Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): What the Minister is failing to do is to focus on the issues of justice to focus on the issues of the commitments that he made to the families to focus on making the law so that we have the safest buildings possible in our country and equally to ensure that the commitments made to the families are honoured. What I heard from the Minister right now was a speech of legal academic and not practice because here's the question: if one of the rebuild buildings of which there are thousands—any one of those buildings Mr Little that have been built in Christchurch—in a major earthquake in 30 years' time pancakes and kills a hundred people and the engineer in 30 years' time is asked whether he can be prosecuted what the Minister's bill says is that that engineer will be able to walk off scot free. Do members of the House really believe that's just? Do we really want to pass a law that says that in 30 years' time when there's an earthquake and exactly the same events that occurred over the CTV Building occur the engineer is going to walk free? And when the officials advised the select committee of that point I said That's wrong." I said "That breaches common sense and it is not right and needs fixing."Now the Minister in the chair pretends that the officials at the committee were opposed to the provision; they actually said the points that I made were very fair—that they were actually morally challenged by the fact that in the future we could have an exact repeat of what occurred with the CTV Building. And here's what the nub of the issue really comes down to: in 30 years' time a major earthquake occurs and one of the buildings that was designed today collapses and causes the death of a hundred people. The question for Parliament is this: which is the greater injustice? Is the greater injustice that the engineer says "Oh but when I designed that building in February of 2019 I thought I could take advantage of the loophole of the one year one day rule."? Is that a really awful injustice or is the injustice for the hundred victims who have lost their lives as a consequence of neglectful engineering? That is the question.The families have been very direct on this and the Minister in the chair is being disingenuous. He gave an absolute commitment to the families that he would repeal the provision and he went further—in fact he's quoted in the media as saying "What occurred with the CTV Building will never occur again." So I've got a simple question for the Minister: under the scenario that I paint where a building designed today collapses in 30 years' time because of negligent seismic engineering and kills a hundred people will they get off scot free? Will the Minister answer that question? The Minister is silently looking at his papers because he knows that I'm correct. He knows the advice of his officials and he knows that in that circumstance those families would get off.Here's the other point that I'd want to make to the House: surely our focus is to ensure that buildings are safer. No member of this House wants to see a repeat of that tragedy that occurred with the CTV Building in 2011 nearly eight years ago exactly. But here's the history: five years after that building was built engineers including the design engineers found out that it was deficient but didn't do anything. So if we can pass and adopt the amendment that I have put forward ensuring that this one year one day law does not apply for those buildings that have been designed it will provide a very strong incentive for any engineer who has been involved in designing a building to ensure that it is fixed.Well I'll say to the Minister—and I am a Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers—I've probably designed more structures than any other member in this House. I'll tell you what occurred in both the Kaikōura and the Christchurch earthquakes. Do you know what a technical person like myself does? You spend a month designing a building; you have a major earthquake; you actually want to go and see how it performed. How did it go? And what we will do by ensuring this provision—this loophole—does not operate into the future is provide an incentive for any engineer who's involved in designing a building who subsequently realises that it has got deficiencies. They will have a duty of care under this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to ensure that that building is fixed.I want to correct an absolutely false statement that was made by the Minister. He has claimed that my SOP my press release and my discussions with families have pretended that it would enable prosecution of the engineers who were involved in the CTV Building. Minister that's wrong that's disingenuous that's not in the families' press release it's not in my press release and it's not in the SOP that I've tabled.Let me read exactly what the SOP says Minister: "To avoid doubt the repeal of section 162 applies to any death that occurs after the Crimes Amendment Act 2019 comes into force." So what does that say? That says any death that occurs from here. That's in "after this law is passed". Well what the Minister is saying is this—and let's be quite clear about it—let's say in August this year there is a major earthquake and a building collapses and people die the engineers responsible for that death should still be able to get off on the basis of the anachronistic one year one day law. He shakes his head. So under his provision does he dispute the advice of officials that for all those buildings—on my count Minister 4300 buildings have been built in Christchurch during the rebuild. Should the engineers for those 4300 buildings enjoy the loophole of the one year one day law?The Minister's provision says "Yes." He says that all those engineers should be able to get off. Does the Minister not accept the advice of his officials? For those 4300 buildings that have been built in Christchurch since 22 February in the rebuild will the one year one day rule apply Minister? Yes or no. The silence is deafening. Doesn't the Parliament deserve an answer? Wouldn't you if you were a person in Christchurch want to know whether the one year one day law applied to the 4300 buildings that have been built in Christchurch to replace those that were damaged or demolished in the Christchurch earthquake? And the Minister won't give the people of Christchurch a straight answer because do you know what the straight answer is? He's leaving the loophole open and leaving that loophole open is wrong Minister. It's unjust. You have become a slave to the law and have forgotten about justice. That's what the families are saying. That's what I'm saying to you.Now in respect of the issue of retrospectivity I have heard Minister a hundred arguments in this Parliament around where provisions are retrospective and not. It would be retrospective if this Parliament was proposing to pass a law to backtrack and to prosecute the likes of Mr Harding and Mr Reay who built the CTV Building. That would be retrospective. This SOP does not do that. This bill under my SOP will apply only to deaths that occur after the Parliament has passed this law. And I say again to the Minister that he needs to weigh up in a sensible sense of justice what is the greater issue. My argument is that there is no engineer in New Zealand who expects the ongoing protection of this archaic loophole. There isn't an engineer you'll find who's relying on that protection. And what the Minister is doing is allowing his commitment to families to be broken—even worse he is breaking that commitment in the very week that they are going through the grief of the eighth anniversary—and at the same time he is compromising the safety of the seismic standards by not providing for the obligation on engineers to ensure that buildings are safe. So I again say to the Minister: try justice not—[Time expired]"