Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10968] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am going to take a short call and answer a number of issues that have been raised. I want first to deal with the last speaker Mr John Carter a far north MP who made an interesting contribution. He made a couple of claims. Firstly he said—and I will bet him a nice bottle of plonk that it is in  
Hansard 
 that he said it—that the Department of Building and Housing that existed in 1999 I think he said had 31 staff. Well I will give the member a wee history lesson. The department came into existence before I became Minister actually in 2004. He ought to get his facts straight. 
He then went on of course to make all sorts of claims. One I think was that the department was full of building inspectors who were failed builders and all sorts of things. Well he can insult the staff and the department if he wishes. That is his democratic right in Parliament and his democratic right. He can insult the officials and he can insult the staff. He can make false claims about them and he can make claims about staff in the department being bankrupt or having facilitated leaky buildings. That is indeed his democratic right but I will not buy into it and the public who are listening tonight of course will judge his words for what they are. 
I then sort of in reverse order want to deal with the claims of Mr Heatley. Mr Heatley made a number of interesting claims. He asked—fair question—why on earth local authorities which have issued building consents nigh on he said a hundred years should be required to be audited and accredited. And he asked why on earth we should have auditing and accrediting—which has the objective to lift the standard and to ensure that personnel are competent and the process correct—because he said effectively there is nothing wrong. 
Although I am not going to bag local authorities in a contemporary sense I will make this point. I will mention the name Colleen Dicks to the member. Colleen Dicks’ house was signed off by a Waitakere City Council inspector. After having been subjected to the building of a builder who was to put it politely substandard Colleen Dicks then had the building inspector arrive to see a big yellow thing called the sun coming through the roof. Why? Because there was a piece of roof missing. What did the building inspector then do? He signed off the house as being weathertight. So I say to Mr Heatley that that is one reason for auditing. Poor old Colleen Dicks—she is a fighter and she won in the end—was subject to that. I recall going to another local authority where inspectors said to me that they had done away with the drive-by inspection. 
We are engaged in an auditing and accrediting process to lift standards of operation and to lift quality so that we do not have the Colleen Dicks scenario again where a building inspector on seeing a piece of roof missing would sign the thing off as weathertight. That scenario is replicated and has been replicated over a large number of local authorities and is in part according to the Hunn report on weathertight homes part of the systemic failure that occurred and gave us the weathertight debacle we have. 
Dr Smith of course said that we were threatening local authorities by requiring them to meet a deadline. Need I remind him that not a couple of weeks ago he wanted to pass a bill swiftly that would have threatened local authorities that if they did not get a consent done in 20 days the hammer would drop on them. That hammer would be the granting of the consent to the individual for free and all those costs would then be visited of course on every other ratepayer—the same ratepayers that Dr Smith says he wants to lift compliance costs from. He raised the threat but the House put the sword into that bill. It was described by Ms Tolley’s own National Party electorate chair as “daft”. The document in which that was said was tabled. I recall looking that word up in  
Collins English Dictionar 
y because I did not quite know what daft meant being a bit of a young guy. And one of the key words in the dictionary said that daft was defined—and I am sure that Dr Nick Smith will hear this—as insane. I will say no more than that. So we want to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that when Government members get under pressure resorting to personal abuse is their standard frame. But the Minister has not answered any of the reasonable questions and I do take personal offence. I think— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I take personal offence too. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Well I could resort to making all sorts of references in quite derogatory ways to all sorts of members of the Labour Party. 
The CHAIRPERSON(Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we will not start— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You do not want me to go there? Well Mr Chairman I would have expected you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I did not say that. You can go anywhere you like. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I can go anywhere I like? Well who shall I start with in the Labour Party? Is personal abuse now going to be OK in this House of Representatives? I know that the Minister feels a bit inferior. He has no experience in the building industry at all. But to allow a member to make claims of the sort— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. Your point of order is quite clear and that is what I was going to say. It had nothing to do with stopping you sitting you down or anything like that. I understand your point of order; it is very clear. You took offence and I am going to ask the Minister to withdraw—just to withdraw— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: —because the offence was marginal and its meaning was based on an assumption. He did not say anything directly you see. It is not for me to read anything into what he said but I think that most in the Chamber know the implication and you have taken offence so I think it is fair that he withdraw it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and I give you a commitment Mr Chair that I will not quote the dictionary again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Despite all the hot air the protestations and the sort of constitutional emotionalism exhibited by Messrs Carter and Smith about the constitutional outrage of how we should allow people to consult and of how we should take it through a select committee I remind the Committee and all those poor folks who have had to sit through this debate at home scratching their heads and wondering what all the hullabaloo is about that this legislation—just a couple of parts in effect—effectively extends a date by which local authorities have to get audited and accredited. The date is being extended from November this year to June next year. 
Suddenly we have wasted a whole lot of taxpayers’ money listening to a lot of hot air and a lot of political posturing but to listeners out there in the real world and to the members listening what this bill does absolutely is simply extend a date by which local authorities can become audited and accredited thereby allowing them to become accredited thereby creating certainty thereby allowing the building consent process to continue and thereby allowing people to continue to build their homes. I do not know even if we did put this to a select committee who would object to that. Actually I do. Nick Smith would and John Carter would but I dare them tonight— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I dare you! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —and even the interesting individual who barracks like somebody out of the Porirua public bar—to vote this down. This simply creates certainty—[ 
Interruption 
] No I will not say it; I have seen  
Dad’s Army 
 too often. I say to listeners and to the Committee that this legislation simply creates some certainty. 
The question was asked as to why this legislation is being put through now. Well communities have this thing where they like us to act efficiently. A piece of legislation is on the books now but this issue has been identified so we have recommitted the bill and put it through. That is why. It has been done 3½ months in advance to create certainty for local authorities and to allow planning for communities—it is as basic as that. 
So despite all the hot air all the political posturing and all the dress rehearsals going on among new members on the Opposition side that is what it boils down to. That is what the country knows it boils down to that is what Local Government New Zealand which supported the legislation knows it boils down to and that is what every local authority including John Carter’s in the far north knows it boils down to. I invite members if they like to continue the posturing to continue the stupidity and to continue the sort of strange constitutional emotionalism but that in essence is what it boils down to. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s just daft! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is just daft the member said and he is right. I do not believe there is a New Zealander out there or a person in the community who would not say that this is a logical and appropriate move and that this is an efficient mechanism to expedite it.