Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19792] 
Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In order to facilitate the debate on this second reading which will cover matters that at the moment are not part of the bill I seek leave that it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361. We are seeking leave now that the Committee can consider the Supplementary Order Paper to enable the House to include those amendments in its consideration of the second reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Second Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to express my thanks to the Government Administration Committee for its swift consideration of the bill. 
At the appropriate time I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper to clarify the bill’s amendments to the Copyright Act. The Supplementary Order Paper will clarify that if the Crown owns the copyright in a work and that work is incorporated by reference in another work listed in section 27(1) of the Copyright Act then the copyright in the first mentioned work is removed. Where however the copyright in a work is owned by a person other than the Crown and that work is incorporated as just described the copyright remains unaffected. 
As members will know the bill amends the Building Act the Commerce Act and the Health Act to remove the requirement that where material is incorporated by reference under those Acts those with delegated or statutory responsibility must make that material such as building standards in the case of the Building Act available free of charge on the Internet. “Incorporation by reference” is a term used to describe a mechanism that gives legal effect to provisions contained in a document without repeating those provisions in the text of the legislation that incorporates that document. 
The amendments proposed in this bill endeavour to strike a balance between facilitating access to material incorporated by reference and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyright and standards and of other material that may be incorporated by reference. The amendments in the bill will ensure that the Government is not expropriating or infringing the copyright of other parties both in New Zealand and overseas that the standards development process in New Zealand is up to date with international best practice and that the development of joint standards by Australia and New Zealand can continue. 
As all parties know following consultation over the last week it is the Government’s intention to make further amendments to the Building Act by way of a further Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. Those amendments are technical in nature and relate to omissions inconsistencies or clarifications. Substantive amendments are however proposed in section 363 to address practical issues that have arisen during the implementation of the Act. At the appropriate time I will move a motion that the Committee of the whole House have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on that Supplementary Order Paper 361. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
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. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I just say that I had referred the member on my left to Standing Order 115 “Offensive or disorderly words”. I expect the member to understand by that that I took offence at the use of that word. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s OK for John Tamihere. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In this debating chamber we have a certain standard. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 We have just been subjected to 5 or maybe 7 minutes of nasty personal attack and extravagant statements from Nick Smith the previous speaker who is from the National Party. Essentially he is glorying in calling me a tosser. At least I have never been sent from Parliament to seek psychiatric help for a stress-related condition. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point or order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please be seated while I rule on this. I know what he is going to say. I tell the honourable Minister that I have just ruled that word out of order in this House. I know that the member was rebutting but I did ask Mr David Carter not to use it and I would appreciate it if we could get back to the debate and carry on. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I give an undertaking that I will not refer to Dr Smith’s mental condition again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a personal reflection now and I ask the Minister to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has referred to my mental state three times. He has claimed three times that I have seen a psychiatrist. I inform the member in the House that I have never seen— 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
:He thinks it is funny. He is dragging this House down. If I challenge him on matters of legislation on issues before Parliament he gets nasty. I want to make it a matter of personal explanation that I have never in my entire life ever seen— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
:Yes I am. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that I have now dealt with this issue and I want to get back to the debate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not going to put up with this. Three times that member has made the accusation that I have seen a psychiatrist. That is totally untrue. What am I to do? I have known of members in the House Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want everyone to take a deep breath for a minute. The matter has been dealt with. The honourable Minister has withdrawn and apologised and the member’s explanation has been accepted. I have now dealt with the matter and there I want to leave it; I want to move on. I think it is in order that we move on. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I would like to thank all the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. Although the Supplementary Order Paper has been developed at a rapid pace the provisions in it have been thoroughly considered and the industry has been closely involved in the development of the provisions. 
The Supplementary Order Paper proposes urgent amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve its workability and to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible. The majority of the proposed amendments are technical in nature and relate to omissions inconsistencies and clarifications. Substantive amendments are however proposed to section 363 of the Act. The amendments to section 363 include clarification that the purpose of the section is about protecting the safety of members of the public using premises open to the public or intended for public use; clarification that this section of the Act applies only to the part of the building intended for public use; new provisions to allow the staged use or occupation of buildings intended for public use if it is safe to do so; and new transition arrangements for existing buildings to ensure that the transition from the Building Act 1991 is as smooth as possible. 
These amendments address the issues that have been raised by stakeholders and that have been the subject of much discussion in this House. The Government’s willingness to fix up issues such as the lack of clarity in section 363 demonstrates good management in action. In any law the size of the Building Act 2004—some 450 sections—inevitably there will be drafting issues and matters to be clarified. A sensible Government moves promptly to solve problems once they have been identified as we have done today. Our actions stand in sharp contrast to those of National particularly those of the member Nick Smith who has abandoned any attempt at a constructive contribution. Instead of wanting to fix up problems for the benefit of the industry he has sought to stage a publicity stunt by trying to get the Wellington City Council to close down Parliament because of section 363. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Three times during my contribution on this particular bill you intervened and raised the fact of my not addressing the bill. I have noted that the Minister has well and truly strayed outside it and you are adopting a different standard. The norm from the Chair these days is that there is one set of rules for this side of the House and a different set of rules for the other side of the House. I find that in respect of points of order and I find it in respect of debate and we simply ask for some consistency. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Dr Smith I did intervene in your speech but it would also be correct to say that it was rather late when I did so. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member has egg all over his face because the Wellington City Council has refused to do so saying that it is satisfied that the intent of the Building Act is being observed. In other words he has his facts all wrong. Not only that but Nick Smith and the National Party despite trying to make political capital out of a few drafting errors in the Building Act are now refusing to help fix up those errors. New Zealand’s building industry would be quite right in thinking that National is more interested in petty politicking than in ensuring a robust regulatory environment for safe buildings. 
I would like to thank again the stakeholders involved in the development of the Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper shows that the Government is listening and that when issues are identified the Government acts quickly. The Building Act aims to ensure that buildings are designed and built right the first time. I am confident that the Act and this Supplementary Order Paper go a long way to achieving that aim. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Did you just hear the interjection from the member? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith has the floor. Does Dr Smith have a point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I was expecting you to deal with the issue that was just raised. But I will leave it to Mr Shirley. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I am trying to assist the House here. I heard you intervene in an altercation across the floor of the House when Dr Smith took offence at the member who has just resumed his seat referring to psychiatric treatment. As the Minister sat down he made another quip that was equally offensive. I was offended by it and I am sure that Dr Smith had good cause to be offended by it too. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What did I say? 
