Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Large parts of this bill are agreed with by the National Opposition. I wish to speak briefly on each of those three provisions and then to focus on an issue where there is a difference of view. Firstly this bill provides for extending the protections that are provided in the Crimes Act to those persons or spouses that are in a civil union as though someone was married. That it is a common-sense tidy-up of the law that Parliament has been systematically working through over the last couple of decades of establishing an equality of relationships whether people are married whether they are civil unions and that makes good sense.The second provision in the bill deals with the issue of blasphemous libel. And as a political party that believes in freedom that believes in the importance of people being able to express themselves without constraint it is an anomaly in the law that it is a criminal offence to make a blasphemous comment. Now some might argue that it's been a very long time—I think it is nearly 90 years—since someone was prosecuted and I suspect it is not 90 years since someone somewhere perhaps even in this Parliament has made a blasphemous comment. However it's my view that the law should reflect what we intend and whether the police and Crown Law have not determined to prosecute such cases is no reason for Parliament not to bring the statute into line with practice. I've actually got a constituent right now that is in another jurisdiction in another country being prosecuted for blasphemous comments facing a serious prison sentence and it is difficult for New Zealand in the international arena to be able to promote the free expression of religious views abroad if at home we still have this law on our books.I do want to make the point that if we are going to support freedom of speech we do need to be consistent and I do note there are some other proposals where the Government is looking to constrain freedom of expression including those people that have strong Christian beliefs. I would urge that Parliament in repealing this blasphemy law equally applies and respects the right of people that have deep religious views to be able to continue to express those.The most significant of the provisions of this bill I feel very strongly about and commend the Minister for bringing to the House because I have been at the front line of dealing with some of the angst and frustration of people who had not been served well by our justice system in respect of the one year and one day rule. My first ministerial appointment was as Minister of Conservation following the tragedy that occurred at Cave Creek. There was a deep sense of both frustration and injustice that no person was ever prosecuted for constructing that death trap and one of the reasons that the authorities gave for no prosecution being issued was the existence of this one year one day" rule. It actually was not that much longer than one year from the time when the Cave Creek platform was constructed. It was one year and six months to that tragic day when those young people lost their lives and I don't think there would be a person in this House that really believes that the passage of that time should exempt people from being responsible.Equally so if we reflect on the two great tragedies that afflicted our nation in a very short period both at the Pike River mine and the collapse of the CTV Building in the Christchurch earthquake—again this one year and one day rule effectively meant that because the act of neglect that may have occurred in Pike where there was a reckless regard for health and safety that led to the tragedy of the death of 29 men or the 113 people that were killed in the CTV Building—because the negligent design occurred back in 1987 but the building did not collapse until the date of that earthquake in February of 2011 it restricted the capacity to prosecute. That is why quite rightly this Parliament is universally of a view that section 162 should be repealed.But here's the interesting question: if Parliament accepts that the "one year one day" rule is an anomaly the very real question for this Parliament is when should that anomaly be removed? This issue is particularly pertinent to my own profession as a civil engineer and the thousands of buildings that are constructed in the country each year. The Government's view that they've taken on the transitional provisions means that any building that has been built prior to 2018 will still enjoy the protection of the exemption of the "one day one year" law. Can I give a practical example: we have a major building—hundreds of them that have been built in Christchurch. If any of the engineering of those buildings that have been constructed is deficient and let's say there is a further earthquake in this country in 2050 2060 maybe even 2100 the designers of those buildings under the Government's approach would not be able to be prosecuted. They would still enjoy the benefit of the "one year one day" provision that is proposed here. I think that is wrong. I think that is taking the purity of retrospectivity too far.Here's the madness: if just by chance you're an engineer and within 10 months of you building the building you are fully—and we all know that earthquakes are random events; we have no control over them. The engineer that is responsible for the design of that building will be fully legally accountable but just by accident of the timing of when the building is constructed that person will be able to walk free. Now in my view the argument that the Government has taken on this transitional provision is one that is very legalistic and pure and it says that for Parliament to pass a law today that says that buildings that have been built in the past continue to enjoy the "one year one day" law in my view will be an insult to many of the families aggrieved such as those from the CTV Building. I know it is their strong view that this bill should not carry through that exemption into the future.National's position is not that the law should be applied retrospectively. It is our view that from the date that this bill is passed if there is anybody killed in a building collapse then the designers of that building should not be able to enjoy the "one year one day" rule and that is where this Parliament needs to actually take a practical view of justice and not a theoretical view. Here is the essence of the question for Parliament: if a building collapses and kills 50 people in the year 2030 is it a greater injustice that the victims of that building have no accountability or is the greater injustice that the designer of that building is not able to enjoy the "one year one day" rule exemption? It would be my common-sense view to this Parliament that the far greater injustice is for those families that are not able to enjoy it. This is the nature of engineering where there is the widest application of this particular issue and I would urge members opposite to reflect on the common-sense dimension and ensure that if there is a future tragedy whether it be a Cave Creek whether it be a Pike or whether it be a CTV Building that from the day this law is passed people are not able to escape accountability by the continued application of this "one year one day" rule.I note with interest that actually the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand and many others take the view that the sooner that provision is removed the better and we should note that there will be tens of thousands of buildings in the next century that enjoy this anomaly and this protection inappropriately if we do not change the transitional provisions in the committee stage which National will be attempting to do. We do commend the bill but we would like to see that anomaly resolved so that this law can be right and correct these historic injustices."