Standing Orders—Suspension 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10940] 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the Committee of the whole House on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to consider Supplementary Order Paper No 133 relating to that bill and for the Committee in its consideration of the bill to have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
 The adoption of this motion would suspend Standing Order 261 to allow the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to be treated as an omnibus bill for consideration of amendments to the Building Act 2004. 
The Building Act 2004 establishes an accreditation registration scheme for building consent authorities. The scheme will strengthen New Zealand’s building control system by helping to improve the decision-making processes at the critical building consent inspection and approval stages of the building process. The aim is to ensure that the building consent authorities have the resources and the systems in place to deliver high-quality building consents in a timely manner. 
Under the Building Act 2004 territorial and regional councils have until 30 November 2007 either to become accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand and registered by the Department of Building and Housing as building consent authorities or to transfer their building consent functions to an accredited and registered building consent authority for example a neighbouring council to perform. 
The Department of Building and Housing in partnership with Local Government New Zealand is providing guidance to councils and actively working through case advisers assigned to each council to support those councils. The Government has provided a $3 million accreditation assistance package to help councils prepare for accreditation and registration or to transfer their building consent functions. So far around $1.9 million has been committed to assisting 61 local authorities and the remainder is available to local authorities as they require. 
Discussions have been held with mayors councillors and chief executives across the sector to highlight what they can do to lead their organisations to successful accreditation. This approach seeks to minimise the likelihood of any council failing to achieve accreditation but they must still meet the higher standards set by the Government in order to protect prospective house purchasers and builders. 
It is clear that councils have a strong commitment to achieving accreditation by November or making alternative arrangements. Local Government New Zealand is also providing strong leadership in this sector. I am advised that as of today 72 out of the 73 territorial authorities have so far applied to become accredited and one—the Palmerston North City Council—has achieved accreditation. Nine regional councils are arranging to transfer their building consent functions to a registered building consent authority and the remaining three are preparing to apply for accreditation. It is expected that all 85 territorial and regional authorities will have applied for be in the process of achieving or have achieved accreditation by 30 November 2007 or be in the process of transferring their building consent functions. Although the vast majority of local authorities are on target for meeting the original deadline— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion before the House is a very serious motion. It is to suspend the Standing Orders of the House. It is not a debate about the substance of the amendment we will debate if the motion is passed. The role of the Minister is to explain to the House why we should suspend the rules under which this House operates not to give a long and lengthy explanation as to the policy. I simply ask you Mr Deputy Speaker given the seriousness of a Government using its majority in the House to throw out the Standing Orders that normally apply to bills that the Minister is asked to justify why we have to suspend the Standing Orders for the Government to be able to advance its business. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for bringing that to the House’s attention. You are quite correct. The notice of motion is clearly set out on the Order Paper. Debate or reasons or any discussion should be confined to that motion. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In order to address that in its widest sense we believe as I have said that the vast majority of councils will by the given date be in the process of meeting accreditation or may well be accredited or will be in the process of transferring as I have said—and the member may want to take note—their building functions to other councils. However although the vast majority of local authorities are on target to meeting those original deadlines some councils particularly small rural councils with capacity and capability limitations may not complete accreditation or transfer their functions to a registered building consent authority on time. 
Making the leap to the higher standards the Government has set for building consent inspection and approval so as to protect homeowners is a stretch for some. A few councils simply need more time to come up to speed and make the necessary changes and the Government makes no criticism of those councils. By extending the registration date there is a consequential amendment to the Building Act that will also allow more time for territorial authorities to transfer to regional councils the responsibility for issuing building consents for new dams built in their areas. A fail-safe provision allows for the extended deadline to be extended by regulation rather than by coming back to the House in the unlikely event that that may be necessary. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I come back to my original point of order. As you have rightly ruled this is a debate about why the House should suspend its Standing Orders and although the Minister has again given us a long diatribe around what the issues in the bill are he has not even attempted to address the debate which is about why Parliament should not follow its normal rules around changing the law. Mr Deputy Speaker I think you do need to bring the Minister into line to the point of the debate which is about why Parliament should not follow its normal process for a bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for again raising that. I will not repeat what I said before but it is necessary for the Minister to do exactly that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Although I do not challenge the ruling at all—and I am almost concluding the speech as it were—it is I think helpful to the House to provide a little background to answer that question. The two are rather interlinked I would have thought. But I am not challenging the ruling. I take it on board. There is no problem with that. Therefore I propose that the House consider a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the Building Act by extending the date by which territorial and regional authorities have to be accredited and registered as building consent authorities from 30 November 2007 to 30 June 2008. Extending the registration date by 7 months does not alter the accreditation process or affect its credibility or integrity by lowering accreditation standards which again are designed to protect homeowners. It simply reflects that councils are committed and working hard towards achieving accreditation or transferring the building consent functions but that some are unlikely to be able to achieve that by 30 November. 