Hon David Carter 
: He has Alzheimer’s disease now. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Yes he has Alzheimer’s disease now. I think the whole House heard the comment and the Minister is trying to pretend he did not say it. I suggest that the Minister should stand withdraw and apologise and in future he should just try to contain and restrain himself. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the Minister made a derogatory remark—and I was distracted because I was calling Mr Catchpole—I would ask him to stand withdraw apologise and cool down. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Well I did make a derogatory remark. I simply said: “Have a rest. There’s probably a good psychologist somewhere around who could help.” If the member finds that offensive then I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member because remarks like that lead to disorder and make it more difficult to control the House. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I want to come back to the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill which is the bill on the Table at the moment. I have heard discussion about a Supplementary Order Paper and what have you. I will leave that to the time when the motion is moved to bring the Supplementary Order Paper before the House because a motion has to be brought in order to make sure it can be dealt with. That Supplementary Order Paper is the one on the Building Act. But in reality what we have before us now is the bill. After the original Building Bill went through the Government Administration Committee—and I was on that select committee—and was reported back to the House some additional clauses were added to the bill that had not come before the select committee. One of those clauses that I am referring to in particular is clause 409 which was added to the bill. That provision had the effect of making all the documents available on the website and it had an unfortunate spin-off in that it required additional documents purely by reference to also be included on the website. They included documents such as manufacturers’ specifications and particularly sensitive material that is unique to a manufacturer’s product. All that information under section 409 of the Building Act was going to have to be disclosed free of charge for anybody to access when in actual fact that contravened the copyright regulations and restrictions. Therefore we fell foul of international copyright restrictions on a lot of the products involved and a lot of the information that was appearing on the website. 
This particular bill although it was very very rushed—I point out the Government Administration Committee was given one day to consider the whole thing— 
Hon David Carter 
: Three hours! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The member is calling “Three hours”. Well according to the report here it was only 85 minutes. There were 50 minutes of hearing the evidence and another 35 minutes of consideration of the process. So if it was done over a period of 3 hours then perhaps it was broken up during a particular sitting session. I must say that the select committee did a tremendous job to get the bill through in that short time. Given that the select committee had 1 day and that it got through the bill in just under an hour and a half I must congratulate the select committee. Dianne Yates is the chairperson. I know her well; she does a very good job. She keeps the select committee on the ball and she should take a lot of credit for that. So my congratulations go to her. 
However I raise with the Government the issue of rushing these things. We saw that with the original Building Bill. That bill took a considerable time to go through the hearing process but the last phase of it was done under urgency. It was rushed through. Clause 409 was added to the bill prior to it coming to the Committee stage and that was rushed. Nobody had an opportunity to really understand the meaning behind clause 409 and the implications it had with regard to copyright restrictions. Therefore the present bill has had to come before the House. We believe it is a necessity but it would not have been necessary had the original legislation not been rushed. Later on we will hear about the Supplementary Order Paper intended to correct other things within the Building Act. Once again let us not consider this bill in a rushed state. Problems arise because things are rushed. Let us get it right the first time. We should take a little longer and get it right. Had that been done with the Building Bill then we would not have had to have this particular bill. But then the Building Bill was rushed we have this bill and it is important to correct a situation whereby copyright infringements are happening all the time purely because everything was made available free of charge. 
Having said that my concern with regard to the restriction contained in this bill is that it will create barriers to access to the legislation. I notice that the Regulations Review Committee made that comment in its report on the bill and that it was acknowledged by the Government Administration Committee in its report. The fact that there will be barriers to access is a sad situation. I would like to see some way to get around that so that the information can be available but with the copyright restrictions kept in mind. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to address the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill rather than the various Supplementary Order Papers that are floating around. 
I would like to draw Parliament’s attention to the fact that the basic purpose of this bill is to remove the obligation on chief executives to make material available free of charge on the Internet. Basically that is the purpose of this legislation—to remove the obligation to have important material like building regulations freely available on the Internet and to allow various Government departments to charge for what was freely available information. So let us be under no illusion about the purpose of this legislation. It will allow Government departments to charge for information that is fundamentally important; legislation such as building codes—material that should be freely available for example to builders around New Zealand. Now instead of being able to look it up on the Internet they will have to pay for it. This seems to be extraordinarily unwise. 
The Green Party can acknowledge that a certain amount of information if it is international may have copyright issues. Building Act provisions are all basically New Zealand provisions and I question why we are allowing Government departments to charge for what is basic information on building codes etc. The leaky building syndrome showed us that builders and developers around New Zealand were flouting the regulations ignoring the regulations. Surely one of the lessons of that would be to make as much information—certainly all the building codes and regulations—freely available for any builder or developer in New Zealand to access easily on the Internet so that he or she would not be able to argue that somehow he or she had not understood the regulations and had built inadequate buildings. But this legislation basically states that instead of having information freely available on the Internet it can now be charged for. 
As I said in my first reading speech I have seen this in operation with Food Standards Australia New Zealand. A lot of information about food codes is now not available on the Internet instead one has to pay for them or fly to Wellington to Xerox them. One of the provisions of this bill is that some of the information will no longer even be available on the Internet but will be available only in Wellington. So builders and developers around New Zealand will have to fly to Wellington to access important regulations and legislation that they need to know in order to comply with the various building codes. They will be available for inspection only in Wellington. What is the point of that? Will builders around New Zealand fly to Wellington—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes some of it will be available in the regions. The United Future member is rather defensively saying that that is not true but these are the provisions that I understand are available in this bill. It will enable a chief executive to say “No that is not available freely. No you can get that information only if you fly to Wellington go to the office and pay to Xerox the information.” This is silly legislation. It goes against the whole lesson of the leaky building syndrome that we must make sure every builder in New Zealand is fully informed and up to date with all of the building regulations. Now instead of being able to sit and look at them on the Internet they will have to pay for them or fly to Wellington. Guess what! Many of them will not do so. They are not prepared to do that. 
Not only that; the bill is setting a precedent that other Government departments too like the Ministry of Health will now be able to charge for information instead of having that information freely available on the Internet. This is basically a freedom of information issue. The Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill looks very technical and boring. Most people would say how incredibly tedious and would not even read it or give it the time of day. They would not realise that it is setting a precedent to undermine freedom of information in the guise of addressing copyright issues that really only pertain to international regulations. In the guise of that it is removing freedom of access to important information such as basic building standards building codes and so forth and setting up as the New Zealand First speaker said barriers to access to information. That is absolutely true. Now we will have to pay for information that should be freely available and we are setting a precedent so that this can be done by the Ministry of Health the building code and various other parts. 
The Government will now earn another bit of revenue charging for information that should be freely available. For that reason the Green Party will be opposing this bill. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is continuing to support the second reading of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. I must say that the Greens need to be somewhat enlightened on this legislation because Sue Kedgley’s speech in terms of what this bill does and does not do is so far away from reality that it makes no sense at all. 
United Future totally agrees that information has to be available free of charge to builders. That is why United Future succeeded in making major changes to this legislation—in particular to clause 5—in order to ensure that as much information as possible is available to builders and building practitioners around the country. It is simply incorrect to say that the building code and regulations are not available free of charge. They are available free of charge and anybody reading clause 5 will see that there are extensive provisions requiring the chief executive to make available for inspection free of charge all the material that building practitioners will need not only at the Ministry’s office in Wellington but also at all the Ministry’s offices around the country—and also to make material available on the Internet. 
