Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Recommittal In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10955] 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill 
Recommittal 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 133 and dividing the bill 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. The Committee’s consideration therefore is confined to those provisions. The debate on Part 1 is confined to consequential amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Part 2 is not amended. New Part 3 is debatable in its entirety and clause 3 is a separate question. 
Part 1 General provisions  
(recommitted) 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to remind the Committee of the debacle that is involved in this legislation. What we have historically is that in 2002 in a mad rush in a Supplementary Order Paper that was tagged on to another bill we passed and set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was such a botch-up that the Government needed to come along in 2005 with another bill in the name of the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to fix up that botch-up. Then earlier this year we discovered a botch-up in the fix-up of the botch-up from the botch-up! 
So a new bill was introduced and that bill was taken through its first and second readings its select committee consideration and all the way through the Committee stage. Now we have this extraordinary spectacle from the Government whereby we have done something that is done within Parliament only on very rare occasions—we have suspended the Standing Orders and we have recommitted the bill to the Committee stage for the consideration of this Supplementary Order Paper. 
I have a question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The Minister introduced the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service under a Supplementary Order Paper and it was a botch-up. He then introduced a bill to the House to fix up that botch-up and it was a botch-up. He then introduced amendments this year to fix up that third series of botch-ups. Are we now to trust that these amendments which were tabled in the House only today have got it right? 
Well I have to tell the Minister that we are once bitten twice bitten three times bitten and we do not believe him. He cannot botch up the law as many times as that and ride roughshod over the legislative process. There is no good reason why the amendments contained in this Supplementary Order Paper 133 should not be referred to a select committee. In debating Part 1 of this bill I would ask the Minister how many mistakes we should tolerate. 
Let us just remind ourselves of the legislation we are dealing with. We are dealing with legislation governing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. This organisation was set up in 2002 to resolve the problem of leaky homes. Despite our spending $85 million—$85 million—we have resolved after 5 years only 16 percent of the cases. It has been a failure because 85 percent of those homeowners out there who are waiting for justice and for some resolution of the problem of their leaky homes are still waiting. They are waiting because this Government has cocked up time after time after time with this legislation. 
In this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill we have a provision to provide for general damages. The interesting part is this. At the select committee stage in 2005 submitters said that the law was not clear and that we needed to make it explicit that we would provide for general damages. What did the Minister and the Government say? They said that they had the law all right and that they needed to ignore that public submission. As a consequence they have got it wrong and that is the reason for the bill. 
I have to say that in my 17 years as a member of Parliament— 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s too long. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a lot longer than the temporary member for Otaki will be here but I cannot remember in my 17 years in this House any area of legislation that has had so many botch-ups. Let me remind members. There was a botch-up in 2002 and a botch-up in 2005 that were to be fixed with this bill in 2007 and at the very last moment we are having to—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member opposite—I cannot remember her name she is such a non-event— 
Hon Member 
: Moron. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Moron—is that her name? The moron member opposite interjects. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I would just remind members that this bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. That is what the debate is for: to consider the amendments. That is where the debate is. It is a narrow debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have a very unusual spectacle. It is something that occurs very rarely—that is a motion passed by the majority of this Parliament to overrule the Standing Orders. The Government itself has mismanaged the legislative process that has resulted in this bill having to go back to the Committee stage. I would be very concerned Mr Chairperson if you were to now curtail the contributions from members of the Opposition after the legislative debacle that we have seen and the motion that has involved the suspending of the Standing Orders. 
The Government has referred this bill back for recommittal. It is doing that to get around the process of having to introduce a new bill and in my view it would be quite an abuse of Parliament for you to now restrict members’ contributions. Members are debating Part 1 and they are perfectly entitled to debate every single part of Part 1 because that is what they are required to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would just say to the member that it is my understanding that the bill has been debated previously. As set down on the schedule of proposed questions it is stated specifically that the bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I too am guided by the Standing Orders of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Members are able to debate Part 3 which is on the amendments that have been introduced by the Minister. Members are debating Part 1 and they are perfectly entitled to debate Part 1 under the recommittal motion as per the proper process because they will again have a vote on Part 1. Members will vote again on Part 2 and they will also vote again on Part 3. So as a consequence of the Government’s own sneaky decision to get around the Standing Orders members are required to debate Part 1 of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have listened very carefully to what the member has said. The difficulty I have as the Chair is that I am governed by the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. It is also shown deliberately here on the schedule of proposed questions that we can consider only the amendments. I will be lenient with my interpretation of that but I do not want members to go too wide outside the amendments that have been set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you clarify for the House Mr Chairperson that we are debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and that it would not be within the Standing Orders to debate Part 3 in the course of debating Part 1? It seems that your rulings are somewhat contradictory Mr Chairperson. On the one hand Mr Chairperson you are saying that as a consequence of the motion from the House members can debate only those matters that arise from the Minister’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and on the other hand you stated at the beginning of the debate that members were to debate Part 1. It will be either one or the other because there is nothing in Part 1 that includes Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The member is using the point of order process to conduct a debate in part. In response to his main issue which seems to be what the Committee can debate the House has been put into Committee on the motion of the Minister which was that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. That is the motion the House voted on to come into Committee. It is very clear what the House wanted us to debate. It is what is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. So I do not see how the—[ 
Interruption 
] I am being interjected on during a point of order. But it seems to me that is quite tight. The Supplementary Order Paper had been sitting on the Table of the House before the House went into Committee which is standard with Supplementary Order Papers in the Minister’s name. So I think members should proceed with the debate as was intended by the motion that they voted on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I would just say that the motion that the House agreed to was specifically that the bill be recommitted for the purposes of considering the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate Mr Chairperson you said that members were debating Part 1. I ask whether members are debating Part 1 or debating Part 3 which would include the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Mr Chairperson you said very distinctly at the beginning of the Committee stage that members were debating Part 1 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are debating Part 1 and I have it in front of me. I am of the understanding that it is both clauses 4 and 5. The member will have a sheet like this one where it is listed. This is what we are debating—this part here. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it part 1 of the Supplementary Order Paper or Part 1 of the bill? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under the heading “Heading to Part 1” it states: “To omit ‘General provisions’ … and substitute ‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” We are starting from there and we go down to where it states: “Subclause (5): to omit ‘this Act’ … ‘Part 2’.” We are debating that part. That is as I understand it the situation. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To add to what my colleague Nick Smith has said the fact is that this is what happens when the Government ends up suspending the Standing Orders in order to interfere with the constitution of this country and the Standing Orders. Now members find themselves in difficulty. 