Allowing councils an additional 7 months will ensure certainty continuity and confidence for the building consent activity the building industry and the people who are building and renovating. It is a prudent measure to provide certainty swiftly some months before the deadline occurs and that is why this has been done. It is logical and efficient to use as a vehicle a current piece of legislation before the House. Of course one could argue that we could use the Building Amendment Bill which was debated just yesterday. However we in the Government feel that that is a large piece of legislation that deserves quite a degree of scrutiny and I am sure even Dr Smith would accept that. 
It is important now some 4-odd months before the deadline to provide certainty to the building industry to local authorities and to the community that this will be set in place and expedited. What we are talking about here is the movement of a date to allow more time. The alternative of course could be to not do that and to create havoc. That may be the motivation of the Opposition; it is not the motivation of the Government. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion we have before the House is to suspend the Standing Orders—the process by which we introduce a bill have a first reading a second reading and a third reading. It is an incredibly important process for ensuring the scrutiny of legislation. What the Minister wants us to do is to throw out that normal process for scrutiny of a bill. Now I listened all the way through his speech and there was absolutely no justification at all in that speech or even an explanation as to why he should not have to follow the rules followed by any other member or Minister as to the suspension of the rules of the House of Representatives. I ask you to consider whether the Minster in giving a speech actually needs to explain why the Standing Orders of the House have to be suspended. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 First of all the member’s contribution is debatable. That should be the point he takes a call on—to debate whether the House should suspend this in order to do what the Minister has asked. I listened carefully to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. After he moved the motion he explained what he wanted to do at the conclusion of this debate if the House passes it and what he intends to do in the Committee stage when Government order of the day No. 3 is called. So we can now have a debate about whether we should do that and then get onto the substance. It seems to me quite straightforward. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank both members for their contributions. Towards the end of the Minister’s speech he did of course give some reasons—albeit not to the satisfaction of some but that is not relevant here. It is up to members of the House to decide whether he has convinced them that the course of action proposed in the motion should be taken. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Nowhere in that speech from the Minister Clayton Cosgrove did we hear justification for throwing out the rule book of Parliament for him to do his business and the reason is that there is no justification. What we have from the Minister is a mess—an absolute mess—in our building laws and now he wants to cheat on the rules of this Parliament to prevent the proper scrutiny of Government legislation. 
I just want to explain the scale of the botch-up we are talking about. In 2002—surprise surprise under urgency—in a mad rush the Government passed legislation to set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. It was a botch-up. It was a mess. In 2005 again under urgency and breaking the normal rules of the House we then came along and tried to patch it up. Then after botching it up a second time earlier this year the Government—again breaking the normal process—had to truncate the process and introduce a third bill to try to fix up the mistake on the fix-up that was a mistake on the fix-up. 
Now we have the Government saying it wants to throw out the normal process for advancing legislation. It wants to not have a first reading or a second reading but to simply introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at the last stage of a bill—a bill that has already had its first reading its second reading and its select committee stage. It is on to its third reading and the Minister wants to slip in a Supplementary Order Paper. He says: “Trust us we’ve got it right.” Well I have to say to the Minister that he botched it the first time he botched it the second time and he botched it the third time so why on earth would this Parliament trust that he may have it right for a fourth time? 
I say that this is just so symptomatic of the absolute mess that we have in our building laws. Let us just remind ourselves of how serious this problem is. Since Labour has been the Government we have seen a decline of 1 percent for every year it has been in office in the level of homeownership in New Zealand. We now have the worst level of homeownership at any time in the last 50 years. In the preceding 5 years of census data homeownership levels were stable. They have gone backwards. 
 I have just received a letter today from one of my constituents who because of the economic and housing policies of this Government is being forced into a mortgagee sale of a home. I put this figure in the hands of the Minister and the Government: in 1999 a person with a house of average value with a 75 percent mortgage would have been paying $166 a week. But because of house prices going through the roof and high interest rates that rate has now gone up from $166 a week to $533 a week. The problems that we have in the Building Act are part of what causes this. 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s that got to do with the motion? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have heard Darren Hughes ask what that has to do with the Government. Well the Building Act mess is causing record increases in housing prices—a 20 percent increase. We have seen the Government—under the Building Act that it has now botched up and is trying to fix by breaking Parliament’s rules—treble the building levy. Well hello hello: if the building levy is trebled from $6 million a year to $18 million a year surprise surprise house prices will go up. 