Part of the concession I obtained from the Government in return for United Future’s support of this legislation was to ensure that all compliance documents would be made available free of charge on the Internet. The Government indicated that it was unable to do that under this bill because it was outside the terms of reference and would have required a change to the Building Act but I am delighted to see that that is also going to happen. In practical terms as from about a week ago all compliance documents were made available free of charge on the Internet. What this bill is about is only one small segment of the information that is necessary and that is material incorporated by reference; that is standards that are produced by external agencies that have copyright attracted to them. 
In particular standards associations including Standards New Zealand but perhaps more significantly the Australasian standards bodies—the ones we work in with with Australia—and international bodies produce these standards and the income they get in order to be able to produce these standards comes from the fees they receive by being able to sell them. If they had been made free of charge not only would we breach copyright but these standards associations would then not have the income from the sale of their standards that they need in order to produce and to continue to produce standards and to meet those criteria. 
Those standards associations do a valuable service to the building industry in providing standards that are well researched and take a lot of time and effort in order to ensure that our buildings are safe. I would have thought that the Greens would be totally supportive of the work that standards associations do because of the valuable role they play in ensuring that our buildings are built to adequate standard and that the Greens would not be trying to undermine the work of standards associations nationally and internationally by taking away from them a valuable source of their income to do the job and thereby effectively prohibiting them from doing the work they do. 
So the Greens could not be further wrong in terms of their allegation that this bill is going to restrain the building code and regulations from being available free of charge. The idea that one has to fly to Wellington to get information is quite false. The only restriction in terms of the information that will not be available at regional offices is information relating to products and product safety standards. That is information that manufacturers need in order to manufacture their products. It seems reasonable to me that they should be able to get that from a Wellington source. It is not something they have to run down to the local branch at a day’s notice to get; it is something they require when they are doing planning for the production of their products. 
I am pleased to see that this bill has come back unaltered from the select committee. We were very concerned as was both the select committee and particularly the Regulations Review Committee to ensure that the bill was kept to a minimum in terms of what it protected from free access to the public and I entirely agree with the statements in the report of the Regulations Review Committee which states: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the change proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirements to place incorporated material on the Internet the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However we accept that difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.” 
 That has been United Future’s approach all the way along—that if there is a need to prohibit free access it is kept to the minimum necessary. That is why we successfully approached the Government and got the changes to clause 5 that would ensure that rather than the chief executive having discretion as to how the information would be available there would be a mandatory provision for the chief executive to continue to make all the material possible free of charge. 
That is what the Government has done. As I indicated before one of the concessions we obtained from the Government was an undertaking to consider an inclusion in the first amendment to the Building Act that effectively all compliance documents would be made free of charge. The sort of provision that that would require would be that the chief executive would ensure that new compliance documents when issued would be digitally published; that even when a new compliance document was published any prior versions would also be available because it is essential that there is a historical record so that people who are operating legitimately under a previous code can still get access to that code; and that amendments to compliance documents are clearly shown so that people who were legitimately operating under the compliance document prior to the amendment can still get exactly what they need. 
There is a need to show the progressive change in compliance documents and I am delighted that that is recorded in Supplementary Order Paper 361 in new clause 3D which inserts new section 25A. That means that the undertaking that the Government provided to United Future in return for our support has come to fruition far faster than I had expected it would. 
United Future expected that there would need to be changes to the Building Act. It was inevitable as I said in my speeches on the Building Bill that a document as complex as this Act in terms of the changing of the whole building regime that New Zealand operates on would require some fine-tuning over the next few years as it bedded down. As the Act comes into force some errors have been picked up that need to be incorporated. That will always happen whatever the administration—whether it is Labour National or whoever leading the Government. Inevitably when legislation is as complex as this it will need some settling down some fine-tuning and some amendments to it. 
It is the case that some requirements—in particular the provisions of section 363—have required this to be done as a matter of urgency so we have been put in the situation of having to rush through the amendments which is usually not desirable. But we are faced with the situation which I can talk about when we get to the Committee stage that a reading of section 363—which is ambiguous—could say that as we are in part of a building that is being worked on the whole building is inaccessible. That clearly was not the intention and I note that Supplementary Order Paper 361 will correct that. 
Supplementary Order Paper 356 on copyright again ensures that there is a minimisation of material kept away from the public. In fact the Supplementary Order Paper ensures that the Copyright Act will provide that there will be no Crown copyright on material owned by the Crown. So it will be freely available and able to be reproduced and I think the Government has gone to extensive lengths by that provision and the provisions in the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to ensure that as much information is available free of charge on the Internet and in hard copy to the public as is conceivably possible. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker; I have sought the call several times during this debate. As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I want to thank Brent Catchpole and Murray Smith for their comments on the bill because both were involved in the select committee. I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it did on the Building Bill and on this Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. 
The matters in this bill are technical. As has been explained the Government Administration Committee reported the Building Bill back to Parliament and some standard clauses were added that were required by the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. Those guidelines as Sue Kedgley has pointed out required that material be available on the Internet. What had not been foreseen was that that would have an effect on Standards New Zealand and an effect on copyright law. It would mean that not only would we not be complying with some international regulations but also that Standards New Zealand would be deprived of its income. The Minister was informed of this and has taken legal advice and consequently we are faced with this bill which is moving with urgency to correct that particular unforeseen problem. It was not a fault of the Government Administration Committee or of the original drafting of the bill; it came about because the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines were required to be imposed on the bill at that very late stage and were found to be unworkable around that area of Standards New Zealand as Murray Smith has very well explained. 
Dr Nick Smith who turned up at the select committee just for this bill was not a member of the inquiry on weathertightness of buildings— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Thank goodness. 
DIANNE YATES 
: —thank goodness—as his colleague Wayne Mapp was. He was not part of the select committee when we looked at the Building Bill. If Dr Smith is going to start pointing the finger and talking about botch-ups I will remind him that the problems of weathertightness are multiple. Many of them came about through deregulation of the industry which he will know went back to when his party was in Government. He also might like to recall that George Chapman who I am sure is an old colleague of his was chair of the Building Industry Authority when he was informed of weathertightness problems. What did he do at the time? Nothing. Long before any other people were involved George Chapman was informed of these problems as Dr Smith Wayne Mapp and members of the committee well know. If we are going to start pointing fingers then we need to look back somewhat further than this particular legislation. 
I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee. I also thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee and in particular Dr Richard Worth for his work. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for giving us its opinion on the necessity to make changes in order to protect copyright laws. It has said of the incorporation by reference in this case: “We consider the copyright issues provide appropriate reasons for the changes proposed in the bill. We wish to make it clear that in the absence of these issues we would be opposed to the bill. By removing the requirement to place incorporated material on the Internet the bill in effect creates a barrier to accessing legislation. However we accept that the difficulties with copyright justify not using the standard clause in this case and that this is an appropriate exception to the principles identified in our report.” I thank the legal minds on the Regulations Review Committee chaired by Dr Richard Worth for their cooperation in getting this bill back to the House and making the necessary changes. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise to debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill and as I listened to the chair of the Government Administration Committee she reinforced in my mind what a complete and absolute shambolic mess this legislation is. She rose to her feet and said thank you for the valuable contribution that she received on this legislation from Brent Catchpole and from Murray Smith—Brent Catchpole of course being a member from New Zealand First and Murray Smith being a member from United Future. 