If members look at Supplementary Order Paper 133 it states under the heading “Clause 3”: “To omit this clause (lines 1 to 3 on page 2).” Then it states under the heading “Heading to Part 1”: “To omit ‘General provisions’ …”—you have just referred to them Mr Chairperson—‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” The fact is that one cannot make an alteration to Part 1 without debating it. Members have the right to debate Part 1 as my colleague Nick Smith just did. The fact is that this is referring to Part 1. 
I would just draw it to the attention of the Committee and in particular to you Mr Chairperson that my colleague Nick Smith is absolutely right. When we say we are to change the heading to Part 1 that means it allows us to talk about the heading. When we start talking about the heading we cannot of course talk just about the heading without advising the Committee of the whole House so it can make decisions around what is behind the heading. 
My colleague Nick Smith was absolutely correct in setting out what was intended in Part 1 so that members could make sure they had the correct heading so that as a consequence they could decide whether they were debating the right form of words under Part 1. It states that very clearly right at the very beginning. Nick Smith is absolutely right and I support him entirely. 
Members should be able to debate Part 1 and the words and the intent behind them because that is what Supplementary Order Paper 133 states. It is set out very clearly. People like myself and Nick Smith who have been around for a long time understand these things. Members are entitled to debate Part 1. That is absolutely obvious. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Putting the hyperbole about the constitution of the country aside when Mr Carter refers to clause 3 at the beginning of the Supplementary Order Paper that is actually a separate question—that will be the third question members debate. The first question members are debating is under the heading “Heading to Part 1” where we have new clauses 3A 4 and 5. That is the limit of the debate as it affects Part 1. It is not a general free-for-all across Part 1. Dr Smith shakes his head but that is what the motion putting the House into Committee states. It is so that members can debate Part 1 as it is affected by these clauses here but it is not a free-for-all across all of Part 1. Although the two members giggle away there that seems to me to be the obvious interpretation of what the motion was from the House. 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Perhaps members have got themselves into a bit of a pickle. I think the point my colleague Dr Smith is making is that if members accept what my colleague Darren Hughes has proposed and debate the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper before them then following those amendments they will vote on a new Part 1 as amended so surely that gives them the right to debate Part 1 in full. The Minister may want to make some amendments but this Committee still has to pass Part 1 with those amendments. So it surely has the right to debate Part 1 including the amendments that are being made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just advise members that the question before the Committee is that Part 1 stand part. However the debate is limited to the consideration of the amendments proposed to Part 1. I am prepared to listen to the debate and consider it as it progresses and if I think members are going too wide then I will use the motion. [ 
Interruption 
] We have decided I say to Mr Carter. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Can I just get clarification so that I can understand if I make a contribution whether I am within the scope of your ruling. My understanding was that the motion was to allow members to debate Supplementary Order Paper 133. I understand that is correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister’s amendments are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Right—and that allows members to debate it. Therefore if we look under “Heading to Part 1” we see it states: “To omit ‘General Provisions’ …”. The heading refers to that. It states that very clearly in the Supplementary Order Paper I have before me unless there has been an alteration—in which case members are entitled to debate the heading to Part 1 and the amendment omitting “General provisions” and substituting “Purpose and application of Part 2”. That then allows members to make contributions to that amendment. 
As I said earlier members cannot debate the heading without debating the intent and if they are debating the intent then they are allowed to debate what the intent means. Therefore it gives them the ability to have a debate on the provisions of Part 1. So although I understand that you will listen carefully Mr Chairperson I would just say that you need to give members guidance as to what that actually means because some members would interpret that as meaning they are able to cross over to the intent of the bill and to its provisions and the purposes because that is stated in the Standing Orders. That was in the motion passed by the House—which we opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. In consideration of what the member has said the debate will be taken in so far as the points are relevant to the debate. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to speak about Part 1 and about the clauses in the Supplementary Order Paper that obviously affect Part 1 and that change the meaning and interpretation of that part as we originally debated it I believe the week before last. One of the difficulties we have of course in having confidence in these particular clauses and in the Supplementary Order Paper affecting Part 1 is that they have not gone through the normal select committee process whereby we can consider them in depth. For instance in Supplementary Order Paper 133 under “Heading to Part 1” the amendment states: “To omit ‘General provisions’ … and substitute ‘Purpose and application of Part 2’.” It seems to us that that change gives more emphasis to the purpose and the application of Part 2. Yet when we said originally that we would support this bill and particularly Part 1 our concern was for the fact that general damages could be claimed by those people seeking out the service of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. 
