Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Madam Chair I wish to respond to three specific points that have been made by the Government. But first I want to reflect on the comment that was made that we should not be having this contentious debate in the week of the anniversary of the earthquakes which is challenging. My view—to the member opposite to Megan Woods—is this: the families have made plain their view that they do not support the Government on this. I was shocked surprised and disappointed that the Government chose to advance this legislation in this week. I would much prefer—I say to Minister Woods—that we were not debating the bill this week. That was entirely in the hands of the Government and I assure Megan Woods the families are deeply disappointed that the Government would attempt to progress this bill in that very week.The second point I wish to raise is that members opposite have asserted that I should have raised these issues in the select committee. The Minister went so far as to say that there was no minority report or report from National in the select committee report. So I'll read it to him: National members view the year and a day rule as a loophole. Having accepted this law as wrong in the past—for example [in the case of] Cave Creek … CTV [or] the Pike … mine for prosecution to be limited by this provision—they do not think it is acceptable to apply the provision for any act of negligence that has occurred in the past but may not come to be tested until … the bill is passed. They are concerned that [they] will be another tragedy in which people will be able to use this loophole to avoid accountability and believe this is a stronger argument than the more pure legal argument about retrospectivity."How can it be more explicit? How can the Minister stand in this House and say members should have raised it in the select committee and that it was not covered in the report. Absolutely it is. The Minister misled the House and was incorrect on that point.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Dr Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the Minister made the assertion that there was no minority report or comment from National. That was incorrect. He misled the House.Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I said there is no minority report; there is no minority report. I was at pains to point out the issue had been debated and canvassed well in the select committee. I only said there was no minority report. Unfortunately Dr Smith has once again embellished something to make an assertion and he is simply not correct—and he himself is in breach of Standing Orders—when he says I have misled the House. I've done no such thing.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Actually that wasn't technically a point of order. That was a debating point. Could we bring this matter to a conclusion.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. We're going to respond to the points that have been raised quite properly by Ministers. Again the Minister is being cute. Let me tell you why: the Justice Committee is evenly divided. It has five National members; it has five Labour members. How can a committee that has five Labour and five National have a minority? So when the Minister in the chair says there is no minority report of course there can't be. There can only be a National members report and a Labour members report and that just further shows how disingenuous the Minister is being in respect to—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let's bring this matter to a close Dr Smith. We have traversed these issues.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. Actually Madam Chair I'm allowed to respond to the point the Minister has made and I wish to make a third point because he has—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): At my discretion Dr Smith—at my discretion.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will absolutely speak to the points the Minister has made particularly when he misleads the position of the families. The Minister has claimed—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am saying this once more Dr Smith. We have traversed this several times.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I noticed that the clock is continuing to decline—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes. That's correct.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and did during the point where Andrew Little made a non - point of order and so I ask that the clock enable me to have my five-minute contribution.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are actually Dr Smith timing it. You have about another minute and 10 seconds—2 minutes 30 I apologise. We are counting up to 2 minutes 30. We have reset the clock.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Caution. Caution—listen to the words that I have expressed.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in the chair asserted that the statement from the families meant that they had been misled that my amendment and our criticism and concern of this bill would enable the prosecution of the engineers that were responsible for the CTV Building. So I can only read the full statement that was made by the families that the Minister in the chair has misrepresented. They said this: "We have been badly let down by Justice Minister Andrew Little who committed to repealing this law which acts as a potential barrier to prosecution in a situation like the CTV Building collapse."—in a situation like the CTV Building collapse.The Minister's assertion that the families had been in their statement claiming that the changes around the specific provision would have enabled the CTV engineers to be prosecuted is just a false statement by the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): This is repetitious now Dr Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sorry?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is repetitious now Dr Smith. I've given you several—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well no it is a—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. Excuse me. I'm the one that actually makes the determination whether this is repetitious or not.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I think it's extremely serious when the Minister of Justice deliberately misrepresents what the CTV families—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Regardless of that. You have got about 20 seconds left of this call to make some further arguments or else I'm going to finish the call.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would seek the support of the committee because Supplementary Order Paper 192 in my name is about justice not about academic legal provision. It's about the Government honouring its commitments that it has made to the CTV families. It's about as David Bennett so accurately said taking a common-sense view of the law and not a theoretical view of the law."