This Parliament has not suspended its Standing Orders for more than 4 years. Members of this House— 
Lesley Soper 
: Calm down! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member—I cannot remember her name; she is the temporary member from down south somewhere—says that this is no big deal. It is a big deal. The Government is saying that it does not want to follow the rules that govern this Parliament and that it wants to cheat those rules. It is a bit like the Government’s electoral bill. It cannot win an election next year under the ordinary rules so it wants to cheat and change the rules to suit itself. The Minister Clayton Cosgrove cannot manage his building laws under the normal rules of Parliament so today he proposes to cheat and throw the rule book in the bin. On this side of the House we say that is not good enough. 
I have to challenge the Minister. His problem is that he put a stupid law in place that said building consent authorities needed to be accredited by 30 November. That is a long way away; that is 4 months away. Why can we not have a bill put in for its first reading and put through the proper process? I ask the Minister why we cannot do it properly. Why has he not simply introduced a bill rather than breaking the rules of this House? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The House determines the rules Nick. You should know that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says that the Government just makes up the rules as it goes. That is what the Minister says. That is not quite what I thought Geoffrey Palmer was asking for when he wrote about unbridled power. This Minister says that if he does not like the rules of our House of Representatives he will just pass a majority motion to throw the rule book out. His botch-up does not come into effect until 30 November and there is ample time for him to introduce a bill and send it to a select committee. We members of this side of the House would properly scrutinise that bill and we might save him from another one of his botch-ups. 
The further point I have for the Minister is that Local Government New Zealand told me last November that councils would not be able to meet this deadline. The Minister has known this for months. There is no good reason to throw out the Standing Orders of this House—he has known of this problem for months. He knew of this problem even before the bill that we are attempting to amend was to come into effect. I say to the Minister that he should not expect this Parliament to change its rules to fix up his and his department’s botch-ups. It is not right. 
I further have to say to the Minister that this was a stupid policy in the first place. In 2004 the Government said that the way in which it would get better quality processes in building consent authorities was to threaten them with non-accreditation. What does that mean? It means that if a council is not accredited there can be no building consents issued in that area. That would be a disaster for any community. It was a stupid provision. The reminder I give the member is that one does not make threats to one’s children that one cannot carry out. Here the Government has broken that golden rule. It threatened councils and said that if they did not get accredited they would not be able to issue any building permits. But of course it cannot carry out that threat because of the damage it would do to the community. It would not punish the council; it would simply punish the people in that community who wanted to get a building consent. It was a stupid provision then it is a stupid provision now and the reason that the Minister wants the House to suspend its rules is that he has locked himself into this stupid corner. 
This is a true sign of a tired Government that is on the way out. When else would a Government want to throw the rules of Parliament to one side? This is not something that a Government does willy-nilly. A Government using a simple majority in the House to throw out our Standing Orders and the proper process for legislation is the sort of thing that Geoffrey Palmer wrote of in  
Unbridled Power 
. 
I challenge the members of minor parties. They justify their existence by saying they will keep the Government honest. We have not heard one argument from the Minister as to why we should suspend the Standing Orders of the House. I have outlined perfectly how the Minister can introduce a bill to the House and meet that deadline of 30 November. He simply wants to cheat. I say that a Government that wants to cheat on the rules of this House is a Government that has had its day. It has made an absolute botch-up of the building laws in New Zealand. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What’s that got to do with the motion? Come back to the motion. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Fairbrother that this is the fourth bill that we have had to try to implement changes in the Building Act. The Government has had to continually defer the introduction of those provisions. New Zealand builders and Local Government New Zealand right across the board have had enough of this Minister and his Government botching up these building laws. I say to the House that this Parliament should not suspend its normal rules to bail out a Minister who is not on top of his portfolio and not doing his job. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This is the thing: usually when legislation is tabled in this Parliament we have a very robust debate in this House. Parties have the right to have their say and share their views within this Chamber and that is broadcast across this nation. People who take a tremendous interest in the topic at hand write in to their local MPs because they have heard it discussed through the media because of the robust debate in this House. These people contact their local member of Parliament—for example Nathan Guy in Otaki Jacqui Dean in Otago or myself in Whangarei. We give them the attention they deserve and bring their ideas back to Parliament. 
This all occurs because there is a first reading debate on the legislation. We then go to a select committee process where we hear from those same people. In this case we would hear from the building industry local district councils and all those ratepayers and taxpayers who are affected by housing—and that is every last one of them because every last New Zealander lives under a roof in New Zealand; although I would have to say with a growing underclass that is fast becoming not the case. Taxpayers the building industry and district councils would sit down at select committee and discuss the legislation. That is the second stage—there is a first reading then a select committee process. 
The legislation would then come back to this House for a second reading—another robust debate. It would then go though the Committee stage—a fourth stage—where we would debate clause by clause everything that is happening in the legislation and again I say that it affects every New Zealander in this country. Then we would have a third reading debate and if the law stood up to the scrutiny of the taxpayer the ratepayer and all members of Parliament that legislation would be passed. That is good process that has stood the test of time. 
