Connell Brian: Third Readings 
Connell Brian: Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:19840] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is not often that I agree with a Green Party member but in this instance I think she is absolutely right. The Government has produced this legislation in a hurry and as a consequence more compliance costs have been built into the day-to-day lives of average New Zealanders. 
I take issue with the United Future member Murray Smith who got to his feet and spent the last 5 minutes of his call speaking self-righteous drivel. He talked about why his party exists in this House. He did not even speak about the bill—he did not mention the bill for nearly 5 minutes. Instead he spoke about why it was important to have minor parties like United Future in the House to keep the major parties honest. The thing I found most appalling was his contention that he knew when he supported the passage of the Building Act that it had errors in it and that it would be coming back to the House soon thereafter for correction. He is taking some pride in the fact that we are now here under urgency speaking about the changes he forecast. He said that that was the way we did things in this House. 
I have news for him and his party—it is not the way the National Party does things at all. We believe very firmly that we should endeavour to write good legislation at the first pass. I accept that from time to time there will be errors but to set out to achieve error strikes me as an absolute nonsense. 
I want to talk a little about the press release that was put out by Minister Hodgson. I find it extraordinary that Pete Hodgson is the Minister in charge of this bill when the actual Minister for Building Issues is Chris Carter. I do not know whether Chris Carter has been tossed out of that portfolio or whether to use the words of someone else in this House he is just a tosser. But that is not something I would want to dwell on. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind members that that word has been ruled out of order. I ask the member to withdraw it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I can be of assistance. I heard the member. He did not say “tosser” he said “tossor” as in a “tossee” or a “tossor”—one who is being tossed— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be seated. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It is an important point. It is language. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I heard the member previously. The context he used the word in and how he used it was OK then; this is different. I ask the member to withdraw that. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw that if I have given offence. But the point I was making was about whether he has been tossed out or whether he was the “tossor”. I think the member is absolutely right; that is the point I was trying to make. However we dress it up the fact is that Chris Carter no longer has that responsibility. Given that he is the Minister for Building Issues I find that extraordinary. 
The real point I was trying to make was that Pete Hodgson wrote a press release which I thought was pretty sycophantic. In the press release he said that United Future wanted to ensure that builders had ready access to standards and design and that there would be no more compliance costs built into the lives of average Kiwis when it came to buildings. 
That is simply not the case. The Building Act has brought about an average increase in costs of around $7500 for the average person building a house in this country. That is a compliance cost and it is quite an extraordinary compliance cost. It is clearly not right for the member to stand up and say that that it is not happening. 
The other issue I want to mention is something that I believe has been an absolute abuse of process in this House. When one does things in a hurry one gets a mess. We were asked I think about 19 April to consider this legislation for the first time. A bill with one clause was introduced to the House with 12 working days for consideration. The bill went to a select committee where it had 2 hours of consideration before it was reported back to the House. That is an abuse of process. 
Then at the Committee stage we found there was a Supplementary Order Paper with 21 clauses in it which had not had any consideration by a select committee at all—and the Government with the help of the United Future party is trying to tell us that that is due process. Well it is simply not and it should not be acceptable to any right-thinking member of this House or anyone in the broader community across New Zealand. I am sure everyone would agree that that is not due process. 
Let us examine the legislation in the first instance. Why did it come before this House? It was a knee-jerk reaction to leaky homes. There had been a number of incidences in Auckland. The problem was confined to Auckland but it was not about the non-treatment of timber; it was about the poor design of homes. The Green member has already said that we had the law and regulations in place but that some builders were not following those regulations. 
What we got as a consequence was 400 pages—380-odd clauses—of bureaucratic nonsense that will not fix the problem at all. It does not concentrate on the heart of the problem; it does not concentrate on design; it concentrates on rules and regulations and an insistence on treating timber. We even got into the ridiculous position whereby the Government was insisting on treating timbers like Douglas fir. Anyone with an ounce of experience—and I note that Murray Smith is very quiet on this point—would have known that treating Douglas fir timber was totally unnecessary. 
So what we have now is legislation that by Murray Smiths’s own admission will come back to the House again and again because it is simply not right. 
Inherent in this bill is the death knell for one of New Zealand’s great icons the home handyman. This Government which purports to support average Kiwis has now ensured that home handymen will not be able to build their own homes without having extra compliance costs or inspectors looking over their shoulders saying they can or cannot do particular pieces of work. 
The other thing I find quite mystifying about this legislation is that nine ministers have lined up to take responsibility for it. Then suddenly they have all disappeared. No wonder it is in a mess because no one is prepared to stand up and take responsibility for it. 
What we have now is an absolute nightmare of legislation which came to the House under the guise of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. The Opposition parties—with the exception of United Future that insisted it was good legislation—warned Government members that that bill was inappropriate. We warned them that if it were rushed through the House there would be problems. We warned the Government that if the bill went through the House under this type of abusive process it would come back with errors. Mark my words we have not seen the end of it yet. This legislation will come back to this House again and again because it is just bad legislation. 
Of nine ministers not one of them has stood up to take a call to try to justify why the legislation is good—because they know it is a dog’s breakfast. Nine ministers have circled through this legislation and out again and I am not certain even now who is responsible for it. Looking around the Chamber I cannot see a Minister who is putting his or her hand up and saying that he or she will take responsibility for it. That is simply because those Ministers know it is poor. 
United Future members should hang their heads in shame. The way they have supported this process is simply shocking. It is a disgrace and an abuse of the parliamentary process and the behaviour of members—particularly Murray Smith who has tried to justify it by tabling handwritten amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 361 today—typifies why it is such a mess.