It is no surprise to us that New Zealanders across this country many of them vulnerable and many of them elderly are having to deal with all sorts of stresses costs and burdens as their houses continue to leak and rot while this Minister bowls up year after year to make amendments to the original legislation which first came into the House in 2002. That legislation was ill-considered so legislation had to be brought into this House again in 2006. That too was ill-considered so legislation has had to come into this House again this year at this time to fix the leaky homes problem. Again the legislation is ill-considered and we find ourselves with a Supplementary Order Paper presented to us at the eleventh hour to somehow fix Part 1 which we are considering here tonight. 
So it is no surprise to us that many New Zealanders across the country often elderly and often vulnerable who are sitting in leaky and rotting homes right now and who are filled with stress and concern will go straight to these new provisions in Part 1. They will walk off to court with them under their arms and they will now be able to bring an eligible claim under clause 4(a): “… for general damages (for example for relevant mental distress) or for any other remedy that could be claimed in a court of law in relation to or for consequences of all or any of specified damage deficiencies loss of value and penetration of water;”. 
But it is that focus on “general damages”—for example “relevant mental distress”—that is of most concern to us in the National Party. We would have liked to see the leaky homes issues resolved very shortly after the problems were first discovered which was early in 2000-2001. Here we are in 2007 under this Labour Government still trying to pass legislation that will alleviate the stress of those New Zealanders who are now sitting in rotting homes those New Zealanders who demand their day in court and those elderly and vulnerable New Zealanders in particular who do not have years of earning power ahead of them to resolve their own leaky home crisis. 
 That is why I bring the focus of this particular chairperson and the Labour Party on to the purpose of this legislation and the provision in the legislation that people can now claim for “relevant mental distress”. I can tell the Committee that there is a fair bit of mental stress going on in this country because of this leaky homes crisis—stress that is no less so because it has taken 7 years for this Government to resolve this crisis through legislation. It is also quite appalling to me that this legislation would try to bring district councils to account when they too are in the dark as to what direction they are getting from central government. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this debate and to draw to the attention of the Committee and the public the fact that this provision if passed will actually omit the general provisions of Part 1 which I understand is the intent of the Minister. I assume that is his intent—he is not nodding one way or another—but given his history we hope that he knows what he is doing this time although we cannot be assured of that. The bill certainly states that it is his intention to omit the general provisions. 
I listened to the contributions from my colleagues Nick Smith and Phil Heatley and the emphasis on the issue of stress under the general provisions which will be taken out if this proposal is passed tonight. I say to those members of the smaller parties who may well support this proposal—we do not know yet; they have not indicated—that it is seriously important for this House and the public of this nation to understand that up until now we have talked about the leaky home syndrome that we currently know about. There were about 3200 registered the last time I looked although there may be more now of which about 2700 are in Auckland. It was—it was; I want to stress that—predominantly an Auckland problem up until this point in time. 
The problem is that under this Minister this Helen Clark - led Labour Government and this Department of Building and Housing we will find—given that the Government is looking to delete the general provisions that include the clause relating to stress—that there are more stressed people in this country than we ever understood. It is for this reason: this Government and this Department of Building and Housing are letting materials come into this country and be put into houses that will cause more leaky homes than we will ever begin to understand. The House needs to know that. I want put on record the fact that the National Party at least understands that we are building leaky homes today. We are building leaky homes right now in this country in volumes that have hitherto been unknown. It will take another 5 10 or 15 years before the regime developed by this Minister and this Helen Clark - led Labour Government is exposed. The Government and the Department of Building and Housing have been so irresponsible that they are letting faulty materials come into this country and be put into homes today. 
What we are doing tonight is taking away the ability of people to express a view to express a concern and to have the stress caused as a consequence of that noted. I say to the Minister Clayton Cosgrove that I cannot understand why he wants to do this. I cannot understand why the officers in his department are allowing this to happen. 
Surely the Minister’s officers are competent enough to know that houses being built today will cause stress. Surely they are competent enough to know that the houses being built today will end up being leaky. Surely they know that the materials being put into houses today are faulty. Yet this Minister the Government he is part of and the department he represents are asking this House to pass this legislation so that people cannot express a view. I say to my colleagues—and I know they understand this—that if this bill is passed it will cause more unnecessary concern emotion and stress than ever. I say to the Minister that surely he understands that he is causing problems in this nation right now. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I would like to take just a quick call on Part 1. I understand that we are confined to Supplementary Order Paper 133 but when we look at what those omissions are about they are about enabling the original bill debated in the Committee stage 2 weeks ago to be changed and divided into two bills. One bill will continue to be the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and do all the things we find in clause 4 in relation to general damages and aiding the process of resolving leaky homes. The second which we will be debating in Part 3 is because in the mess that comes before this House there is another set of amendments to another whole bill that is completely outside the scope of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
So in debating this very tight Supplementary Order Paper’s clauses and changes to Part 1 of the original bill it is almost like a Trojan Horse because it is the mechanism for allowing changes that are completely outside the scope of the bill to be entered into this Parliament and debated. That is offensive. I find that a perversion of the processes of this House. I say to the Minister that it was only 2 weeks ago that we were debating the Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. If he had changes to make why were they not made then? 