 I looked at the report back on this legislation which went to the member’s select committee for a total time of 85 minutes and although the Government Administration Committee considered the legislation Mr Catchpole and Mr Murray Smith were not there. So we have the chair of the select committee ticking off a report yet she has forgotten the members of the select committee who looked at the legislation. It would be hard to find a more shambolic process as we debate the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. 
As I said in my contribution on the first reading the bill is absolutely misleading in its name. This bill is entirely about a Building Act amendment bill and that is where the debate should have been. However the Government has very cunningly said that there are one or two other pieces of legislation with exactly the same problem as the building legislation. First it found that it had to amend the Health Act. If we look at that legislation we see that the Health Act was passed in 1956. Here we are in urgency rushing through legislation that the Government says is a matter of urgency and it is to amend a bill that has been around for 40-odd years. 
The other legislation being amended is the Commerce Act of 1986. The New Zealand public ought to realise that the bill we are absolutely amending with urgency is the Building Act 2004. It was passed at the end of last year when the Government was told that the legislation as passed in this House would not work. Nothing has proved that more succinctly than the fact that we are here dealing with this on 12 April. 
We had an interesting contribution from Murray Smith. Obviously the man from United Future put a lot of effort into the Building Act legislation when it went through the House. In his contribution today he acknowledged that it would need some amending over the years that it came into effect. [ 
Interruption 
] The member nods his head and says that yes those were the remarks he made. I remind the member that this legislation was passed last year and came into effect on 1 April 2005. It has not taken years for this legislation to appear back in the House wanting urgent amendment; it has taken but 12 days. Mr Smith shakes his head in horror. He had not realised that it was as bad as that. 
What I want to say is that the legislation went to the select committee for 85 minutes. Only one minority report is attached to the legislation and it is in the name of the National Party. It makes some very good points as to why the original legislation would never have worked and the Government was told that at the time. The most worrying comments I have found as I have gone through the commentary presented back to the House by the Government Administration Committee are these: “When the Building Bill underwent its third reading in August 2004 concerns were raised that this mandatory requirement could infringe the copyright interests of third parties.” Those words categorically state that the Government passed legislation supported by United Future in August 2004 when it had been told that it would not work. It was told by the industry that the legislation as being passed at the time would breach the Copyright Act. The Government proceeded with the support of United Future to ram that legislation through. I understand that it received its final reading again in urgency yet the Government had been told at the time that the legislation would not work. 
 That is an amazing admission by the Government. But in the meantime we have been saddled with the Building Act 2004 which came into effect on 1 April. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Who saddled us with the Building Act 1991? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister says it is the fault of the Building Act 1991. The Minister should pick up the legislation and look at it. It does not talk at all about the Building Act 1991. I say to Mr Chris Carter that it does not even mention that Act. Part 1 of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill refers to the Building Act 2004 which if my memory serves me correctly was in the name of the Hon Chris Carter or the Hon George Hawkins. One of those Ministers was responsible for the Building Act when it went through this House and that particular Minister was told at the time that it would not work. So here we are rushing through legislation that has been suitably doctored so that it amends two or three other bills that the Government has had to trace back through the statute books—it has found one going back as far as 1956—in an attempt to hide its total embarrassment that we are amending legislation passed about 6 months ago. 
The other thing I want to ask is why this legislation is in the hands of the Hon Pete Hodgson. What has the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to do with Minister Pete Hodgson and his portfolios? We will ask that question again during the Committee stage because at this stage the Government is making no attempt to answer it. The Government could have done the honest thing. It could have put the bill in the name of the Minister who is responsible for building and construction the Hon Chris Carter. But of course he has been a bit of a target lately. He has been a bit of a target both for members on this side of the House and more spectacularly for a member on the other side of the House John Tamihere who is now on extended leave. I will not quote Mr Tamihere’s words. I assure you Mr Speaker that earlier in the debate when you were not here it was ruled out of order to use those words in Parliament so I will not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tosser. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I say to Mr Smith that I will not use that word. That word has been ruled out of order. It does seem incredible to me that that word is out of order in the House yet it is totally in order inside the Labour Party caucus room. 
What the legislation does via the Supplementary Order Paper—and I will refer very briefly to the Supplementary Order Paper because it is substantially larger than the rest of the bill—is to start to wade through the Building Act and the idiotic changes it brought in effective from 1 April 2005. The Building Act amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper will change the rather ridiculous situation we have now where legally the Beehive should not be occupied on any floor because renovations are going on on one of the nine floors. That is the situation my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has revealed to the House and that is the situation the Government was told about at the time when it passed the legislation—but of course with the arrogance that has now become a hallmark of the Labour Government it ignored all the advice it was given. It passed the legislation. It rushed it through and here we are again in urgency having to try to fix up the mess. I guarantee that Mr Murray Smith’s comments were right—this will not be the last amendment we pass to the Building Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The motion that we have just heard from the Leader of the House shows how arrogant this Government has become in its dealings with Parliament. It shows how close the Government is to its death throes that in the name of Pete Hodgson we are expected to accept a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper that is totally outside— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh diddums. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Dr Cullen says “diddums”. Well I say to Dr Cullen that I think ordinary New Zealanders—perhaps the 230000 people who work in the building industry—would want to be given a rational explanation. I ask the Minister Chris Carter why Supplementary Order Paper 361 is not in his name. Why when we have a Minister for Building Issues whose responsibilities specifically include Building Act issues is Pete Hodgson moving that Supplementary Order Paper? What sort of vote of no confidence is that in the tosser we have—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh he does not like what John Tamihere says. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your colleague when he was in the Chair ruled that the word “tosser” is unparliamentary and the member has just used it again. I would like to request that he withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It was used by John Tamihere. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Does Mr Carter feel that that comment was directed at him? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Yes I do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith will please withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. Is it not a funny day in the House when John Tamihere from the same party as that member can use that word but nobody else can? I say that every member of the House knows that John Tamihere was right on the money. The smiles on the faces of Dover Samuels and his colleagues show that that is absolutely right. The way this Minister is dealing with these critical issues says it all. 
Let us look to see just what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. Firstly Chris Carter has told the House that there are “no problems with the Building Act”. Well if there are no problems with the Act why are we to accept a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times as long as the original version of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill? I ask the Government member and the Minister what sort of incompetent loser we have in the Minister when someone else—Pete Hodgson—has to come along to fix up his botched bill. 
