detained? There are complexities in this process. It will be challenging to navigate, but that doesn’t mean we don’t look at how to tackle it. That doesn’t mean we don’t look at how we achieve an outcome that demonstrates to those that have lost loved ones through this type of serious violent crime that we as a Government, as a country, and as a Parliament are prepared to consider alternate ways of addressing the loss and alleviating the hurt and suffering. I think it is important that we navigate the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications, that we navigate the unlawful detention components of this to ensure that there is a way we can provide some incentive or some input to ensure that we are doing everything we can to alleviate the hurt and harm. The ability to lay your loved one at rest and particularly to know that they are at peace, the unknown factor of not knowing where someone is, how their life has ended—there are so many unanswered questions. We can stand in this House having empathy, but until you’ve walked that walk, the suffering and incredible pain that you carry just in not knowing—and quite frequently what you pursue in your own mind can be so much worse than the reality. I think it is with great honour that, on behalf of New Zealand First, I commend this bill to the House. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (16:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a privilege to speak on this bill, the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill, on a members’ day. I just acknowledge the previous speaker and her words and experience that certainly ring true in this House. Every MP brings with them life experience and a skill set which we all add cumulatively to the legislation-making process. I want to make a special mention to part of the genesis of this bill. I will keep it brief. To the former member for Hamilton West, the Hon Tim Macindoe, who actually, I believe, seeded this bill or was part of the original seeding of this member’s bill many years ago—in fact, he was here 12 years in Parliament and never once was successful in pulling out a member’s bill. Yet in this House, we have some members like one to my left, who has pulled out three, I think, and Catherine Wedd— Hon Andrew Hoggard: Just two. RYAN HAMILTON: —who has pulled out three—just two—within two years. The record’s three in less than three years. It’s amazing. It’s a bit of a lottery in some respects, but all credit to you. All power to you for those members who have had that success. In this case and in this term, it was none other than Tom Rutherford, MP for Pāpāmoa—Bay of Plenty? Tauranga? Grant McCallum: Mount Maunganui. RYAN HAMILTON: Mount Maunganui. It’s a moving feast. That general direction. None the less, a great MP—a great MP. In fact, he’s the youngest of the National Party to become an MP in the last term, but don’t let his youthfulness fool you. Don’t let his good looks fool you. He’s a very intelligent, very diligent, hard-working MP and deserves the honour and the ability to take this bill forward. In fact, he has already advanced the work that the Hon Tim Macindoe did by actually aligning—and this is specifically for you, Mr Webb—some of the bill with the legislation from some other jurisdictions just to enhance the legislation and make it a bit more fit for purpose so it’s very relevant. But the special thing about this is this is justice for victims and families, because families deserve answers and closure. I can only imagine the difficulty when something horrible and traumatic like that has gone on, but then not to be able to get the closure and the proper process of a send-off, a burial, a tangi, or whatever the appropriate cultural send-off would be in those instances—so this is a very measured and thoughtful bill. It’s only a small bill and it only makes a small legislative tweak, but it is an important one because for every individual, for every family member that is affected by something like this, it’s their world. It’s their everything. It’s also important to know that parole is a privilege, not a right, and so release should depend on genuine accountability and rehabilitation. If an offender was unwilling to disclose information, it does raise legitimate questions about their remorse and their ability to genuinely provide mental, physical, emotional compensation for the damage that they’ve done. It’s also about accountability, because we know that part of justice is accountability. Whilst we can control the offender in the way of prison or sentencing and stuff, part of the process, and many times for the victims, is to hear the offender’s remorse, the offender’s guilt, and to disclose the location of the body is really an important part of that process. So, on this side of the House, we’re keen to advance this bill to select committee. We know the Justice Committee is certainly the busiest in terms of legislative process in the House—an incredible amount of legislation around justice and law and order. No doubt, they probably don’t enjoy the extra workload. I know that even this week in the House, it’s put extra pressure on their timing with rosters and double-ups and commitments. But justice delayed is justice denied, and so this is an appropriate response to deal with something that’s quite bespoke, quite nuanced, but very appropriate. This bill sends a simple message that justice is not just about punishment; it is also about truth, accountability, and giving families every possible chance to bring their loved one home. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (16:31:06): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I just start this afternoon by acknowledging Tom Rutherford and the work that he’s done in his community, and, of course, the success of bringing a member’s bill before the House today for its first reading. I remember vividly growing up in Napier and the sad time of our community losing Teresa Cormack. Teresa was part of the Maraenui community, only a child, and went to school with many of my cousins. It impacted the whole community for many, many years, and that included their family, it included the local school, and it’s something that has sat with me since my own childhood through to today. As I look at this piece of legislation, our member’s bill this evening, I reflected back to that moment and the sadness and the impact, and the devastation that it had on so many. So, thank you, member Tom Rutherford, for following this through to bring it before the House today. This bill seeks to provide closure for victims’ families and incentivise homicide offenders to cooperate. It must be one of the most difficult things, not knowing where your loved ones are in something that is such a tragedy in the first place. I know, particularly for Māori communities, all communities across New Zealand, when somebody is murdered, somebody is taken, the grief is much deeper when they can’t put that person to rest and that includes to rest with all of their remains. This member’s bill implements a “no body, no parole” presumption and would amend two particular pieces of legislation. It amends section 9, of course, of the Sentencing Act 2002 to include the failure of disclosure of location of a body as an aggravating factor, which the court must, of course, take into account. Then the second one is that it proposes to add a new section 28A into the Parole Act 2002 requiring the Parole Board to refuse parole unless the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily to identify the victim’s location. Part of the work that I’ve seen from the MP that puts this forward today is, of course, the acknowledgement of the Michael McGrath case, the Christchurch builder whose body was never found after the perpetrator was convicted. The ex-partner described fearing for her life as no body or murder weapon was found and the perpetrator was convicted on circumstantial evidence. This stuff continues to be traumatic for New Zealand and New Zealanders, but my heart really goes out to all of the whānau and families that are impacted by what are very sad, tragic circumstances to so many. Labour’s position today is that we will support this member’s bill to go through to the select committee, albeit quite a complex piece to work through. I acknowledge that the Justice Committee is quite hard-working and it’s not unusual for them to put in extra hours to work through the legislation that goes before them. So we will be supporting this bill through its first reading today, to go on to hear from submitters through the select committee process. Sadly, we will hear from those families too, but no doubt it will influence the decisions of our select committee and the report back to this House, and in many ways I look forward to reading that report to this House at that particular time. I commend this bill. Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (16:35): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to support this Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill in its first reading. I’d like to acknowledge Tom Rutherford for bringing this bill to the House, and no doubt he will do an excellent job in the Justice Committee. When I first read this bill, it took me back to my early days of journalism. When I give this example, lots of people are going to think I’m really, really old, but it’s something that actually happened more than 30 years ago. As a young journalist working for a Sunday paper, I remember getting a phone call from man in prison, a tip-off that somebody was actually going to go and point to the location where his missing wife was buried. I had to think very quickly. I remember having to go and talk to my editor and basically dispatching a photographer to the location, which was in the—I’m trying to remember—Woodhill Forest out in West Auckland. What it relates to was a missing woman in 1982. It was well before I even came to New Zealand, but for a decade she was missing. But a tip-off came from a contact, someone who had actually heard the prime suspect, which was her husband saying that he had actually buried her, and so the search was on. That was the tip-off that ended up with a front-page news story, which I actually helped to write, and in 1994, the husband was convicted of murder. That came about because they managed to find the body. What had happened was that he had killed her in 1982 and reported her missing, pretending that she had left him because he wanted a divorce. That wasn’t the truth. What he had tried to do is that he buried her in a low-lying area in Woodhill Forest, but then he was worried that he was going to be discovered, so a couple of weeks later he dug deeper in the ground so nobody could find her for more than a decade. After 12 years since he actually killed his wife, he got convicted of murder. In 2004, he was paroled, but he was called back to prison in 2011. Actually, when he got convicted for murder, he got a life sentence. He was recalled to prison because the Parole Board was concerned that he was going to commit another crime, based on the report from his second wife. So this is a man who had issues with anger, who actually killed his wife, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, and then he was recalled to serve his life sentence. The fact that we have a case where this man eventually ended up pointing to the location of the dead wife was actually very helpful, but there are so many other cases where they do not find the body of the deceased. I think that having that closure for the family—and as a young reporter, I remember feeling so sorry for the wife’s family, who would have been grieving for more than a decade, not knowing where their daughter was or where their sister was or where their cousin was. I think that this bill reminded me of that case and one of the stories that I remember. It’s one of those things that has stayed with me for a very long time. So, I support this bill. National has been tough on crime and we have actually reduced victimisation: 46,000 fewer victims as a result. This bill will go towards making sure that families and victims get the support that they really need, because when you have the discovery of the body, that actually means that there is closure. I know that the Justice Committee will do a grand job looking at the bill, going through the bill, and making sure that we actually work through the processes of what is right. In terms of the rights for the offender, we have to look after that as well, but, as far as I’m concerned, the rights of the victim actually trump the rights of the offender who ends up killing