The whole point of the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 is about allowing the Minister to make changes to a bill unrelated to the bill before the Committee to fix up a mess that the Minister has got himself into because he would not listen to local bodies. I find it amazing that we are in this position. 
I realise that we are under very tight restrictions in this debate and I look forward to the Minister taking an active part in dealing with Part 3 and explaining to the Committee how we got into this pickle. But I make the point again that the only reason we have these amendments to Part 1 is that the Minister has to cover up his incompetence by splitting the bill into two and perverting the whole parliamentary process to allow him to fix up his botch-ups. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and I want to just remind the Committee of the history of the leaky home issue. If we go back to 2001 we will remember well when the issue was raised by the  
New Zealand Herald 
. The Prime Minister Helen Clark said she did not know what the  
Herald 
 was banging on about. There was a denial from the Government that this issue which affects thousands and thousands of New Zealand families was completely ignored by the Prime Minister. 
I have to commend my colleague Wayne Mapp who pursued the then Minister George Hawkins. Would members believe that we have had seven different Ministers in this portfolio area? It is sort of like a game of pass the parcel within the Government; I think we have had John Tamihere we have had Speaker Margaret Wilson we have had Mark Burton we have had George Hawkins of course and now we have Mr Clayton Cosgrove. 
My question to Mr Cosgrove relating to the bill is this. The Government has spent $85 million on the bureaucracy to deal with the leaky home problem. The average settlement for a homeowner has worked out at $70000. The cost per settlement for the taxpayer has worked out at over $120000. That $120000 has not been to fix the houses but to pay for the bureaucracy of the legal mechanisms in this very bill. Can the Minister not see that he has wasted millions of dollars of public money? How could any person with so much as an ounce of common sense defend what has taken place since the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was put in place in 2002? I find it indefensible that we would spend more money— 
Darren Hughes 
: Is that what you tell the judge? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Darren Hughes pops his head up. I ask him whether he thinks it is a good system if it costs $120000 per settlement for the bureaucracy of the settlement process when the settlement for the homeowner is only $70000. 
Darren Hughes 
: Explain a better process then. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite is interesting. He asks me to explain a better process. Well I put this to him. Does he accept that the process in place is a dog? I think members on this side uniformly agree that it is a dog. 
It seems like common sense to us—as my colleague Bob Clarkson has argued up and down the country—to spend the money on fixing the homes not on the lawyers and the bureaucrats. So I ask whether this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill will spend the money on fixing the houses. No it will not. All it does is continue the mad system that has failed for 5 years. 
I simply ask the Minister in the chair to get to his feet as he is responsible for this huge vote.  
[Interruption] 
 Maybe the member moron opposite might explain. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Of all the members in this Chamber of all 121 members Nick Smith would have to be the last member who should accuse another member of the name he just used for one of my colleagues. It is unparliamentary and he should not do it—[ 
Interruption 
]—and Mr Henare should not interject on a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If a member takes objection to something that is said the member himself or herself should take objection. It not for another member to do so on behalf of someone else. The Committee has listened. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My simple challenge to the members of the Government is to answer this question: are we as a country getting value for money? I ask Mr Hughes whether we are getting value for money from the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. No we are not—$85 million has been spent with only 15 percent of cases resolved and those cases cost more for the bureaucracy to resolve than what goes to the homeowner. That is clearly not fair. 
I further wish to ask why it is that the Government under urgency in 2002 rushed through the legislation establishing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service made a botch of it came along in 2005 with the Minster in the chair—in a rush again—and botched it up again and the third time around brought a third bill to the House to fix the botch-up yet we are no closer to fixing the plight of leaky home owners. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Laws should be made after careful studies to solve the problem; this is what the problem is. Debates should be had with people who understand the problem and can give good advice on how to rectify the problem. You should not make laws on the run. You should not wake up with a warm feeling after a long night. This bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Chairman into the debate. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I apologise. The Government is protecting itself through the courts by letting the Building Industry Authority off the hook and it has caused a lot of mental stress for thousands of homeowners. Now we have a Minister bringing a bill into the House that allows people to claim for mental stress. How strange is that? The Government causes the stress by not dealing with the situation and by protecting one of its departments the Building Industry Authority so it cannot be sued for damages. This in itself causes the stress. 
The bill is a waste of time. We can fix the mental stress by fixing the problem. In case the Minister has lost sight of the problem I tell him that it is that we have leaky homes that are taking too long to get fixed. We have people who cannot face a hearing in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—or the later versions of that service because that has changed now too—because they do not know anything about houses. That is what got the Government into problems in the first place. 
There is a major problem with people getting stressed; the problem being that they cannot afford to pay a lawyer to assist them. They have to take a lawyer along to the hearings at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service because the other side has top lawyers defending them. The Minister has the cheek to say that one does not need a lawyer to defend oneself in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service hearings but if there are lawyers on one side it is only fair that there are lawyers on the other side; otherwise one will get stressed. 