Secondly the Minister says that there are “minor technical problems” with the Act. Let me go through them. Section 7 has a problem with the definition of “building work” and of “restricted building work”. It also has a problem with the definition of “territorial authority”. In section 8 there is a problem with the definition of building. In section 14 there is a problem in respect of the roles of territorial authorities and regional authorities. New section 25A is to be inserted because there is a problem with regard to compliance documents being available on the website. In section 53 there is a problem in terms of the payment of levies. In section 67 there is a problem in respect of the granting of waivers. Section 85 is wrong because it makes a mistake about the supervision of building work. Section 96 is wrong in respect of certificates of acceptance. There is a problem with section 100 in respect of the requirement for a compliance schedule. There is a problem with section 112 in respect of alterations to existing buildings. There is another problem with section 115 in respect of changes in the use of buildings and there is a problem with section 116 in respect of extensions of life for a building requirements affecting subdivision and offences concerning the use of buildings. 
There is a further problem would members believe with section 165 in respect of notices to fix and another problem with section 191 in respect of entering people’s names on the register of building consent authorities. There is a problem with section 212 in respect of a council’s role as a building consent authority. There is a problem with accreditation in section 241 and a problem with the collection of levies in section 243. There is a problem with regard to registers in section 273 and with the functions of registrars in respect of section 311. There is a problem with regard to public buildings a huge problem in section 363 and there is a problem with the provision of code compliance certificates in terms of settlements involving multi-unit titles in section 364. 
Do those problems sound minor—and technical? The ink is not dry on the Act — 
Hon Member 
: Twelve days old. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is only 12 days old yet this Parliament under urgency is expected to pass 21 significant changes without any public submissions any first reading any second reading or any third reading—they are just stuck in the Supplementary Order Paper. I want to challenge the gits in United Future who when they came to this House said they would keep this Government honest. Well I ask them why they are going to allow this motion which is a total abuse of process. What sort of doormat has United Future become that it can allow that? That party should be blamed actually because it was the doormat that allowed the Act to be passed under urgency which has ended up creating this huge raft of problems. 
Let me tell members what some of the problems actually mean. This is how bad the legislation is. If people are among the 15000 architects engineers or designers of buildings they are breaking the law because they are not allowed to do building work—which includes design work—without a building consent. Members should just think about that. Those people cannot get a building consent without doing design work but they are not allowed to do design work without getting a building consent. Has anyone ever heard of such a stupid ridiculous law? Yet that is what was passed by Chris Carter and his mates in United Future who now expect us in urgency to fix up the mess. 
Is this not interesting? I drew the problems of the Act to the attention of the Minister Chris Carter on 30 March and he got up in the House and said that there was no problem. But suddenly I threatened to prosecute the Government because it is illegally occupying the Beehive. That is right. The stupid Act that Labour passed which came into effect on 1 April states that where any building work is going on if there is a building consent and no code compliance certificate the building is not allowed to be occupied. Well occupying such a building is exactly what every Minister of the Government has been doing. We again have the “Don’t do as we say; do as we do.” stuff from the Government. It says that it can pass these stupid control-freak laws and it expects everybody else in the country to follow them but not those people in the Beehive who are breaking the law. Suddenly I threatened to prosecute the Government for that and lo and behold here is this Supplementary Order Paper to patch the situation up—after the Minister had spent weeks saying there was no problem. 
This is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament. I notice that John Tamihere stated in his article that we are verging on a dictatorship—and we are. When we have a Government that is prepared to abuse the Standing Orders by introducing a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper at a quarter past 9 on this Tuesday night and expecting it to be passed through all stages without anybody having a say before tomorrow the situation is truly ridiculous. 
I challenge Government members about this. One of the stupid things they did in the Act was to prohibit New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own homes. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Nonsense. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They did! Lianne Dalziel says that that is nonsense but then she is one of the botched Ministers. If that is not true why does that provision have to be amended? That is what the officials say. The Government’s own Department of Building and Housing says that that is exactly what the Government has done. That is stupid law because there is absolutely no evidence that the problem of leaky homes was caused by the do-it-yourself builder. Generations of New Zealanders have improved their equity by doing home improvements myself included. I simply ask members of the Government having admitted they got 21 sections of the Act wrong why they do not simply fix the 22nd mistake they made and allow ordinary New Zealanders to be able to get a building consent improve their homes and improve their lot in life—because that is what is required. 
This motion from the Government is about hiding its mess. Chris Carter is sitting on an awful mess with regard to legislation that is not 12 days old and he wants to completely abuse the process: to avoid a first reading avoid any select committee hearings and avoid allowing any member of the public to have a say. Yet he is making 21 pages of changes to one of New Zealand’s biggest industries. The House should reject this motion and United Future should for once hold this Government to account and ensure that at least third time lucky we get the Act right. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous National Party speaker has said most of the things I would like to say. Essentially New Zealand First is of the view that this is very important legislation. It requires proper scrutiny and it should be considered by a select committee. Engineers should have a look at it builders should have a look at it and architects should have a look at it. Local authorities should have a look at it as well so that we know— 
Dianne Yates 
: They have. 
DAIL JONES 
: I tell Dianne Yates that they have not looked at the Supplementary Order Paper. We have not had one single submission on it so the member should please get her facts right. The other aspect of it is that the drafting is still wrong. For example if we look at clause 5A we will see that it repeals the earlier subsections (2) and (3) of section 438 of the principal Act and adds subsections (2) (3) (4) and (6). So what has happened to subsection (5)? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They can’t count. 
DAIL JONES 
: They cannot count? I ask the Minister whether there is a subsection (5). Is there meant to be a subsection (5) and has it fallen by the wayside? There is a case of bad drafting straight away. There is another example of course of bad drafting in clause 3P with regard to section 241. In the way that that provision is drafted we would think that there was already a numbered subsection (1). In fact there is not. It is just blank. It is just a section. There is no subsection (1) in brackets etc. and then subsection (2). So again there is a drafting error in this legislation. Here we are being made to rush legislation through that rests on that simple construction. I have those subsections here if people want to have a look at them: in section 241 there is no subsection (1). So this thing is a shambles. Already at this very early stage of drafting it does not make proper drafting sense. 
That is what I have picked up in a very short space of time purely on technicalities yet here we are with the Government asking us to rush this legislation through the House right now and it is a case of “She’ll be right.” It was a case of “She’ll be right.” last time and she was not right. 
Hon David Carter 
: She was wrong. 
DAIL JONES 
: Helen Clark was wrong and she should have moved out of the Beehive as should all the other members. But no they insist on breaking the law in that building and now they hope to change the legislation by this piece of drafting. 
Dr Smith has gone through the legislation rather quickly because he had no other alternative. It is so long that he just gave a very quick summary of the general points in the legislation. But I was looking at it and if we have a look at the proposed amendment to section 7 we see that that looks at things such as the integrity of the building and the health and safety of its occupants. I expect that we want legislation that deals with the health and safety of individual occupants to be right. A subsection has been added to that section which relates to design work because it was wrongly left out the first time. Now it has been inserted. 
Clause 3A(3) now adds coastal marine areas to section 7 which were not included in the original Act. We now have legislation that refers to the Resource Management Act and to coastal marine areas and we are supposed to pass it without anyone who is involved with the Resource Management Act having a look at it. I am not the greatest expert on the Resource Management Act and I would expect that local authorities should have a look at it to see whether this is a proper way of drafting that legislation. But no. This Government is rushing it through and could not care less. 
