Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It's eight years this week since I think every New Zealander was shaken by the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake in which 115 people died in the CTV Building. The royal commission that the previous Government established rightly concluded that the engineers who were responsible for designing that building in 1986 breached the most basic standards of engineering with that building. I think every member of this House would feel the injustice of the families—that because of the one year one day rule no prosecution could be taken for that negligence. So on that basis I am pleased that we have a bill that is to repeal that provision.I was surprised to read the history that the one year one day rule dates back to 1276. I'm not sure that in 1276 the judges of the time applied their minds to the challenge of a modern earthquake engineer and his responsibilities to design a building so that it would be resistant to an earthquake. In fact for all practical purposes the one year one day rule exempts engineers completely from the liability because it would be very unusual for a building to be designed and constructed before one year and one day was up. So its repeal is very important.But here's the bit that really upsets me and I want to appeal to every member of this House to reflect on what we are doing here. If in 30 years' time one of the 3000 new buildings in Christchurch pancakes and kills a hundred people the Government is saying that that engineer will be able to use the one year and one day law and again an injustice will be committed. I would appeal to this House and ask them to read the very strong statement from those CTV families that that would be unjust.Now just so you don't think I'm making it up the officials at the select committee said that that scenario was absolutely true. In 30 years' time if a new building that's been constructed post the Christchurch earthquakes pancakes and kills a hundred people Parliament is being asked to say that's OK and those engineers won't be accountable. That is not OK and this Government is seriously letting down the families and the memory of those 115 people who were lost in those earthquakes.Well the Minister is nodding his head. Can I ask the Minister this question? If his bill is passed and a building that was designed today collapses in a major earthquake in 30 years' time and kills a hundred people will the engineers be able to get off on the one year one day rule? The officials advised the committee they would. Does the Minister confirm that that scenario is correct? The Minister is silent. It's all very well nodding his head but I think a Parliament on such a serious life and death issue deserves an answer. If a build designed today fails in an earthquake in 30 years' time and kills 100 people will this bill let those people—those engineers that made the error—get off the hook? The answer is yes. Members on this side of the Chamber say that's not good enough but the Government is wanting to spit in the face of the CTV families and allow that anomaly and that injustice to continue and that is wrong.But Madam Chairperson it's more important than that and it's this. What is clear in the royal commission's report on the CTV Building is that the design flaws—[Bell rung]CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just a second before I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith to continue with this debate—I've waited until you've finished that part of the call—just to remind the member that actually the substantive part of this particular argument is best placed in Part 2. So if you could come back to Part 1 I'd be greatly appreciative.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm talking to clause 6 which is about the repeal of the one year and one day rule and the implications that it has—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I understand that. However the substantive part of your Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is a very important issue. We're talking about the biggest engineering failure in New Zealand history—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Indeed. However—Kieran McAnulty: Listen to the Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I can handle this Mr McAnulty. I do not need your interaction. The substantive part of this debate with regard to your SOP should occur in Part 2. I have allowed you to traverse this by way of introduction but please if we could come back to the other matters in Part 1 and then in Part 2 I fully expect that you will traverse these arguments more fully. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to further pursue clause 6 and the implications and the incentives that it has for engineers. I think every member of this House will want engineering practice to be as safe as possible and for the incentives for people when they know that something is wrong to fix it. I am going to canvass the issue that occurred with the CTV Building because it is so much behind. The Minister himself has said that this clause 6 has come about as a consequence of the lack of prosecution over the collapse of the CTV Building. And what occurred in the case of the CTV Building is that in the early 1990s a number of engineers identified that that CTV Building was poorly designed and had flaws. And we in this Parliament should be focused on ensuring that there are the incentives for people where there are faults particularly faults that could put at risk over 100 lives that there are the incentives for those people to fix or at least notify the authorities of the faults that are in that building. The great difficulty I have with the bill and with the Government's approach and the debate that we had on clause 6 in the select committee was that the Government's policy is that there will be no incentive because effectively the one year and one day rule is going to continue to apply for those buildings. I would like to draw attention to the CTV families' statement on this issue today. They have said and I'll quote it: This bill and this clause add insult to injury for the CTV families." And I do say to the Minister how insulting it is when he knows the CTV families are so concerned about this bill and this part: why would the Minister add insult to injury and progress this bill in the very week in which those families including many from Japan are in New Zealand. When I saw this on the Order Paper today I just said to myself "What an insensitive Government—that they would want to progress a bill against the will of the CTV families." [Interruption] Well the members opposite think it's funny. I don't think I've seen a day in which New Zealanders were more grieving were more shocked than when the CTV Building collapsed and I say again that it is insulting for members opposite to progress this legislation against the will of the CTV families in the very week in which we have the eighth anniversary. Darroch Ball: Oh come on.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member says "Come on." Let me read what the families are saying: "it will add insult to injury." [Interruption] CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to the member from New Zealand First and I'd ask him to reflect on what the Government is doing. I say it to him again. This bill will mean that in 30 years' time if we get another CTV Building those responsible for its design—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Dr Smith we've traversed this before. Thank you.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me come back to the exact quote from the CTV families group: this bill "will add insult to injury for the CTV families if the Government passes a bill that [will] allow [that] injustice [that they suffered to occur again]." I appeal to the conscience of the Green members of the Labour members and the New Zealand First members opposite and say to them: how would any member in this House want any families to go through again what the CTV families did the injustice that they suffered and that is why we need to get the detail of Part 1 of this bill right—[Bell rung]"