Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Allow me to start by offering my condolences to all who had been involved in that tragedy and no doubt remain involved emotionally through the loss of loved ones. May I also say that I understand clearly the arguments on both sides in relation to the issues at stake regarding retrospectivity in the criminal law and also the requirements of justice more generally as set out very passionately by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I want to make a contribution that is somewhat technical in nature in good faith and sincerely in the hope that we can understand more clearly together what is in fact being proposed. Particularly Madam Chair I ask the Minister through you to consider—and obviously consult with his officials if he sees fit—the nature of retrospectivity that he cited in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that section 26. It precludes people from becoming liable for conviction of acts or omissions that were not offences at the time they were committed. What we're actually talking about here is an act or omission in a faulty design of engineering and we're using the Christchurch CTV Building as an example. But that act or omission of designing the building in a faulty way such as to cause death is already now and was back then and will remain an act which is criminal in nature. So what is being repealed here in the Crimes Amendment Bill which is the year and a day rule so-called is effectively a defence against the consequences of having done that criminal act. We are not in other words saying that something that is not criminal today will be criminal the day after the legislation is enacted. We are merely saying in effect that a defence is being removed. So the retrospectivity both in section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and section 10A of the Crimes Act is actually such that the retrospectivity preclusion that the Minister has referred to would not in fact be engaged in my view. So when the Minister says that the retrospectivity elements elsewhere in our law would need to be overturned I don't believe that is true because as I say the act or omission at stake here that will continue to be at stake in other such situations is already a criminal act whether that be murder manslaughter or other I don't need to take up the full five minutes but I did want to make that contribution because I believe in good faith that it will be helpful to us all to understand and I would genuinely welcome a response from the Minister on that point. I will just for the sake of completeness say that of course if it were the case even if I were wrong on that point—arguing in the alternative essentially—the fact that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act precludes something does not in itself mean that the courts wouldn't enforce the new section as it would become if Dr Smith's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 192 were successful because of course the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act isn't supreme in that way. At most they would issue a declaration of inconsistency if they saw fit. The other provision in the Crimes Act would be more problematic but for what it's worth that would be relatively easily disposed of and I appreciate that the words despite section 10A" aren't in the SOP but for the sake of making as complete a technical contribution as I'm able I do note for the committee that that would be an option open to it. So on that note I'll finish there but I would very much welcome a comment on the retrospectivity of acts and omissions versus criminality of acts under the criminal law as it currently stands."