Clause 3B “Building: what it means and includes” states that it “includes the non-moving parts of a cable car attached to or servicing a building”. I would really like to have an engineer look at this to tell me what cable cars that are attached to or servicing a building are likely to do and whether this clause is properly worded. I do not know a thing about cable cars. That is another problem. I remember when Brent Catchpole raised the original Act in caucus and we were discussing it that dams were mentioned. The Government even got dams wrong last time. The new clause 3C substitutes a new section 14 “Roles of building consent authorities territorial authorities and regional authorities in relation to dams”. 
This bill just gets bigger and bigger and of more moment as one goes along. Here we are in Parliament being asked by the Government and by United Future to accept their word that the legislation is OK. But just on my first reading I have pointed out a couple of drafting errors in it. Those are just simple drafting errors. 
An important aspect of this bill for anyone who is concerned about people with disabilities is that clause 3F replaces section 67(3) with a new subsection (3) stating that “The territorial authority cannot grant an application for a building consent subject to a waiver or modification of the building code relating to access and facilities for people with disabilities.” That was left out the first time around; it is in the bill this time. But I would like the people who are involved with disabilities—such as disabilities councils and all those sorts of organisations—to make sure we have it right. Is “people with disabilities” enough? Should there be wider wording than that? We really do not know because we have not had the opportunity to have this put to a select committee. 
Clause 3G addresses more errors that have been made. Clause 3G(1) repeals the earlier legislation and addresses the situation where a person who is not a licensed building practitioner commits offences. New section 116B in clause 3L goes on to address the situation of people who commit offences and who can be fined a maximum of $100000. The new section states that it is an offence to use a building for a use for which it is not safe or not sanitary or if it has inadequate means of escape from fire. This is a totally new section being inserted that gives a penalty of a $100000 fine without the measure going to any parliamentary select committee for consideration. What is more if it is a continuing offence there is a further fine of $10000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued. So if the offence had gone on for a 30-day month that would cost the offender $300000. 
We are rushing through legislation that creates serious offences and we are not looking at any of the basic constitutional requirements. When we were going to fine people at least until today we had the opportunity to go to a select committee to see whether the fine was the correct amount to discuss whether the correct people were being charged and how they were being dealt with. But here we have a $100000 fine imposed with a further $10000 a day. The Labour Party supported by United Future has done this. Murray Smith is a lawyer. I would have thought that a lawyer would be the first person to say that anything to do with an offence of this kind must be given close scrutiny. 
The Law Society for example should have been invited to make submissions. It is basic work in this Parliament that the Law Society should be brought in to give us its view on the constitutional appropriateness of imposing a fine of that amount. But no. It is being rushed through Parliament. A fine of $300000 or more will be imposed on some poor unsuspecting person who has not the faintest idea that whereas yesterday he might have been doing his work appropriately when this bill is passed—and I am not sure when the enactment date is it could be tomorrow or next week for all I know—his work now carries a $10000-a-day fine. A builder may be chipping away on a building site somewhere. He does not listen to Parliament as he listens to a more interesting programme than that. He might be listening to some golden oldies type programme of 1960s and 1970s rock— 
Hon David Carter 
: Winston would be. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes some intelligent people would be doing just that. Then all of a sudden a building inspector comes around when the builder is 3 months into the job and tells him that what he is doing is wrong. The builder will say: “But you gave me the building consent to do it. Four months ago I got this building consent from you to do this and now you are telling me that 3 months ago I started committing an offence.” How can any political party support legislation of this kind being rushed through under urgency? New Zealand First cannot support this legislation. 
We supported the earlier legislation because it was fine. Even though we were on the edge of things we had a discussion and we supported it. But this really is suicidal. This will put builders into all sorts of problems. This is asking for trouble and for people to be prosecuted. We know that the local bodies are the worst for prosecuting on the most trivial things. They will prosecute for almost anything under the sun. The clause states that a fine of $10000 can be imposed for every day. 
How can we support legislation like this? New Zealand First will be opposing this legislation. We would like it to go to select committee to get full consideration so that we can see what is needed to be done and so that all the people involved can have a look at it. If everyone had agreed to it that would have been fine. But rushing it through when we know that the previous legislation was rushed through supported by United Future and has proved to be an absolute disaster shows that we have not learnt from our mistakes. The Government wants us to go through it all over again. I have already pointed out that I have spotted a couple of drafting mistakes in this legislation. New Zealand First cannot support this Supplementary Order Paper and we will be opposing the motion. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also oppose the Committee considering Supplementary Order Paper 361. I have listened carefully to the previous two speakers and I think the whole House and the whole country should be alarmed at what is occurring here tonight. We have a Supplementary Order Paper that is 10 times bigger than the original bill. Moreover the Act it amends is 12 days old. It is 12 days old. The Labour Government assisted by its doormat the United Future party is making legislation on the hoof. It is rushing through the House under urgency legislation that we know is thoroughly bad. We know that the building legislation in this country is in a terrible mess and all the indications here are that it will get considerably worse. 
I do not think the average Kiwi realises the extent of the problem yet. The traditional do-it-yourselfer or home handyman is out of business and it is the Labour Government’s rhetoric that is driving it. There are 21 pages of this Supplementary Order Paper. It is interesting—and the point has already been made—that the Supplementary Order Paper is in the name of Minister Pete Hodgson not Chris Carter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Why indeed? Mr Carter has been tossed aside. But the issue is Minister Chris Carter said that he thought there were no problems. To that extent he is tossing the issues aside. He is tossing the issues aside yet he himself has been tossed aside as the Minister fronting the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] No. He is either the “tossee” or the “tossor”. Perhaps Minister Carter could tell us if he is the “tossee” or the “tossor”. 
Hon David Carter 
: Both! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Perhaps he is both. Perhaps he is the “tossee” the “tossor” and as someone else said the tosser. We know he is the “tossee” and the “tossor” and he is a tosser too so he is all three. Could the Government explain to us why the Minister who was in charge of a small piece of legislation has been tossed aside and another Minister has been brought in to do the substantive Supplementary Order Paper which is actually 10 times bigger than the bill? 
 This is the outrage: irrespective of whether he is the “tossee” or the “tossor”—because that is pretty irrelevant actually; who cares—the real issue is that this important legislation which will cause great offence to a lot of New Zealanders is not going anywhere near a select committee. No public submissions have been called for. That is a very arrogant action from any Government. It is legislation on the hoof. It is a Government in meltdown and panic. All it is interested in is public perception and the closing down of issues. It did not want Minister Carter anywhere near the legislation so it tossed him aside and brought in another Minister just to close the issue down. 
The Government had its doormat party United Future to be complicit and to let that happen. Every home handyperson in this country knows who to blame. Who should they blame? United Future. That is the party that has allowed it to happen. 
