Smith Nick: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19806] 
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.