I say to the Minister that he should wake up and get in the real world. What is the use of spending more money on a lawyer to win a mental-strain case when there is a fair chance that the full payment on the case just won concerning a leaky home will not be paid? The lawyer’s account will be bigger but there will be no extra money for the homeowners. Take the Hartley case in Auckland. If they had been allowed to claim for mental stress and damages they would have won the case; the problem is that they would have ended up with a bigger legal bill and would not be paid any extra dollars. In that particular case their claim was for $270000. They won $90000 through the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service hearing. The hearing was a failure—it put a lot of stress on them as it happens—so they went to the High Court and got another $90000 which made it a total of $180000. 
How could this new bill have helped them? Maybe they could have spent another $15000 on lawyers’ fees and been awarded another $20000 in compensation for stress. The bill would not help because the builder is hiding behind a company and has no money; he has offered $46000 in a full and final settlement. Therefore the Hartleys would have to pay their lawyer’s account which would be bigger and they would not get any extra dollars. So that makes the bill an ass actually. 
Would the Minister please get real get a decent policy sorted out and please think of the people involved and how they are getting ripped off. All the people I have met just want a deal in place that fixes their houses. They want their houses repaired and should not have to wait for years. The repairs should be done now. 
 I have got myself lost here; that is sad is it not? I will just finish off at any rate. I have tears in my eyes every time I hear the statement “with access to speedy flexible and cost-effective procedures” to fix these houses. What a joke! It will take 20 years to sort all these problems out. There will be a hell of a lot of stressed people around by then. They will not get any extra money. They will not get all the money on the first claim at any rate. We have to support this bill because some people might get some money. I will leave it at that. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
New Part 3 Amendments to Building Act 2004 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We have experienced in Parliament tonight an incredible abuse of parliamentary process. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me explain to Mr Maharey exactly what that abuse is. The slimy members—as Bob Clarkson rightly describes them—from the Government do not seem to understand that we have rules in Parliament about how legislation is changed. 
I want just to summarise for the Committee the extent of the mess that we have. In 2002 Labour passed under urgency using a late Supplementary Order Paper the legislation that established the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was in 2002. In 2005 the Government said that it was a botch-up and we had to fix it. By truncating parliamentary process in 2005 it passed a new set of laws around leaky homes. Then the Government found out that the original fix that was botched up was botched up in the fix-up so another bill was introduced at the beginning of this year to fix up the fix-up on the fix-up. The bill that was to do the fix-up on the fix-up was introduced to the House went through its first reading was referred to a select committee had its second reading had its Committee stage and was on to its third reading when the Minister in the chair said: “Oops! I’ve got another botch-up and I’m going to override the rules of Parliament and make Parliament do the Committee stage again.” In this Committee stage he is introducing the amendments in this new Part 3. These amendments are bad process on top of bad process. 
Supplementary Order Paper 133 will become law on the same day that it has been introduced and the Minister did not even see fit to explain to the Committee what he is doing. So I will do it for him. His original law had a stupid provision in it. The stupid provision said that if a council was not accredited by 30 November this year as a building consent authority it would not be able to issue any building consents. 
Hon Bill English 
: What a stupid Minister! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Exactly! What a dumb provision. 
Hon Bill English 
: This is the rising star. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is the so-called rising star of the Labour Party. A really basic law of raising kids is that one should not make threats that one cannot carry out. The Government threatened councils by saying to them that if they did not get accredited by 30 November then the Government would stop them from being able to become accredited and they would not be able to issue building consents. 
The consequence of not issuing building consents would be horrific. It is not the council that would be punished; it would be the thousands of New Zealanders in that area who would not be able to process building consents. The real problem here is that the Government has been way behind in giving the support that councils have needed to become accredited so the Government wants to extend the date from 30 November. 
The Minister has completely failed to explain to Parliament why this bill could not have been referred to a select committee and gone through the normal process. Why go round the Standing Orders and do what Geoffrey Palmer would have called an absolute abuse of process? He refers to New Zealand as the fastest lawmaker in the West. We do not have a second Chamber. The amendments that the Minister has introduced today will be law by tonight. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why did he not have this Supplementary Order Paper go through the normal process? The issue addressed by the Supplementary Order Paper is not a problem until 30 November. Why is it necessary to override our Standing Orders and not go through proper process? 
The second question for the Minister is this: does he not accept that this is dumb policy? There is no other area in Government policy in which we approve councils to do stuff. For instance under the Resource Management Act if councils do not get their act together by a particular date do we take away from them the right to issue resource consents? No. What about the Health Act and the approval of restaurants and health authorities? Does the Health Act say that if the council is not accredited by a particular date it loses authority to issue permits and consents under that Act? Of course not. Well why should this be the case under the Building Act? The Minister is absolutely silent. He cannot answer that basic question. His Building Act was a flop. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: You can be silent and answer. It’s a non sequitur. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh good. Maybe Marian Hobbs might explain. We know that the Government wants to pass law to override the Electoral Act so that it might be able to cheat and win the next election. Why is it also trying to cheat on the normal parliamentary process— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Lack of logic on your part. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member might explain why we are suspending the Standing Orders of Parliament and introducing— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: We’ve done that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The interesting thing is that Mr Fairbrother says we have done it. The extraordinary part is that not one Government speaker has risen to his or her feet to justify overruling the Standing Orders. I would expect Mr Fairbrother a respected constitutional lawyer to think that if we are going to throw out Parliament’s rule book the onus is on the Government to justify why it is doing so. But this arrogant tired Government has not seen fit to do even that. 
