Smith Murray: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Murray: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19812] 
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.