people. I commend the bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:40): Thank you for taking this call. I’ve just been away from the House because I have been listening to submissions on the move-on orders. I was asking a question, in that process, about the risk there is when we move women on who have had domestic violence and sexual violence in their lives and they’ve ended up on the street, in the light; when we move them on, we move them into the darkness, and there’s a real risk of violence and murder as a result. I think it’s very important when we look at this area that we’re super-realistic about it. I want to, first of all, say that I have thought quite a lot about the true trauma in the area of this kind of violence, because of my portfolio. I’ve had to meet with people who have lost their children as a result of, often, domestic violence. It is utterly heartbreaking and it is absolutely real that if you can’t find the person, because they have been hidden from you, that adds so much to the trauma of the family of that person. There is clearly a need for us to have closure and to be able to know, even if it’s something we terribly wish we didn’t know, that the person has been killed. I want to, first of all, say that has got to be a fundamental value in our society, that we want to make sure that people get closure, as much as possible, and so has the prevention of this kind of violence, which is why I raise the other issue that’s right before us now, because we can’t have it both ways. If we care about the prevention of violence, we must stop it before it happens, surely, rather than this after-the-event type of law. Now, that does not mean that it doesn’t have a place—and Labour is going to vote for this going to select committee—but there are tricky things about this particular law. If the person actually is innocent, they won’t know where the body is. It’s just an obvious thing we have to deal with. I worked in law for a long time. I know it’s a very flawed process. It’s one where we make judgments, we have to decide, and sometimes we get it wrong. So it is going to be an important piece of law to examine well and robustly and think preventively, but I also urge this Parliament to think very seriously about move-on orders in the same brief, because they also end up with people who are victims of violence and, even, death. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Tom Rutherford, in reply. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (16:43): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I, firstly, want to acknowledge the House for the tone and the approach that has been taken to the debate on this legislation. When I first introduced the bill 2½ years ago, it was because I had met the McGrath family in Christchurch. I had met Michael’s brother, Simon, alongside Hamish Campbell, who joined me, and listened to him in his lounge, to hear the despair that he as a brother, that his mother, that his family, and friends of Michael had to experience on a day to day basis. This is a case, now, nearly 10 years ago, and that family and that friend group have still not had the opportunity to lay Michael to rest. What a shameful experience that is for them—and for us, as a country, to allow to take place in the sense that, in 17 years’ time, David Benbow, the gentleman convicted of Michael’s murder, will front to the Parole Board and, without this piece of legislation, can potentially be eligible to walk free, to be reintegrated into our society, and yet Simon’s head will hit that pillow and he’ll wonder “Where is my brother? When will I have the opportunity to lay him to rest? When will I have the opportunity to finally and properly grieve?” That’s what this bill is about. It’s not going to impact hundreds or thousands of cases, but even one case is one case too many, because that’s one family, that’s one community dealing with the day-to-day impacts of the unknown—the unknown of where their friend, their family member is. That’s what this bill will fix, because, for too long, we’ve said to those convicted murderers “You can reintegrate into society, with no obligation whatsoever to disclose what you have done with your victim’s or victims’ body.” I’m saying that we’re drawing a line in the sand. It’s not only the Michael McGrath case as an example; there’s Sarah Neith, and many others across the history of our country, where families still carry that burden today. I say thank you to this House. I say thank you to the New Zealand Labour Party, I say thank you to New Zealand First, and I say thank you to the ACT Party, for their understanding and willingness to allow this piece of legislation to go to the Justice Committee, to allow us, as members of that select committee, to hear from members of the public who will submit on this legislation. I acknowledge that there are some pitfalls and shortcomings that this bill may have, and that is entirely the right place to send the bill, to sort it out, to iron it out, to fix it, and to get it right. In the same breath, I acknowledge the section 7 report prepared by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General said, in his own words, it was a line call. But in his own report—and if you get the opportunity, I recommend you read it—he says that there are opportunities to fix and remediate the issues that he is highlighting in his report. That is precisely what I encourage the Justice Committee to do: to take the Attorney-General’s report, listen to the submissions, and, where necessary, fix this legislation so we make it workable and practical for our communities and our country. This bill has never been about harming people who are already in prison; it’s solely about putting victims at the heart of our justice system. It’s solely about saying to them, “If you want to be released on parole, then do the right thing: share with our families, our friends, and our loved ones what you have done to your victims’ remains, so that they have the opportunity to finally lay their loved one to rest.” I say thank you to this House. Thank you for engaging in the debate and thank you for today, in my first member’s bill, supporting it so that it can go to the Justice Committee, and we can progress it into law. Thank you. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.