We have a Government that botched its original law botched the leaky home fix-it botched the fix-up botched the fix-up of the fix-up and now expects Parliament to roll over on the latest error. Members on this side of the Chamber simply say that is not good enough. It is not good enough from Minister Clayton Cosgrove and it is not good enough from his departmental officials. What we have—[ 
Interruption 
] Has the member got the job yet as vice-chancellor of Massey University? 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Not good enough as deputy leader. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member wants to distract. He cannot answer the question so he wants to get personal. I tell Mr Cosgrove to answer the question. Why do we have to suspend the rules of the House? This issue will not be a problem until 30 November. Why do we not send the Supplementary Order Paper through the proper process and not have the extraordinary abuse of parliamentary process of introducing law one day and passing it the same day—particularly given the Minister’s track record? Not once not twice not three times but five times in respect of building law we have rushed the process and subsequently had to introduce amendments to fix up those botch-ups. 
Quite simply members on this side of the Chamber have completely lost confidence in the Minister’s assurances that he has got it right. He cannot make over three pages of legal changes to the Building Act without having a proper process to refer them to the select committee. We actually ask the broader question as to whether the policy is right. We think it is nuts. It does not apply to the Health Act. It does not apply to the Resource Management Act. We think the very notion that councils will be unable to issue building consents is wrong. Rather than simply extending the period to 30 June we should ask the question as to whether the policy itself is sound. 
We further challenge the Minister to take some responsibility for the extraordinary costs that he has put on ratepayers through the accreditation process and through the extraordinary delays that it has caused. Councils have had to spend more time dealing with the demands of the Department of Building and Housing and dealing with the process of accreditation rather than processing building consents. This has meant that tens of thousands of New Zealanders have had delays in the processing of their building consents. It is little wonder that building costs are going through the roof. It is little wonder that homeownership is falling through the floorboards. It is these sorts of botch-ups in the area of building regulation that the Minister should have got right so that New Zealanders did not need to put up with the problems in the building law that are driving up the cost of housing making homes unaffordable driving our builders off to Australia—where they might have a sensible regime—and causing all of the problems that we see within the law. I say again to the Minister that in my 17 years as a member I have not seen these sorts of repeat botch-ups. He owes the Committee an explanation. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This very interesting statistic might come as a surprise to you Mr Chairperson and it might come as a surprise to the Minister for Building and Construction and to colleagues in the Chamber. District councils and city councils across the country issue about 80000 building consents a year and they have done so for many years now—in fact for decades. They are quite able to do that and have the experience in it. It is a surprise to us given that fact that this particular Minister and Government have suddenly decided that councils after 50 to 100 years of issuing consents have to be accredited to undertake that very task. 
I do not know why they are being regulated in that area. They are not regulated in a whole lot of other areas in which they have functions. Clearly that particular function of issuing consents is underpinned by legislation and regulations just like all their other functions. Why councils have to be accredited is beyond us. Furthermore the fact that they have to be accredited or from 30 November this year they cannot carry out the function of issuing consents which they have done for decades is absolutely absurd. It means that although right through the 1920s the 1930s the 1940s the 1950s the 1960s when I and the member for Napier were born the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s district councils were issuing a maximum of 80000 consents a year from this November for some reason they have to be accredited to do so. 
For all those decades those councils got it wrong! Now the Minister is saying that from this November they have to be accredited to issue consents. If this Minister’s legislation does not pass from 30 November this year councils will not be able to issue consents. The fact that councils have issued tens of thousands of consents for decades is all going to come to a grinding halt this November if the Minister’s legislation does not pass. I ask the Minister how well-thought-out that is. Why cannot we have a proper select committee process? There is plenty of time between August and November for this legislation to go before the select committee and for us to re-examine the Minister’s supposed need for councils to be accredited to do a task that they have done for nigh on a century. 
This threat—of councils not being able to carry out the task if they are not accredited—is also absolutely absurd given that the Minister is now shifting the goalposts in terms of the time frame. Has the Minister realised that to do this was always a flawed policy position? It makes it look like the Minister is doing something about leaky homes but really all he is doing is heaping compliance costs on councils. 
In fact if any member of this Parliament regardless from which party genuinely sat down with a mayor anywhere in this country that mayor would say yes the council is putting up rates and the reason it is putting up rates is that central government keeps sending it things to do. Central government keeps sending councils things to do whether it is dog chipping managing brothels or getting accredited to issue consents which they have done for nigh on a century. Why does this Government keep heaping on councils things to do which they eventually have to bill ratepayers for? Even Labour-voting mayors although they are becoming thin on the ground across the country will say that they are tired of the regulatory creep coming from central government. This is just another example of that. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill which again is before the Committee. I believe I have already spoken on the commencement Part 1 and Part 2 but not on Part 3. This part appears to be totally new and—fancy that—it is. Yet again we are here talking on this bill. This part is something the select committee has not seen at all. It is something that appeared just yesterday. Being a new member I thought that after the Committee stage we would move to the third reading. So I was all ready to come here and make my third reading speech but no there is this new bit of paper and now we are having another Committee stage which I actually did not know one could do but obviously one can do it. 
