Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I take the opportunity to respond to the honourable member's questions such as they were posed in his speech. It was not appropriate when he posed a question for me to be shouting over the top of him as he seemed to be expecting. I go back to the point I made earlier: if that member was serious about overturning the longstanding principle we have about retrospectivity enshrined in section 10A of the Crimes Act and enshrined in section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) would have been drafted to do that—to exclude those enshrined provisions—but he didn't. He didn't because he has said to the families I am going to use you for my political fodder. I am going to play with your emotions—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take grievous offence at the assertion by the Minister that my motivation on this issue as both a Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers is anything other than ensuring that we have the most just law and that we have the most safe law on the serious issue of seismic safety.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Dr Smith I understand that there's been a lot of heightened emotion during the course of this debate and I can understand on both sides that we probably have toned it up a little too high. This is a very serious matter. It has the potential to be a very emotional matter. So I would suggest to both parties in this discussion that we actually take a much more professional approach. I believe that the families at the heart of this particular discussion deserve no less.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Standing Orders are very clear that if a member takes offence—and I take absolute offence at the Minister's assertion that I have moved this Supplementary Order Paper on the basis of exploiting victims of the CTV disaster. I take offence at that and the Standing Orders are very clear that if a member takes offence the member who has made those offensive remarks needs to withdraw them. The Standing Orders are very clear.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Indeed they are—indeed they are. There is also the provision for the House to take offence and what I'm saying to you Dr Smith is that this is a very emotive discussion at the moment. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps we all just take a deep breath and come back to the matter at hand rather than heighten further the emotions in this particular debate. There is a provision within the Standing Orders for the House to take offence. I'm suggesting we're getting close to that but in this case I have not taken offence at that. I would encourage the Minister to be a little more respectful of the discussion.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm obliged Madam Chair. I do point out that I have been accused of making a promise to the families that I have not kept which is equally outrageous too. This is a sensitive matter and as I said before those families and others—you think of Cave Creek as well—who have been victims who have lost loved ones as a result of other people's failures about which nothing was done subsequently this law hasn't helped.My promise to the families and to their legal counsel was: we will repeal the law. But tragically regrettably and unfortunately we cannot do anything to wind the clock back to give us grounds to prosecute. They are entitled to feel totally let down by the system totally let down by the engineering profession and those who were responsible for that tragic tragic event. I remember it well because I was on Cashel Street on 22 February 2011 hundreds of metres up the road from the CTV Building. I remember that day well. And I remember the horror that I and my colleagues I was with at the time saw when we saw a building that was standing only minutes before was pretty much gone—was gone. I've met the families and we've had that discussion and it hasn't been an easy discussion for them but as representatives as lawmakers we can only do what we can do within our legal conventions and with the requirements upon us. Now of course it would be nice for those who have been victims of great tragedies tragedies that have actually been the responsibility of the failed actions of individuals—but we cannot provide recourse historical recourse in every case. I've had that discussion with members opposite principally with the Hon Gerry Brownlee and we agreed. If that member wanted to overturn the conventions that bind us and that bind judges when they interpret law he would have put it in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 192 but it has arrived late and that isn't there. It is a matter of great regret but this House has to act in accordance with the rule of law itself. That's what gives credibility to the laws that this House passes. And even if that law were passed it would have no effect and anybody who says otherwise would be misleading those who might hold out some hope. So I say that that SOP that that member has put up will make no difference. You would have to say that at a technical level there was no need for the clarifying point in the Schedule to the Act which is part of Part 2 but it is there because members wanted it and clearly it was the subject of great debate at the select committee. But it is there and it states what the law is. It states the principle of the rule of law and it echoes what those principles are that are enshrined in the Crimes Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the SOP does nothing to change them. The SOP would have no effect. So there is no basis on which this committee could conceivably and in good conscience and acting in good faith support that SOP."