Carter John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Carter John: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10973] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to add to the comments made by my colleague Nick Smith and remind the Committee that when I took a call on the motion to suspend the Standing Orders which brought this matter to the House’s attention I made those very points. 
I said it was absolutely unbelievable that the Government would suspend the Standing Orders when there is not a crisis. I could have understood it if Parliament had passed legislation that put upon local government the duty to carry out an action and we had got beyond that date and found that not only was local government not able to comply with the time period but also worse than that it was affecting the building industry it was stopping building permits from being issued it meant that people could not get in their homes it meant that industry was not developing and it meant that commercial premises were not being developed. Then we could argue that we had reached some sort of crisis and had to look at our constitution. However that was not the issue. That did not happen. 
What we have ended up with is the need to address this Supplementary Order Paper 133 which tells us that we have to omit clause 3. That is what we are debating at the moment. I needed to refer to that so that I could fit within the Standing Orders—unlike the Government which decided to suspend the Standing Orders. I like to fit within the Standing Orders but the Government does not. It put forward a motion to suspend the Standing Orders and that is an absolute disgrace. 
As we discuss the omission of clause 3 I draw the Committee’s attention to comments I made earlier. I made some comments about the Department of Building and Housing not doing its job not carrying out what we would expect the Department of Building and Housing to do. I talked about the fact that the department—or the organisation that it was before which actually came under the Department of Internal Affairs—originally had 31½ people and now has over 300. The Minister for Building and Construction got up to defend the department and the only thing in my statement he could criticise me for the only thing I had got wrong was for saying that the department started in 1999—it started in 2004. I ask whether any member heard him say: “And this department’s great. It’s doing a good job. It’s doing all the right things. It’s doing everything we would expect. It is not its fault that we have to debate this.” Did we hear the Minister stand up to say: “What a great department.”? Well I did not. 
As we debate this omission of clause 3 let me mention a couple of other things where this department has failed because the Committee will want to know those. Members will know that in this country it is now estimated that over 250000 homes and buildings have not got a compliance certificate. There are 250000 houses that people are occupying and living in—that number is the size of Wellington City—that have not got certification. They are not compliant; they have not got compliance certificates. That is because this department is failing. It is because of the rules and regulations that this Minister and his department are passing. People in the building industry cannot comply with them. So what are individuals and builders doing? They are just getting on with it and saying they will forget the rules and regulations. That is what happens when we get over-compliance and when we get so many rules and regulations that people cannot understand them. We get to the stage where people just ignore them because they have to get on and live. They have to get on with their lives they have to get on with their jobs and they have to get on with the ability to earn. This Minister is causing that to happen in the building industry. 
The second thing this Minister could have referred to was the fact that the Department of Building and Housing has the responsibility of certifying materials that are put into houses. There are over 600 different materials that are put into buildings in New Zealand. Do members know how many have been certified that I am aware of? The Minister might correct me but I am told that four out of the 600 have been certified. How long has the department been going? This Department of Building and Housing has so far certified four—so I am told. I may be wrong; it may have done five or even six now or three—I do not know. The problem is that as we debate the omission of this clause what we have to seriously worry about is that more leaky homes are being built in this country right now. 
The Department of Building and Housing is meant to be responsible for certification of materials and equipment that are being put into homes. Do members know that right now we are importing into this country material that is faulty? Copper pipes imported from Australia have a certification of 50 years. Copper pipes imported from England are certified for 60 years. Pipes imported from Asia that are being put into New Zealand homes right now have no certification at all. They have been tested and the pipes have a lifetime—so it is estimated—of 7 years. It means that in the next 10 years or so someone is going to flush the toilet and mum is going to get a shower in the kitchen. That is going to be the end result because the pipes will burst. This Department of Building and Housing and this Minister are allowing these homes to be built right now in New Zealand and people will end up with a terrible outcome. 
As we debate this bill and as we debate this Supplementary Order Paper 133 and the proposal to omit clause 3 we need to take these things into account and we need to be debating those issues. We have 250000 homes that are not compliant and we have materials being put into homes in New Zealand that are not going to last a lifetime; I ask why this has not been referred to a select committee. Why have these sorts of issues not come out? Why do we have a Department of Building and Housing and a Minister who know these things are going on yet here we are tonight debating this sort of issue within the confines of the omission of clause 3? I say it is hard to understand. I cannot believe that this Government wants to change things—suspend the Standing Orders—to allow this sort of stuff to be foisted on to New Zealand and on to the building industry and end up causing so much failure. 
Actually it is just another symptom of failure in this Government. The fact that the Standing Orders have been suspended and we are now debating the omission of this clause indicates another failure in the history of this Helen Clark - led Labour Government. It is an absolute disgrace that the Standing Orders have been suspended. It is an absolute disgrace that we are now debating this provision without it having been referred to a select committee. It is a disgrace that the end result will mean we end up with more leaky homes—and the Minister knows that. It is a crime and this Minister will be responsible. I say to the Minister that in another 5 or 10 years’ time when we are debating this issue it will be his name that is put forward as being the root cause of the failure along with this department. 
Bob Clarkson 
: He won’t be here. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No but some of us will remember that he was here and we will be fixing it up. We will have to sort this out because this Government is not capable of it. This Minister is not capable of it. His department is not capable of it. He is a failure. The department is a failure. He is causing problems in the building industry. He is causing problems for homeowners. He is causing serious stress in this nation. He has to be responsible for all of that. 
I say to this Committee and to this nation that people should be aware of what this Minister is foisting on them tonight. He had no defence when I talked about the issues. He had no defence for this department. He was not proud enough to stand up and say: “It’s a great department and I back it 100 percent.” All he said was that I had got the dates wrong. Well actually I had said when I was speaking that the department was not the Department of Building and Housing in 1999. 
What I did say was that this Minister and his department are a failure. I say to this Committee that as we see this unfold in time—this bill this Supplementary Order Paper the Act we debating—it will be seen as a complete failure. The whole Committee should understand that. It is an absolute travesty and a tragedy that we are having this debate right now.