When I looked at this Supplementary Order Paper I thought it was excellent because there was a Building Amendment Bill on my desk. I thought it must be relevant to that. But no it actually is not. Then I thought this Part 3 has to be relevant to something the select committee has already seen. But no it is not. I went back through the bills we have looked at. We looked at the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 which was repealed. Then there was the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. That was good; it fixed up the errors in the 2002 Act just 4 years later. But what we are debating in 2007 is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. So 1 year later yet again we are facing another bill. I thought: “That’s OK. It’s about weathertight homes. It must be one of those things the Government hasn’t quite got right. It rushes legislation through the select committee every time. There has been a knee-jerk reaction to situations out there and now it must have it right.” 
On my table at the select committee today was the Building Amendment Bill. When I looked at the policy statement I saw that it stated that the bill was “to improve the workability of the Building Act 2004”. The building industry must be getting really confused by now. This is the fifth bill since 2002 that has gone through. I was wondering how many Ministers have been in charge of this portfolio—[ 
Interruption 
]—not in charge! Have there been six seven or eight? That is five bills in 5 years. No wonder the building industry is really confused. 
So I thought I would look at Part 3. Obviously I had to read it. It has not been to the select committee we have not had any submissions on it we have not had any advice on how well it is written and we have not had the Law Commission give us its view on it so let me have a look at it. I think I am pretty good at law. I did law at university. 
What does Part 3 actually do? It converts the bill into an omnibus bill that amends not only the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 but also the Building Act 2004. I had one bill on my desk and that was the Building Amendment Bill to make the 2004 Act more workable but now we also have this Supplementary Order Paper which fixes the 2004 legislation as well. Why could they not have been combined? Oh I know why: because there was an error. The Government had believed that its deadlines could be met and they just could not be met. 
What are those deadlines? Let me tell members what the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 133 states: “Some extend the period during which a territorial authority may act as a building consent authority … even though the territorial authority has yet to be registered as a building consent authority. That period is extended so that it ends on or before 30 June 2008 …” whereas before the date was November 2007. Why is this extension needed? Why is legislation being rushed through again? 
Why is this provision part of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill? I must say that I actually do not get that. This bill and I have read it many times now and I have spoken to it many times in the House is actually about the compensation that one can get for distress and anxiety. This bill is actually about the leaky homes that have been built and are still being built in New Zealand. Is Part 3 relevant to the purpose of this bill? I do not think so. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to add a contribution to this Committee stage of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and I want to draw to the Committee’s attention what is actually happening here. The Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is extending the time by which the councils can become compliant by 7 months. The reason why he has finally decided that he needs to extend the time is because he has become aware that a good majority of local government bodies will not be able to comply nor to achieve the ability to be registered by 30 November. I wonder whether the Minister has ever bothered to ask himself why it is that this is occurring. 
There are two reasons for this. Firstly he is in charge of the Department of Building and Housing—the department that in 1999 was staffed by 31½ people. It now has a staff number of in excess of 300—a growth of I do not know 900 million percent. I do not know what percentage that is; it is some strange number. The Minister is asking how many staff there were. Well of course there was not a Department of Building and Housing in 1999 but the equivalent in the Department of Internal Affairs had 31½ staff. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh you just woke up. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Minister can go back and check. I tell the Minister that I got this straight from the horse’s mouth and I know that I am absolutely accurate. He can talk all the rubbish he likes but there were actually 31½ people employed in the equivalent department back in 1999. Now there are in excess of 300 people. Do members know where they have come from? Do members know why local government actually cannot get people? 
Bob Clarkson 
: Why? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well because the 270 people who are now employed by the Department of Building and Housing are ex-building inspectors from local government. So how can local government get staff when they have to try to compete with Government-funded highly paid people in the dysfunctional Department of Building and Housing? It does not work does it? One cannot be in two places at once. 
The other interesting fact is this. Not all of those people actually came from local government a good number of them were people who had failed at being building inspectors failed at being compliance officers and failed at being bureaucrats. So the Minister said: “Oh don’t worry about it she’s right. We’ll build up this Department of Building and Housing.” and we have made it grow by 270 people over however long it has been—8 years. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Some of them might have been involved in building the leaky homes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member Bob Clarkson says some of them might have been involved in the building of the leaky homes. They were not involved in the building of leaky homes but some of them were the people who were initially meant to sign them off failed went bankrupt and had a hard time for a while until the Minister came along and said: “Hang on don’t worry we’ll start this Department of Building and Housing and now you can be employed again.” So they now have a job. No wonder the whole system is failing. It is because we have incompetent people in the department who have failed in their own lives—in private enterprise—and have not been capable of doing a decent job and now they are in a department telling competent builders how to run their lives. 
The Minister is saying: “You know local government can’t get compliant.” I cannot remember the exact figure I wish I could. I was trying to remember how many councils are likely to be compliant by 30 November. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: None. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No there were some. Out of the 85 I think from memory there were eight—I cannot remember—but some small number. There were a number who had registered to be compliant but the likelihood was that a good number were never going to get there. 
