Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to speak to this and I do so with reverence and sympathy to the situation we find ourselves in in this committee. I want to acknowledge the contributions of the Hon Andrew Little and the contributions of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. As an engineer myself as somebody who knew the engineer that designed the CTV Building and as somebody that has watched with great interest the challenge really for us in this Parliament is not the difference between what the Minister thinks and what Dr Smith thinks. The real challenge for this Parliament is: can we do something about it? In reality the one year and one day provision means that if negligence occurs within one year and one day there are potentially criminal charges liable but if negligence occurs at one year and two days then under the previous provisions that would effectively mean you could get off those criminal charges. Now I'm not a lawyer like many in this House are and the contribution of Chris Penk I think was very succinct on the issue we're talking about. What we're really dealing with is buildings that are designed right up until this bill gets Royal assent and the fact that they will still be covered by the one year one day provision. That's my reading of what's said. Those 4000 buildings are still covered. As Dr Smith said—and I understand the significant emotion—in 30 years' time if the same incident occurred as happened in Christchurch that same provision could be used to null and void the negligence and criminality that goes with that. With respect Minister what I'm seeking from this committee is: is there a way considering the Bill of Rights Act considering the significance you have rightly told the committee about of section 10A that we can deal with that somehow? And if it can't be dealt with here tonight I think it is of such significance that this bill should be delayed until we can find a solution. Now Minister you shake your head. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not the Attorney-General. I get that. But what I'm saying is that we have told the families we can't fix what happened in terms of negligence and the law. We have told them that. Dr Smith is not trying to go back there. He is trying to talk about what happens in the future. And as a member of Parliament as a member of Parliament sitting here tonight I am trying to find a solution as to how we deal with the buildings that have been built from since the CTV collapse until the Royal assent is gained on this piece of legislation as it's listed.Because what as I read it this legislation says is that that provision which gives an opt-out for negligence after one year and one day will apply to all the buildings that have been designed and built from the Christchurch earthquake until the passing of the Royal assent. Now Minister if you are going to stand up and I invite you to—not in a challenge—and if you say to this House We can't do it and there is no legal provision."—Kieran McAnulty: He's said that.LAWRENCE YULE: —then yes. But I'm not sure we've explored all options because what I've heard from the Minister Mr McNulty is comments about what Dr Nick Smith is saying that are different from what he's proposing. Nobody is trying to go back for retrospectivity for the people that unfortunately lost their lives. What this committee and I are particularly interested in is seeing if there is a solution using the best legal minds we have in this Parliament and the advice we've got to find a way. Because otherwise we are simply waiting and we have given all those engineers an opt-out provision from the time of the Christchurch earthquakes to the time of the Royal assent. My question to the Minister is: is there any way possible considering the significant loss of life considering all the investigations we're doing at the likes of Pike River and things—is there any way possible we can solve this dilemma?"