Dail Jones 
: All in the name of stability. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: All in the name of stability—absolutely. It will provide stability. No matter how outrageous the legislation that the Government wants to ram through Parliament under urgency denying the public the right to be heard and to make a submission in the name of stability United Future will be the doormat and allow that to happen. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not for long! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Not for long—that is the redeeming feature. We know that it will not be for long because the people will have their revenge. The voters will not tolerate that sort of behaviour. They will have their revenge and it will be sooner rather than later. 
I think they will have their revenge on Mr Carter too. They know that he has been tossed aside. They know that he is either the “tossee” or the “tossor” and some of them suspect that he is the tosser as well. They will have their say and they will throw them all out because this is bad legislation. As it becomes obvious how bad the legislation is the country will realise that the building laws which were already in a mess have been made considerably worse by this Government. It is closing down the right of average Kiwis the home handypersons to do the basic tasks that they have done for generations in this country because it does not understand them. 
Certainly the ACT party will oppose the legislation and I understand that National and New Zealand First will. United Future members were not here a few moments ago—they missed the call. Perhaps they might absent themselves at this late stage in which case we can stop this legislation because New Zealand does not want it. We should all oppose it. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I am happy to front up to the Opposition parties to explain why United Future will support this Supplementary Order Paper which makes amendments to the Building Act being considered by the Committee. I will not take longer than is necessary to talk about it but I am quite happy to explain to the Opposition parties why United Future supports it. 
We have had the benefit—and I know that the Opposition parties have not—of looking at this Supplementary Order Paper over a number of days. We have been able to have a number of lengthy discussions with the Government over its contents and to make some improvements to it. I thank the Government for its willingness to do that. I agree with speakers who say that all legislation should go through the select committee process. In the ordinary course of events I think that is appropriate so that legislation can be subject to good consideration. If this Supplementary Order Paper had not met some exceptions that is what I would have looked for as well. But I think the provisions in it can be and need to be done by way of urgency for a number of reasons. 
The first reason is the provision in clause 3D that effectively carries out a commitment that the Government made to United Future. That was the commitment I alluded to when I spoke at the first reading of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill—namely that if there was to be a restriction on what would be freely available to the public that restriction should be kept to a minimum. Having taken out the provision that allowed documents incorporated by reference to be made available free of charge the Government then made a commitment that at the first opportunity it would include in the Building Act a provision stating that all compliance documents would be made available free of charge on the Internet. They are documents published by the Government that would have been made available free of charge on the Internet under the Building Act as it stood. Because of the changes that were made the provision for compliance documents to be made available free of charge on the Internet would have been removed by the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. 
The provision has now been reinstated in clause 3D which not only requires the chief executive to make the documents available free of charge on the Internet but goes to extended lengths to ensure that even historical compliance documents and compliance documents prior to amendment are made available free of charge so that everybody is well aware of how compliance documents have evolved. If people are operating under a former compliance document that they are entitled legally to operate under they will be able to get access to the former copy as well as the current copy. I have no problems whatsoever with that provision being in this motion because I think it effectively reinstates the circumstances that currently occur. 
The second provision that I have no problem with seeing in an urgency motion is the amendment to section 363 inserted by clause 3T. I note that contrary to what the Opposition parties have alluded to section 363 is at best ambiguous. Section 363 states: “A person commits an offence if the person uses … any part of a building to which this section applies that is affected by building work—”. The confusion arises as to whether we should interpret that to mean a person who uses the actual part of a building that is affected by building work or whether it means a person who uses any part of that building—not just the part that is affected by building work. In the case of the Beehive is it the entire building that nobody can use even if only part of the building is affected or is it only that part that is affected by building work that cannot be used? That is the ambiguity. The intention of course was that only the part of the building affected by building work could not be used. But we have a confusing situation. There has been concern as to whether that will affect building so this provision clarifies that only the part of the building that is affected by building work cannot be used. Of course that part will be blocked off as is happening now in the Beehive so that people cannot access it. That is quite appropriate. 
The Government has moved to allow a certificate of safety to be issued so that parts of a building can be used. I think that makes a lot of sense. It is a matter that had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency which justifies this legislation going through in urgency. 
All the other provisions as I have looked through them are technical or matters of procedure. They are not substantive issues. They are provisions that really just correct errors that have been found in the Act as it is or anomalies that were unintended. They are not matters of huge significance. I do not think they are matters that need to be dealt with through a select committee process. It is inevitable that those will occur in legislation as complex as the Building Act. 
United Future members having looked through this legislation are happy to consent to this matter being dealt with in urgency firstly because of the provisions that need to be dealt with urgently and secondly because the other matters are technical. If there had been matters of substance that needed close consideration by different elements of the building industry and that did not have that urgency to them they certainly should have gone to a select committee but that is not the case here. United Future is happy to support this legislation going through now so that the Building Act can be corrected. The Building Act has in fact been around since August 2004 which was the date of assent. It has been around now for 9 months giving the industry time to look at it and implement it and find anomalies in it. I think it is an appropriate time to be looking at and getting right these things so that the Act can start life on a good footing. 
United Future supports the legislation for that reason and will continue to do so. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I note that Part 1 of this bill is amendments to the Building Act. I also note that the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled has 21 pages of amendments to the Building Act and I note that the Minister for Building Issues is in the Chamber. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to have the Minister responsible for the Act in the chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister in charge of the bill is in the chair. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is an extraordinary situation. As my colleague Ken Shirley pointed out we have a Minister who is paid a ministerial salary gets a flash ministerial house and sits in ministerial cars all for being the Minister for Building Issues we have an awfully botched Act the ink of which is not yet dry and we have 21 pages of amendments to it yet the Minister responsible tosses away all responsibility for it. What sort of Government do we have where the Minister responsible— 
Hon David Carter 
: Tamihere’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He is absolutely right; he is literally right. Chris Carter has tossed away his responsibilities and one who tosses things away is indeed and must be a tosser. We now have some insight as to exactly what John Tamihere was referring to. 
This extraordinary Supplementary Order Paper— 
Darren Hughes 
: This should be the last man to make a comment like that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would like the young member from the Otaki coast who will be losing his seat in about 4 months’ time to a very talented young guy to explain why we have a Minister for Building Issues who does not introduce Supplementary Order Paper 361 and who is not in the chair to defend his legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member should finish his personal attacks on the Minister and get on with debating the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the simple question of the hot-headed member for Otaki why we have a Minister for Building Issues who when we have a bill on building issues is nowhere to be seen. The member was very talkative a moment ago. Can he give an answer to a simple question? He is sitting next to the Minister for Building Issues. Why is the Supplementary Order Paper not in his name and why is he not in the chair? 
Darren Hughes 
: Why don’t you talk about the substance of the legislation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member wants to talk about the substance but he is not prepared to answer the question. The key issue is ministerial responsibility. The Minister sitting next to him is the Minister responsible for the biggest botch-up in legislation that I have seen in my 15 years in this place. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: He wasn’t the Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Lianne Dalziel was the Minister. I just want someone on the Government benches— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I wasn’t on the select committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I simply wish someone on the Government benches would accept responsibility for this awful botch-up which is the worst case I have seen in my time in Parliament in terms of bad law. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: This member needs another rest. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Chris Carter will not answer the basic question as to who is responsible for this mess. Well I have a list here of those who have been the responsible Minister and I would say it is probably the Prime Minister. I will say why. In the last 6 years we have had seven Ministers who have been responsible for building issues. It is little wonder that when the Government has played a game of musical chairs with a portfolio that involves $18 billion a year of our economy we have this sort of legislative mess and this sort of abuse of process. 