The Minister is now asking this Parliament to ride roughshod over that five-stage consultative process. He is asking us to pass his legislation when no light has been shed on it at all from a public perspective and to pass it in this House over the course of a few days. There has been no select committee process. The public are unaware of it happening and that is bad law. 
How do we know it is bad law? The reason we know it is bad law is that this is not the first time this Minister has introduced building legislation to this House that needed to be corrected. This is not the second time that this Minister has brought building legislation to this House that needed to be corrected. This is not the third time that this Minister has brought legislation to the House that needed to be corrected. This is the fourth time. But what the Minister wants to do today is to run roughshod over the normal processes of Parliament where legislation receives plenty of scrutiny. He wants to ride roughshod over that and fast track this legislation. Why? It is because he does not want it to have the scrutiny of a select committee. He does not want district councils from all over the country coming to him and saying to him once again: “We do not need this legislation where we are regulated by central government. We do not need this legislation that means we have to be accredited to give building consents.” 
Why do district councils not need that? It is because district councils have been issuing building consents for decades. District councils have been issuing building consents for perhaps 50 years perhaps 100 years and they do not need accreditation because they have been doing it for so long—longer than the self-appointed Minister. But no he has decided that central government bureaucrats need to accredit district councils across this country to do something that they have been doing for 50 years—maybe 100 years. Jacqui Dean from Otago says that it is donkey’s years and is not that the truth. 
I agree with Nick Smith when he asks: “Where are the third parties in this Parliament the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party?”. Where are their good friends Taito Phillip Field and Gordon Copeland? Where is their good buddy and old pal the MP for the Christchurch electorate of Wigram? Where is Jim Anderton when they are keeping this Government accountable? I cannot see them. I cannot comment on whether they are in the debating Chamber and in this House. I do not have my glasses on and I cannot see them. This Government is held up by six parties and the public should know that. This Government is a ragtag group of parliamentarians held together by six parties. Jim Anderton holds this Parliament together. Jim Anderton holds Labour together. Taito Phillip Field holds this Labour Government together. Gordon Copeland holds this Parliament together. When New Zealand First members have taken their No-Doz and they are awake in this Parliament and when Winston Peters is not overseas supping wine with his mates over there they are holding up this Labour Party in this Parliament. Of course the Green Party is also holding up the Labour Party in this Parliament. Such a ragtag group of six parties including Taito Phillip Field Gordon Copeland the Green Party New Zealand First when its members are awake Jim Anderton when he is not back in Wigram and the Labour Party is now ramming legislation through this Parliament without any scrutiny at all and National finds that absolutely appalling. 
We cannot believe that Clayton Cosgrove is so ashamed of what he has put on the legislative agenda that he will not let the bill go through a first reading a referral to a select committee a second reading a Committee stage and a third reading in this House. He is so ashamed of the job that he is doing as Minister for Building and Construction that he will not let the public have a say on this legislation. We are surprised at that. We thought that Clayton Cosgrove had a bit of courage. He is not bright but we thought he had a bit of courage. But no. He will force this bill through the Parliament today by suspending the Standing Orders. He will avoid the scrutiny of the public and of the Parliament. He will gather all his ragtag friends—Taito Phillip Field Gordon Copeland New Zealand First whose members I do note have had No-Doz and are awake and the Green Party—and he will force this motion through the Parliament. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member who is speaking but he has mentioned Gordon Copeland three times and I think there may have been a change that the House should be notified of. I understood that the proxy for Gordon Copeland was held by National. I assume from the member’s comments that that has now changed. I think we should be informed of that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That certainly concerned procedural matters but only in that sense was it a point of order. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The member should be aware that Gordon Copeland is supporting this Government on confidence and supply. I know that the member has no confidence from his party. I want him to know that this Labour Government is a ragtag group of individuals. We do not support the idea of running roughshod over New Zealand’s democracy. We will not be supporting this motion at all. We believe that legislation should have the full scrutiny of the public and Parliament. 
