Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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 4000 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.Hon Dr NICK 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —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.