Bob Clarkson 
: One got through. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes I know there have been some but most of them were never going to be. I remember this Minister coming up to the Far North District Council and telling the local authority up there—the councillors and the other mayors of the district—“Have I got the answer for you.” Well they all sat there and thought: “Boy great thank goodness this Minister has come along. Everything is going to be right.” Well I was talking to them the other day and they said to me: “Do you think everything is going to be right?”. I said: “You’ve got to be kidding. This Minister’s got to extend the time for compliance.” 
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. 
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. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Henare has interrupted on three different parties during the casting of their party vote which is against the Standing Orders. As he is a distinguished and long-serving member a former Cabinet Minister and someone who has reached the heights of his career I would have thought he knew not to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. I had noticed it—and yes that applies. But they were laughing; they were having a bit of fun back there at this stage. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
New Part 3 agreed to. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended  
(recommitted) 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to remind the Committee again of the legislative mess that we are experiencing tonight. We are debating the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. This is a bill to amend a fix-up of a mistake that was made in the 2006 legislation regarding weathertight homes. The 2006 legislation was amended to fix up the mess that was made in 2002. So what we had was a botch-up in 2002 that was plugged through under urgency and overrode the normal parliamentary process. That problem was attempted to be fixed by the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove in 2006 passed under an urgent process and done in a rush. We then discovered that that legislation also had mistakes so that we now have this bill to fix the botch-up arising from the botch-up. 
If members think that that is bad enough we now have had during this Committee stage a further botch-up. In the Building Act—which was originally passed in 2004 and for which another set of amendments was passed in 2006 to try to fix up the Act—the Government has found another mistake so has wanted to correct it. To correct the mistake the Government has said that we have to suspend the rules of the House to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 133 which includes an amendment to clause 3 and in that respect we are going to add the amendments on to this bill to fix the botch-up. 
The simple argument of members on this side of the Chamber is that the Government got it wrong the first time it got it wrong the second time and it got it wrong the third time but on each of those occasions the Government has said: “Trust us. We’ll fix it. We will do it in a hurry.” Opposition members are simply saying that we do not believe Government Ministers anymore. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: But we never believe them. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well some members were generous of spirit I tell Mr Finlayson and wanted to think that Clayton Cosgrove was the new-found hope of the Labour Government—that he was the new generation of leadership and that surely he could not get it so wrong. We thought that surely he could not botch it up that badly. 
Darren Hughes 
: Tell us about leadership. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Obviously Darren Hughes wants to talk about anything but the bill—the bill that is such an extraordinary botch-up. Members on this side of the Chamber are saying: that given that the Government has got it wrong so often why should we abuse parliamentary process and ram this through? I bet that not one member of this Committee has sat down and gone through every one of those 32 lines of law and checked that they line up with the amendments to the amendments of the original Act. I bet they have not. So what sort of Wild West legislation are we passing in ramming these amendments through under a process by which we have suspended the Standing Orders of the House to enable this Minister to ride roughshod over proper parliamentary process? 
I also want to point out that the Minister gave a speech just a month ago and said that everything was on track and that we could do this by 30 November. I ask him what has changed in the last month to cause him to ride roughshod over proper parliamentary process and ram this bill through in less than 24 hours. What has changed? The Minister gave a speech a month ago and said that this was all under control; there was no problem. Why a month later is he saying that the legislation is in trouble? Is he telling us that councils are not going to make the deadline? If he wants to have established the threshold that Sir Geoffrey Palmer has set for riding over the Standing Orders it is that there must be exceptional and extreme circumstances. What are those exceptional and extreme circumstances? Could the Minister please explain. What is the extreme circumstance that justifies as Sir Geoffrey Palmer says this extraordinary process when we have only a single House—when we are one of the few democracies in the world that has only a single House of Parliament? What is the circumstance that enables the Minister to drop on Parliament today 36 changes in the law and have them passed by tonight—changes that are completely outside the scope of the bill? 
Darren Hughes 
: The member should have debated this during the motion. We are now on to the substance of the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I want to know the substance of the bill. I want to know what is the substance that justifies the extreme circumstance of surrendering the Standing Orders. Unless the Government justifies that members on this side of the Chamber will continue to vote against this clause. 
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. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 One of the key quotes the Minister for Building and Construction has—and I have heard him say it in speeches not once not twice but at least a dozen times—is “Do it once do it right”. Do members remember that? Well in classic Labour Party style it is a case of “Do as we say not as we do”. I need to summarise for the Committee whether the Minister has lived up to his “Do it once do it right” motto. 
The Government first dealt with the leaky homes issue with a bill in 2002. The bill was rushed through. It was actually an add-on to a bill of my own in respect of subcontractors. The bill was added on at the last stage and it flew through the Committee stage. But that was a botch-up so in 2006 this Minister came along to the House and powered through another bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. He shortened the time and we were assured at the time he had done it right. He sought to wham it through Parliament and said all would be OK. 
Well second time round the fix-up job got it wrong and then the Minister had to introduce another bill just 3 months ago the bill we have before us—the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. That bill had to be introduced because this arrogant Minister ignored submissions to the select committee that said general damages would not be able to be claimed. This Minister said: “Yes they can.” The court decided the opposite and that is why we have this bill. So third time round the Minister who says “Do it once do it right” still has not got it right. 
But it gets worse. Having put this bill through its first reading its select committee process a second reading and all the way through the Committee stage— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.