We are disappointed that this Minister in particular would rush it through because quite simply his track record of getting legislation right is not good. Nick Smith mentioned the number of times the member has tried to address the leaky homes crisis and failed—three times. Three strikes and one is out normally. We have no confidence in the Minister getting it right this time. We know that local councils are quite capable of issuing building consents. They have been doing it for decades. Why the Minister needs to accredit them is beyond us. It is not the councils that have been getting it wrong all this time. Perhaps we could ask that the Minister withdraw his motion. The National Party will certainly support him if he does put his tail between his legs and backs down on this strategy to avoid public scrutiny. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to remind the House again that we have a resolution from the Government to suspend the Standing Orders of the House. I noted that the Minister who moved the motion gave no justification for that. He did not address it. I now note that not a single member of the Government intends to speak on that resolution. This is an extremely serious and arrogant— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. The member is making an observation. There is no requirement on the Government or on any mover of a motion to give any justification. It is up to the House to decide whether it thinks there is merit in it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I accept that but the suspension of the Standing Orders of the House in a unicameral Parliament is a very serious resolution for the House to make. In my 17 years in this Parliament I find it unprecedented that a Government would not even give any justification for this Parliament to suspend those Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The point is well raised and I thank the member for it. I cannot intervene on the observations you have made. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Unfortunately I do not have much time. We need to go and have our dinner because this Government would give us ulcers with what it does. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: It is quite good. We have been and settled the ulcers after listening to that bunch over there—we have had a bit of a feed. So that is good as I said before. 
In talking to this motion or whatever people like to call it—all these things get a bit tricky here—I tell members that I am sick of coming into this debating chamber and hearing amendment after amendment on various bills. I had great trouble this morning trying to sort out which amendment this is. Is it to sort out the foul-up in 2002 when the bill first came to this debating chamber is it to fix the amendment in 2005 or is it to fix the stuff-up in 2007 that we are still trying to sort out? Maybe it is this new-deal Government Notice of Motion No. 1 with regard to the weathertight homes legislation—heaven’s me timber! 
I believe that the latest suspension of the Standing Orders will be a sad reflection on the Labour Government. I will need to talk to my senior colleagues on what is happening here. I believe it is true that the Labour Government wants to override the rules of Parliament. This shows that the Government is arrogant and heavy-handed. A good example of the arrogance of this Labour Government was the smacking legislation. That for example was a form of home invasion with bullying tactics and arrogance. It is time the Minister got the bill and the amendments correct. 
The original bill came to this House before I came to Parliament. In fact I was quite young when I came to Parliament and when this bill first came here and the Minister still has not got it right. A TV programme could be made about this bill and its multiple amendments. The programme would be called “ 
Believe it or Not”. 
 It would be as simple as that. With this Government it could be an ongoing TV series. But thank goodness that series would run out in 2008 when this Labour Party leaves Government. 
The whole Building Act weathertight homes legislation amendments more amendments extra amendments motions and suspensions of the Standing Orders is a mess. I am a new MP and I do my best to keep up with all those bills multiple amendments the going outside of the Standing Orders and all that stuff. But I would ask the Minister to number his bills and his amendments in the future because I just cannot keep up. 
Darren Hughes 
: That won’t help the member—he cannot count. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Ha ha! I have to try to keep up to speed on which amendment is being altered and at what time. “Do it once do it right” does not mean much to this Minister. I ask him please to listen to Nick Smith and Bob Clarkson on how to fix these problems—they are great guys by the way and they know how to do it—it is quite clear that this public relations man Mr Cosgrove does not know how to fix the problems. 
The National Party will solve all these problems and will not go outside the Standing Orders to do it. The answer is “Look listen and learn.” The last time there was a suspension of the Standing Orders in England was in the 1800s. The Standing Orders were lifted to allow an amendment to the law in order to allow somebody’s head to be chopped off—the Minister is warned. 
Darren Hughes 
: You are misreading your notes. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Yes but trying hard—trying hard! 
To finish off I say that this Government is quite happy to move away from normal standards. I can remember its corrupt act for example of overspending by $800000 in the election and then changing the law to legalise itself. Labour Government members are now legalised crooks. The Government that moves away from the normal rules is a corrupt Government and is heading towards becoming a dictatorship. God forgive and help this country if that happens. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a real pleasure for me on behalf of New Zealand First to stand in this debate and talk to this motion. Many of the previous speakers’ comments have been unrelated to the motion. I asked myself when we considered whether to support this motion what we are talking about. All we are talking about is a Supplementary Order Paper that is not bailing out the Minister but is about common sense and allowing this issue to be considered with an existing vehicle—that is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
If what a previous spokesperson from the National Party has said is true that our building laws are an absolute mess then is it not incumbent on members of this House to fix up the mess if in fact there is a mess? But there is no mess. This motion is not about a mess in the building industry; it is about providing certainty to local bodies to the building industry and more important to the general public. 
I am sure that National Party members would not want to see local bodies not become accredited in the time frame that has been set at the moment which is 30 November this year. It just seems to me it is practical that we give local bodies all the opportunity we can for them to be able to become accredited by extending the time frame from 30 November this year to 30 June next year. What is wrong with that? Nothing—that is dead right. It is for that reason New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. 
