Smith Nick: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19793] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is no wonder the Minister mumbled into his microphone and held his head in shame in respect of this bill because it is a diabolical mess. What the Minister did not mention was that for the last 13 days this Government has been breaking the law. This Government wrote a new Building Act rushed it through under urgency and now it is breaking the law. Did we hear that from the Minister? 
What is even worse is that according to officials who briefed the Government Administration Committee the Government was advised in January of this problem—in January! So for 3½ months the Government has done nothing and in particular the Minister Chris Carter who was quite properly described by John Tamihere as a “tosser” because he was briefed in January that the Government was breaking the law did nothing. He did absolutely nothing. 
Dianne Yates 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dianne Yates says that that is not true. Well I ask Dianne: when did we get the bill? 
Dianne Yates 
: You weren’t at the committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member knows— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name title or electorate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dianne Yates interjects and suggests that I am incorrect. The officials were very explicit at the select committee. Chris Carter was advised in January that the Building Act was a botched mess and that the Government was going to break its own law from 1 April and we did not see a bill until 30 March. That is the sort of respect this Government gives to the law of the land. On this side of the House— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You are not the law of the land. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dr Cullen who is the Attorney-General—the Minister who is responsible for enforcing the law of the land—says that it does not really matter. If the Government breaks the law it is OK. That is probably why Helen Clark signs paintings fraudulently. That is probably why she speeds at 150 kilometres an hour while at the same time if any ordinary New Zealander goes 10 kilometres over the speed limit he or she gets pinged. 
This bill is about patching up the Government’s breaking of its own law. What has happened here is actually quite straightforward. The Government keeps passing all sorts of control freak legislation telling New Zealanders to do this and telling New Zealanders to do that but when it affects the Government the Government simply ignores it. So what we have here is a bill being passed under urgency to fix problems in another Act that was passed under urgency. One would think the Government would learn. One would think that somehow the Government would work it out that if it passes rushed legislation it will botch it up and it will end up having to pass amendments. 
The building industry is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. We are talking about an industry involving 230000 people. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member come back to the content of the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The very content of the bill is that the Government is breaking the law. The Minister and the Department of Building and Housing have both admitted it. They have both admitted that they are in breach of the law. I say that an industry that is worth $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy—an industry that employs 230000 people—deserves better than a Government that breaks its own law. Do people know what this Government does? The Government with this legislation is going to pass requirements that people cannot do building work even on their own homes. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis the member for Whanganui probably does not understand that there are Kiwi battlers in Wanganui who get themselves ahead by buying a home working their little rings out and upgrading their house selling it and improving their equity. That is how generations of New Zealanders have been able to get ahead in life. What has Jill Pettis’ Government done? It has abolished it. The Government has banned it. 
Dianne Yates 
: What are you talking about? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Dianne Yates asks what I am talking about. I am talking about the botched Building Act—which was examined by the select committee that she was the chair of—that prohibits New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes. My challenge to members opposite is for them to give me a single example of where a leaky home problem has been caused by a do-it-yourself builder. [ 
Interruption 
] Dianne Yates says that I do not have it correct. Well members should hang on a moment. I now have a Supplementary Order Paper before the House to fix 18 stupid mistakes that her select committee got wrong. 
Dianne Yates 
: No we didn’t. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dianne Yates says: “We haven’t got it wrong.” Why is it then I ask Dianne Yates that I have not one not two but 40 pages of legislation before this very House today to fix the botch-ups that she and her select committee made in this important area of building law? They have made a hash of it. The Government has imposed all sorts of controls on other New Zealanders and it has not been able to provide sensible building laws that will work for New Zealand. 
I see that the Minister for Building Issues is now in the House and I am pleased. But I must point out that he is the seventh Minister that we have had in this portfolio. 
 Is it any wonder— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: And the most successful. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter says that he is the most successful. 