I ask Lianne Dalziel why this legislation cannot be referred to a select committee. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Let’s debate the issues. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us debate the issues then. She is not prepared to answer those questions. Perhaps the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson can say why clause 5A in the Supplementary Order Paper inserts subsections (1) (2) (3) (4) and (6) into section 438 of the Building Act. I know that education standards have plummeted in the Government I know that Government members cannot count I know that we are expected to rush this legislation through and make it law by tomorrow but can Chris Carter explain why the Government counts its subsections in the order of (1) (2) (3) (4) and (6)? If the Minister in the chair would just pay attention for a moment he would see that on page 15 of the Supplementary Order Paper there is a botch-up. 
I refer to another botch-up that has been drawn to the Committee’s attention by Dail Jones on page 11. Clause 3P adds a new subsection (2) to section 241 and it states that subsection (1) is subject to paragraphs (a) and (b). But there is no subsection (1). I have the Building Act here and section 241 has no subsection (1). So here we have the Government having passed a botched Act rushing in a 21-page Supplementary Order Paper late at night and already—[ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps Chris Carter can answer this question. How can clause 3P have subsection (1) subject to two new provisions when there is no subsection (1)? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Just take a deep breath. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have. Would the member answer the question? [ 
Interruption 
] Are those members not interesting? I ask them a serious question about their flawed law and all they can do is try to divert attention. The fact is the Supplementary Order Paper is a mess as well and this Government is avoiding any select committee process at all in dealing with it. 
The first part of this amendment deals with the definition of building work. I want to say how badly the Government goofed up. What Chris Carter did with the law was to say: “You can’t do any design work on a building until you get a building consent.” 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He thinks that is funny. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Because the member has got it wrong. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well if that is the case why are we altering the definition of building work? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: We are shifting the location of design work. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well why are we shifting the location of design work? I will tell Lianne Dalziel why. The reason we are shifting the definition of design so that it applies only to Part 4 is that every one of our 15000 building engineers and architects has been breaching the law because of the flawed way that this law was drafted and passed. 
We take the second issue—the mess over dams. If there are any building structures that have the potential to kill people it is dams. The largest man-made disaster in human history was the Vaiont tragedy where 16000 people died as a consequence of a dam failure. But again we find the Government has botched the law in respect of safe dam design. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my friend but I just notice that in the lobbies there are officials perhaps just floating around who I do not think are officials associated with this legislation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Where? 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Right outside. It is a simple question with a simple answer. I would just like inquiries to be made as to why these people are floating around here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I believe that they are officials or people assisting the Minister. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I do regret interrupting the flow of my learned friend’s speech but it is quite unsatisfactory. This is not a place for Labour lobbyists to circle round weak Ministers. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: They are officials. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept the Minister’s word that they are officials. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am not going to take another point of order. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I would like to ask why it is necessary for more than 10 officials to be in attendance on a Minister on a bill of this complexity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a question for you to raise but I thank you for raising the first point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The incompetence of this Government is that even with Parliament swarming with officials we end up with a Supplementary Order Paper that shows that Government members cannot count that has provisions that refer to parts that do not exist and that has 21 pages of changes to the Building Act that are being raced through Parliament to fix up problems that Chris Carter only 2 weeks’ ago said did not exist. What an extraordinary time we have in Parliament with respect to those! 
I want to express serious concern about what is not in this bill. The Government in its stupidity decided to prohibit ordinary New Zealanders from being able to do building work on their own houses. I extended an extra bedroom on my first house in Christchurch which enabled me to extend my equity. This Government is going to prohibit that. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have gone about improving their homes adding rooms and doing work. This Government is going to prohibit their being able to do that and I say that is quite wrong. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I shall make a few brief remarks. The first is that the legislation in front of us amends the Building Act the Commerce Act the Health Act and the Copyright Act. I am the Minister of Commerce and what is more I have obligations through my portfolio in commerce for Standards New Zealand which of course is the group that promulgates most but not all of the standards in this country which is why the bill is in my name. Secondly I thank the member for pointing out an error on page 15. It does indeed state (1) (2) (3) (4) (6). They are mistakes or things that are corrected as a matter of course by the Clerk’s Office and do not form part of New Zealand law. The third point I would like to make— 
Murray Smith 
: Mistakes mistakes mistakes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I shall say it again for the member if he would like to be quiet. I thank the member for drawing to my attention the numeration (1) (2) (3) (4) (6). I have checked it with officials. He is absolutely right; it does not follow but it is not something that needs to be attended to by the House. It is routine after the passage of law for things like line numbers etc. to be checked. They do not form part of New Zealand law but I thank him for drawing it to our attention anyway. My third set of remarks are directed to the member Richard Worth. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Dr Richard Worth. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think it would be Dr Richard Worth but Richard Worth none the less. I say to him that the reason— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: An explanation is helpful. I welcome an explanation. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will get an explanation if he would keep his mouth shut and he will not if he does not. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I don’t think I need an explanation but if you must make it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair has accepted that there is a flaw on page 15 in that the Government cannot count from 1 to 6. 
Darren Hughes 
: Move on. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The seriousness about this is that the Government rushes the Building Act through the Parliament. Before 12 days are up it introduces a 21-page amendment saying “Oops we screwed up. We got it all wrong. Under urgency we have to rush through another amendment but don’t worry we’ve got it all absolutely right.” And then it says: “Sorry we couldn’t count from 1 to 6 and we’ll fix that bit up.” But the Minister has not addressed the substantive part. Clause 3P in the Supplementary Order Paper adds section 241(2) which states that subsection (1) of section 241 is subject to a regional authority’s power under section 244 and does not apply to any function it transfers to another regional authority. That all reads very well except that there is no subsection (1). It does not exist so how can we pass nonsense law that makes a subsection (1) conditional on a paragraph (a) and (b) if subsection (1) does not exist? 
I have to say to the Government that despite the hoards of officials that it may have in the corridors it has got it wrong again. It has made another mistake. I cannot help believing that for all the giggles that can come from the Government benches—[ 
Interruption 
] Our primary responsibility is as legislators and I have not seen in my 15 years in the House a new Act of Parliament so botched so full of errors and causing so many compliance costs. 
The Minister in charge thinks that it is a laughing matter. I have just had a letter from a woman on the North Shore that stated that in applying for her building consent she was told she has to pay $43000 before she is able to get a building consent for a house. Members opposite think that that is quite funny. They think this is all just a bit of a hoot. They think that ordinary New Zealanders come up with $43000 for a new house just like that. Well we do not. Members on this side of the House hold Chris Carter accountable for this sort of botched law. 
Debate interrupted.