Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. The couple of questions arising out of those last two contributions—Mr Penk raises with his highly analytical view about section 10 whether or not it is about an act or omission. What it is about and what section 10A of the Crimes Act and section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are getting at is that someone who is not criminally liable today for something—for a failure on their part an act of negligence—which later causes a death cannot be or should not be through dint of passing a law made criminally liable later. That's the retrospectivity principle. So that is what is being applied here. In relation to Dr Smith who—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can you answer the fundamental question?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Dr Smith you've had sufficient time—order!Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Dr Smith no. Resume your seat Dr Smith. You've had sufficient time. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. One of the most important functions of the committee stages is for members to be able to ask questions of the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And you have done so and the Minister is attempting to answer those questions. They may or may not be to your satisfaction; however you must give the Minister an opportunity—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No. I and actually four of my colleagues have asked exactly the same question as to whether the loophole will apply—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And as I say Dr Smith—Hon Dr Nick Smith: —to the 4200 buildings.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Dr Smith as I say they may or may not be to your satisfaction; however the Minister is attempting to answer those questions. Now when we come back to giving the calls to the committee I will expect for us to be traversing some other arguments. We've covered this sufficiently. The Minister is attempting to answer the questions you have put to him. I call the Hon Andrew Little.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Madam Chair. The Hon Dr Smith raises the point—he's posed the question the question that was put at the select committee too and he got the response. That is the tragedy about why leaving it until now to repeal this law when it could have been done earlier—good grief that member I think was in Parliament at the time of Cave Creek. Why wasn't it done then? Nobody on that side of the House took an ounce of effort to repeal this insidious law. We have done so. The great tragedy is that we cannot turn the clock back and we cannot make people who we would like to have thought were criminally liable yesterday criminally liable tomorrow. That is not the way we make criminal law in this country. We have never made it that way. The real question that Dr Smith is really trying to pose is: will his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) enable the CTV families to get something they cannot get? And it won't. That's the tragedy of his SOP; it is about raising false hope. If that's the impression that he is intending to give—that he appears to have given if you look at the statements from the representatives of the family—that is just compounding tragedy upon tragedy and I would say is reckless for a member of Parliament.