It will not be the last time irrespective of who is in Government when there will be a request to suspend the Standing Orders in this House. I am damned sure that the general public are listening to this debate—some of them from Auckland are still sitting on the motorways in the gridlock of that city. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Their cars will be boiling! 
PITA PARAONE 
: Of course but so will their temperatures be boiling. I would say to National members that although their comments suggest that they think they will be the next Government in 2008 whoever will be sitting on the Treasury benches will not be able to do so without the support of the caucus that I represent in this debate tonight. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. We understand the position the Minister is coming from. It is important that we initiate the intent of this motion as quickly as possible not only for the betterment of Parliament but also for those local bodies who may not be able to meet the present deadline to become accredited. This move is important not only to the building industry but also to the people of New Zealand. Again New Zealand First will be supporting this motion. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party will make just a very short contribution to the debate to advise the House that we do not make mountains out of molehills. We will be supporting this motion. We think it is infinitely practical that we engage in this debate in order to make the changes that need to be made. Thank you. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tena tatou katoa. The Maori Party will also be supporting the motion tonight as we also think it is important that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is resolved as quickly as possible. 
When the 6 o’clock bells ring on a Thursday night everybody is thinking about home sweet home. But for far too many New Zealanders their thoughts of home are anything but sweet. Although this bill addresses—rightfully—the need to ensure that remedies provided by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal include general damages for mental distress and anxiety the Maori Party has continued to raise the issues of the ongoing mental distress and anxiety occurring in too many homes in Northland East Coast and the Bay of Plenty homes where Maori whanau try to live the sweet life despite the building failures that they live in. 
 The Maori Party has with constant regularity profiled the low-quality workmanship that has seen too many homes in too many Maori communities end up rotten leaking and ripe for public health disasters. Worse still the question must be asked about building inspectors who work for councils. Who is it who approves the substandard workmanship? We have written to the Minister of Housing attended local meetings and talked frankly about the state of mould and damp in houses labelled as substandard. We have shared stories from the far north from Ruatahuna Morrinsville Waitahanui and Ruatoki and we will keep profiling these stories until we are heard as we are not a political party that refuses to face up to the challenge of conflict. We will always stand up proudly despite the numbers being against us to defend Maori rights and uphold Maori aspirations for the best interests of Aotearoa. Every family has the right to a warm home built of quality materials to a quality standard but sad to say many Maori homes fall very short of this requirement and no one takes responsibility—not the inspectors not the builders and not Housing New Zealand Corporation— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Or the Government. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: —and the Government. 
We have stood throughout this debate and supported the amendments to ensure that deficiencies caused through the penetration of water into a building and the associated damage or loss of value caused by these problems are properly dealt to. We have acknowledged how such amendments are necessary to give adjudicators and the tribunal the same abilities as courts of law to make awards for general damages for relevant mental distress. But we cannot stand up for the rights of those affected by the leaky home syndrome and turn a blind eye to the crisis of substandard housing or overcrowding that is collapsing around us. 
More and more New Zealanders are going home to caravans garages and low-quality boarding houses where health and well-being are compromised. The Child Poverty Action Group has identified the particular implications on children of overcrowding in South Auckland homes and it has pointed out that admission rates at Starship Children’s Health for readily preventable diseases—the diseases of poverty—are a national disgrace. There are national and international studies that show a high association between the prevalence of certain infectious diseases and crowded and substandard housing. We know that if our house is not weathertight our home is likely to be cold and damp resulting in poorer health status. 
There are also educational impacts. If people are jostling for space in an overcrowded substandard home the chances are that there will not be a place for a young person to study nor a warm safe environment to help that young person achieve. Who are the New Zealanders most at risk from the substandard and overcrowded houses syndrome? Well the  
Social Report 2006 
 makes it clear that 41 percent of those living in more severely crowded situations—that is requiring at least two or more bedrooms—are Pasifika families and 38 percent are Maori. A quick calculation makes that 79 percent of New Zealand families who are living in severely crowded situations and they are Maori and Pacific families. So is there one standard for all? I do not think so. 
So much has been said about violence this year and I remind the House of the great soul of India Mahatma Gandhi who believed that poverty is the worst form of violence. Is it not time to consider the housing crisis as another manifestation of the violence of poverty that impacts adversely on our children? Children are more likely to live in low-income households than any other group of New Zealanders. Children bear a disproportionate burden of the costs of substandard and overcrowded houses and because Maori and Pasifika children have a far higher likelihood of being in low-income families it is therefore those children who are faring worst from the housing fallout. 
The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is primarily forward-looking and the provisions of the bill will apply to claims currently lodged but yet to be determined. It is likely that the majority of those claims will be from middle-class families. In much the same way would it not be a great day in the House if we could be forward-looking in addressing the chasm of despair that currently sits between those who have and those who have not? Would it not be a great day when we could look forward to a time when caravan parks were not overflowing when Starship Children’s Health was seeing only children whose health was compromised by unpreventable conditions and when families were stable rather than constantly shifting to find a place to live? 
