Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. I do want to really have a short call in respect of the matter just touched on by Mr King which is the year and a day rule and the question of when it comes into force. I just note that yes there were some pretty vigorous exchanges robust exchanges at select committee on that point and we pressed the advisers to provide us the best advice they could on that and we got very very good advice indeed which informed the position that has been taken.I can absolutely understand the sense that someone who committed a wrong in 1990 that causes a death in the future should be held to account for that. That's a very real and appropriate sentiment but the rule against retrospectivity runs very deep and for good reasons. Dr Smith used the Cave Creek tragedy a huge tragedy where 14 died due to defective buildings and he also mentioned the CTV Building an even greater tragedy where 115 people died—both of which may be sheeted home to poor engineering which may be laid at the door possibly of particular individuals. Now because the wrongs themselves occurred more than a year before the tragedy itself occurred the year and a day rule kicked in. The other situation where it's come up in recent times was with George Siaosi which was the coward punch—as it's called—event where the young man was punched outside a Denny's and he died 15 months later meaning that the wrongdoer could only be charged with an offence which was less than the murder which might otherwise have been the case.Now there are essentially three situations here. There's no suggestion from any side of the House that we embark on some retrospectivity where both the wrong and the death occurred historically. And we all agree that looking forward where the wrong and the death occur in the future the law will now capture it because we're doing away with the year and a day rule. Where we disagree is that narrow band of cases where the wrong occurred historically but their death occurs after this comes into force. Now that would be retrospective because when the wrong occurred the law provided this defence.Mr King referred to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is a fundamental precept; these are the words of the Act: No one should be liable to conviction [on] any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such [a] person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred." That is absolutely fundamental—that people when they're engaging in conduct do so under the law as it stands on that day. We don't look backwards in time and think "We should have captured that by the law; let's change the criminal law retrospectively." Indeed the Crimes Act itself section 10A reiterates that by saying that there'll be no criminal liability in respect of any offence which was not an offence at the time.So the position in respect of retrospectivity is entirely appropriate. In fact it's more than that; it's constitutionally required. So that's really the only contribution I wanted to make on this bill: to make very clear the discussions that went on the advice that was given and the reasons for having a piece of legislation which is forward-looking only. I commend the bill to the House."