Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10970] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a simple question for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove the Minister in the chair. When did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the deadline of 30 November? I ask the Minister again: when did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the accreditation deadline of 30 November? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Many councils will. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That does not answer the question. The question is: when did the Minister find out that councils would not be able to meet the accreditation deadline of 30 November? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Some not all. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well yes some—I can see that. The Minister told us that we need this amendment because councils are not going to be able to meet the 30 November deadline. My simple question is: when did he find that out? Minister? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the speech. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read the speech and at no time in the speech did the Minister say when he found that out. I ask the Minister again: when did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the 30 November deadline? 
John Carter 
: I knew over 18 months ago. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague John Carter who is National’s very effective local government spokesperson said he knew that 18 months ago. You know I was told by councils as long as 12 months ago that councils would not be able to meet the deadline. But the question asked of the Minister is when he found that out. 
The Minister is silent. He is a very arrogant Minister just like this arrogant Government which says that because it cannot win the election next year in a fair game it will twist the rules to suit itself. And it says that because it cannot get its bill through the House by the normal process it will just chuck the Standing Orders out so that it can get the bill through. 
I will tell members why this is important. I will quote what the Minister said only a month ago—and we know it was him; he had four chins. He said: “In the end it is the responsibility of TAs to get accredited and registered by 30 November this year or if they are not they will lose their right to issue building consents.” He said that in a speech at the building officials conference only a month ago. He went on to say: “I know you’ll get there.” Well what has changed in the last month? Can any member opposite tell me? Or is this a Benson-Pope situation—that is we cannot believe what the Ministers in this Government say any more? 
The further point I want to make is that the Minister said that this provision is still some 4½ months away. It is an extraordinary step for Parliament to get rid of its Standing Orders and for the Minister to ride roughshod over them. I have a quote here from Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Do members remember him? He was the Prime Minister in a Labour Government and is now the head of the Law Commission. He said that only in extreme circumstances can the suspension of the Standing Orders be justified. Well do we know whether we have extreme circumstances? I have seen absolutely no justification at all that we have extreme circumstances. We know it is 4½ months before there is the potential for any difficulty. 
So I simply ask any member of the Government to explain why these amendments that the Minister wants to advance cannot be referred to a select committee and go through the normal process. Can the Minister explain to the Committee—given that Sir Geoffrey Palmer the head of the Law Commission has said the Standing Orders should be suspended only under extreme circumstances—why these provisions cannot go through a first reading? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I remember 101 hours of urgency in the 1991 Government. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lianne Dalziel has piped up. The only problem with regard to Lianne Dalziel is that she has not answered the questions that this Committee needs to be answered.