Hon David Carter 
: What a tosser! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have to agree with David Carter and John Tamihere when they refer to Chris Carter as a tosser because only a tosser— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please come back to the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know it is embarrassing for the Government because the ink on this bill— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I haven’t had to seek psychiatric treatment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter the moment one challenges— 
Jill Pettis 
: Go and have a lie down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can we just have order. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The comment made by the member was out of order. He knows that no such reference is to be made to members and I want him to stand and withdraw the comment he made about my colleague Dr Nick Smith. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Jill Pettis 
: There is somebody there with an elevated voice. I take exception to what both David Carter and Nick Smith said. However I thought I would let what they said go because Nick Smith has only a couple of minutes left to speak anyway. But given that the National Party has taken a point of order I have responded to it. Its members made an offensive comment as well and I suggest that to keep the slate clean both Mr David Carter and Mr Chris Carter get up and withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank both honourable members for their contributions. I realise that the debate is rather testy at the present stage and recognise that there is going to be this sort of leeway backwards and forwards. I am prepared to leave it at that. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I am going to be making a contribution shortly I want to clarify the use of the word “tosser”. I acknowledge that I did make an interjection referring in it to Mr Chris Carter as a “tosser”. I want to know whether that is an acceptable and legitimate word for the House or only for Mr Tamihere. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 115 and I leave it at that. I know that the member can read it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter gets nasty the moment he is in trouble. The ink is not dry on his Building Act yet here we have 30 pages of amendments. Any Minister worth his or her salt would be hiding his or her head in shame and embarrassment with that sort of botch-up of the law of the land. I am looking forward to Chris Carter apologising because it was only 2 weeks ago—and I can quote from  
Hansard 
—when I raised concerns in respect of the Building Act that Chris Carter said these words: “There is no problem.” Well if there is no problem why is the House under urgency? Why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up the Minister’s mess? If Chris Carter is correct in what he told the House just 10 days ago that there is no problem then why do we have 30 pages of amendments to fix up his botched law? The truth is that you have completely screwed up you have not listened to the industry— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister responsible for the legislation has made a complete mess. As I said earlier we have had six Ministers. They are playing a game of musical chairs with a portfolio as important as building and people’s houses. It is a mess. Chris Carter— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should come back to the bill. The bill itself does not contain these provisions. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 95/1 which states that a Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated in detail during a second reading. The time to debate the Supplementary Order Paper will be when the Minister moves an instruction. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As this matter has now been alluded to can I clarify the situation. As I understand it the Minister sought leave to include the Supplementary Order Paper. That leave was declined. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a point of order on the floor of the House. The correct procedure when there is a point of order is that it is heard in silence. 
Dail Jones 
:As I was saying the Minister sought leave to include this Supplementary Order Paper and the leave was declined. Therefore the Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated at all at this stage or even at the Committee stage unless the Government moves a normal debatable motion that the Supplementary Order Paper be included. 
I am just making the point that until that procedure is adopted there is a second reason for not debating the Supplementary Order Paper at the report back of the select committee’s report. That is my understanding of the procedure that needs to be followed. A formal motion has to be moved and debated in the normal way by the House before the Supplementary Order Paper can be discussed by the Committee of the whole House. So New Zealand First will be debating the report back of the bill from the select committee but we will not be referring to the Supplementary Order Paper because as yet the Government has no right to have it before the House. That is my understanding of the situation. As the matter has been alluded to maybe it could be clarified. The Supplementary Order Paper is outside the terms of the bill and because it is so far outside the terms of the bill it cannot be accepted by the House except by leave or by a motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Supplementary Order Paper can be debated to the extent allowed by Speakers’ rulings 95/1 which is that a full debate will follow on the instruction. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One can see that we have an awful botch-up. What we have with this bill is rushed legislation that was given to the select committee to consider for only 24 hours because the Government is breaking the law. Anybody else breaking the law gets prosecuted but this is a Government that says it makes the rules but does not abide by them.