The Maori Party will support this bill at its third reading and we will also continue to speak out about housing affordability overcrowding and the substandard housing that our relatives our whanau our constituents and our people live in. No reira tena koutou. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The first thing that the House needs to take note of is what this Parliament is doing right now. I listened with interest to the very short comment from the Green member who said that the Greens are supporting the motion but did not give a reason. I listened then to the contribution from the Maori Party and the well-reasoned thoughts of why those members would support this motion. I have no argument with the comments that member made. But we need to take a step back and consider what this Parliament is doing. 
Tonight we are suspending the Standing Orders to correct a mistake that has been made by the Government and that is a rare event. When somebody seeks leave to undertake some step such as to make a personal explanation we suspend the Standing Orders and that is accepted as a right that we have as members. If we have made a mistake we can correct it personally and individually. Parliament gives leave to suspend the Standing Orders to allow the member to correct that mistake. There are occasions when a private bill a member’s bill or a local bill comes up and for some reason because it deals with a local issue Parliament might well consider suspending the Standing Orders. But for Parliament to suspend the Standing Orders because the Government has made an error of judgment is something that is a significant constitutional issue. 
We need to understand what we are doing here tonight. The last time that I can recall that we suspended the Standing Orders—and there may be others who have a better memory than me—was when I was the senior Government whip in I think about 1995. I allowed a vote to be taken— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: We supported it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well no Labour did not actually. I allowed the vote to be taken and the vote could well have overturned the Government. I must confess that I was very embarrassed. The Prime Minister of the day Mr Bolger was to put it succinctly rather unhappy. At that stage we had to have—I cannot remember now; I think it was—75 percent of the House represented to vote to overturn the decision that had been taken. The Standing Orders now say that we need to have half of the Parliament or 60 which is less than half in support of a motion to overturn the Standing Orders. 
I want the House to understand—and I want the member from New Zealand First to understand as I do not think he has even considered this—the constitutional issue we are dealing with here tonight. I am not sure that I have heard any comment about this and certainly not from the Greens. That surprises me because the member who spoke is one who does take this place very seriously and for whom I have a great deal of respect. Certainly the member from the Maori Party who spoke and gave good reasons for that party’s support of the motion did not talk about constitutional issues. 
This Parliament needs to be worried about the fact that we are here tonight correcting something that we have to actually suspend the Standing Orders to do because the Government has made a mistake. 
Bob Clarkson 
: It’s damn naughty. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well it is worse than damn naughty; it is actually constitutionally seriously important. Members of this Parliament and the public of this nation need to understand that tonight we are making a law change outside of our ability to do so only because we give ourselves the power and we do that by suspending our Standing Orders—which have stood us in good stead for years and years—so that the Government can have its way. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it brings to notice the fact that—and this is the point I want to make—this Government here again is doing things that one would not expect a good Government to do— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Under normal circumstances. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —under normal circumstances. I stress to those parties that have said they will support this step that suspending the Standing Orders is not something we do just to help a Government out; it is something we do because there is a crisis. It is something we do because the country is in difficulty because we are threatened or because the country may well not be able to operate unless Parliament takes this decision. But we are not passing this motion tonight for any of those reasons; we are doing it because the Government of the day has made yet another mistake. 
Quite honestly the debate we are having now is a far more serious one than this Government gives it credit for and I want to stress that. It is seriously important. This is about our constitution. This is about our nation. This is actually about the fact that we are going to change a law and override everything we are formed on because the Government decided it wants to fix something that it mucked up in the first place. That is the first and most serious point. 
I want to make my second point. Let us have a look at what the Government is trying to correct: the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. Last night I spoke on another bill that Minister Cosgrove had brought in the Building Amendment Bill. In fact this bill is to become part of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill—this is one thing we are suspending the Standing Orders to do. I want to say to the Minister what I said last night because tonight he is present. I say to him that he should be absolutely ashamed that we are debating this matter at all. I say to Minister Cosgrove that it is an absolute disgrace that we are here debating this issue. You have been told on many occasions— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I beg your pardon Mr Assistant Speaker. The Minister has been told on many occasions—and I have been one of those who have told him this—that local government would not be able to meet the deadline the Minister imposed on it. He has been told that by local government by the building industry and by the institute of building officers. This Minister has been advised by anybody and everybody that it would not be possible for local authorities to meet the date that he and his Department of Building and Housing set. But what did he do? He blindly went on irrespective of advice. He did not care; he did not worry. He did not worry about the cost the stress and the problems that he put on local government and the building industry. This Minister who has failed them in every other way has failed yet again. 
It is an absolute disgrace that we are here tonight on this matter. This Minister has been hopeless and useless. Quite honestly I stand by that statement entirely. This Minister is a complete failure. He talks about the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services. He needs to understand that more leaky homes are being built in this country right now than ever. His Department of Building and Housing quite honestly is failing him completely. This Minister is failing his Government. This Government is failing this country and we are here tonight debating a constitutional resolution because this Government has failed the people of this nation. 
I want the nation the people who are listening and this Parliament to understand that we are debating this tonight because this Minister and his department have completely let down the building industry and the people of this country. They will be brought to account in time. This whole issue will become known. It is already well known. Parliament should think about this and the parties that are looking to support this resolution should think about what they are doing. It is not just an issue about passing a motion; it is actually an issue about us changing our whole constitution because we are changing the Standing Orders. That is something that we should not do lightly; we should not do it unless there is an absolute crisis. This is not a crisis. Thank you. 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The Labour Party is at it again. Here it is wanting to suspend the 402 Standing Orders in the book. We have just heard from my learned colleague John Carter about how important the document I am holding in my hand is and here we have the Labour Party trying to bend the rules and break them. It cannot win so it looks to do something to get around its own problems. 
I believe that this matter is one of the biggest blunders we have seen in the last 4 years. The Standing Orders have not been suspended since 2003. Here we have the Labour Party which because it cannot win tries to bend the rules. This matter should be opened right up to the select committee process. The public should have a right to have a say in this. It should go through the due process and have a first and second reading. It should go to a select committee where the public is allowed in to have its say because there are some contentious things in this bill and I want to talk about those tonight. 
This whole leaky homes thing is an absolute mess is it not? When we look back to 2002 when the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act came into force to provide homeowners with a speedier more flexible cost-effective alternative to courts we see that only 60 percent of cases have been solved since that time. We have to ask about what has actually happened. The Labour Government here this evening is a Government that if it cannot fix something wants to put a bolt on it. It wants to glue it together to put an Ajax bolt through it or to use araldite glue to glue something else on. Quite simply this measure should be going through the whole due process. 
I think it is a bit of a shame—a big shame actually—that the Standing Orders are having to be suspended this evening. We should look at the whole Building Act and think about the building inspectors. Local government is saying that it has had a gutsful; that it has had enough of the legislation that is being passed in this Parliament that affects ratepayers and council staff. The building inspectors get a document and they just get au fait with it running off to a seminar a conference or another course and then there is another change in Parliament and they have to go through that whole process again and attend another seminar and another conference to get up to speed on that change. Then there is another change. So now we are seeing the third attempt and it is because of this sloppy Minister. I have heard him say publicly that this is all about sorting out the shonky builders in the industry. Well we have here this evening a real shonky Minister who cannot sort out something that is fundamentally pretty basic. 
One of the big things that the Minister glossed over this evening—and I welcome his taking a call on this; I welcome his taking a call on the dams being shifted from the local councils to the regional councils— 
Darren Hughes 
: You didn’t listen. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I was listening actually. Fundamentally this is a key thing. The public should have a right to have its say whether the matter is about a dam on a farm for drinking water whether it is about an irrigation dam whether it is about a recreation dam or whether it is about a hydro dam. Labour wants to slip this through yet the public does not have its chance through the select committee process to have its say. The Minister glossed over that very significant point very very lightly. 
The big thing that is holding up this whole process is the fact that this Government will not address the Resource Management Act and give it any sort of reform. We have some very good proposals which were outlined by Nick Smith at the National Party conference in the weekend. They would allow for direct referrals to the Environment Court and not allow vexatious and frivolous objections— 
Bob Clarkson 
: All good stuff. 
NATHAN GUY 
:—all good things—while still adhering to the principles of the Act. 
The pendulum has swung far too far and that is why this whole process is cumbersome. It looks messy for the Minister when he cannot sort out a very very simple process and has to keep coming back to the House to get this sorted out by means of collapsing the Standing Orders. In summary the 85 territorial local authorities—which the Minister did not believe would be up to speed by November so has extended the period out to June—all say they are not taking any more of this stuff. They have had an absolute gutsful of this sort of legislation being passed in the House. The provincial councils out there have to pick up the pieces. In my area of Horowhenua and Kapiti about 700 homes are built a year and our building inspectors are bogged down by the whole bureaucratic process. Tonight the Minister is asking the House to suspend the Standing Orders for the first time in 4 years—all 402 of them—to fix up a shonky deal that has been done. This issue should be going through due process. That is why National has some real concerns and will be voting against the motion. 
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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the Committee of the whole House on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to consider Supplementary Order Paper No 133 relating to that bill and for the Committee in its consideration of the bill to have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
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.