Sio Su'a William: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1780] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Kia ora and talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. Malo lava le soifua maua malo le lagi e mama i lau afioga ma sui mamalu o le Maota Fono. That is my way of acknowledging you Mr Assistant Speaker and the members of this House. I also want to recognise the members of the public who are listening in and watching the proceedings of this House especially those who are listening in from my electorate of Mangere. It is as we call it the gateway to New Zealand where Aotearoa touches the rest of the world. I acknowledge Minister Maurice Williamson for bringing back this Building Amendment Bill (No 2) into the House. Labour introduced this bill while in Government to help reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process which causes frustration among many of our builders throughout this nation. The bill rightly—as the Minister has outlined—will reduce both the direct and indirect costs to owners and developers associated with the construction process while ensuring that good-quality homes and houses are constructed. The bill is part of a coordinated approach taken to assist in increasing the supply of good-quality affordable homes but I suspect that many of the public who are listening in to this debate will be wondering what is going on with this Government. 
You see it is a shame that the National Government does not share the same commitment to having good-quality housing. Why else would it axe the $1 billion household insulation fund that would have improved the energy efficiency of Kiwi homes? Ordinary New Zealanders will also be looking at each other in puzzlement and asking what is going on here and they will be making some important judgments about the National Government. I say this because when the public got over their initial shock last year after the election and when they woke up and saw that National was in Government being the fair-minded Kiwis they are most people said: “OK we made a mistake. But let us see what National has got. Let us see what this Government is made up of.” Then the National spin doctors got working and created an image that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were the action team. I would say that those who are drinking Tui at my local pub in Mangere Bridge will all be shouting out: “Yeah right!”. 
Then the spin doctors got working and came up with the new Cabinet of Ministers and after peppering that Cabinet with some new faces amongst the old faces they announced that here was their new National front bench. What was the response of the Tui drinkers out in the public? It was: “Yeah right!”. What we saw was a National Cabinet that promoted the Prime Minister’s close friends and demoted some hard-working senior long-serving National MPs. Some of the members of the National Cabinet were young some were not so young; some of them had good hair styles and some of them were without any hair. The public got to see that some of them were good-looking and that there were others to whom the old expression would apply: “They have the looks that only a mother could love.” 
The point I am making as to why I think the public listening to this debate would be perplexed by what this Government is doing is that at a time when the world is swirling in economic turmoil there is a strong call from our communities for this Government to act quickly and do something substantial in support of low-income families. Although this bill is necessary the impact of the global economic recession does raise the question of how many jobs this bill will save. Why is National prioritising this bill when the House should be using its valuable time considering measures necessary to help low-income earners who are struggling to make ends meet? 
I conducted a meeting last week with some providers in our community—including the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust Housing New Zealand Corporation and a few others—just to try to get a handle on the impact of the recession on housing needs in Manukau. The key issues that emerged were overcrowding which is getting worse; the re-emergence of infectious diseases; the cost quality and security of tenure of some private rental stock; issues around boarding houses; the need to support the community housing sector; and the increase in poverty. 
In my electorate we had a series of redundancies during the Christmas period. Sadly nobody kicked up a fuss about that because we had a bit of money. Most people spent that money supporting their families during some happy times in the Christmas period. That is all gone. The Work and Income New Zealand office told me that when people come in looking for jobs there are no jobs for them. It is very difficult for them to direct people who have been working in labour-intensive roles to other new roles. 
That is the question that will probably be causing quite a bit conflict. Yes this bill is necessary but in a time when there is so much uncertainty and there is the growing worry about making ends meet and about job security income protection and being able to afford the basics and when this Government ought to be coming up with something substantial the public will be saying that this is just not enough and that this is not what they were looking for. 
Earlier today there was a debate about how this Government has sacked Ross Wilson the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Shame! 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Shame on them! I absolutely agree with my friend. This is the example of the 90-day bill the fire-at-will bill. Ross Wilson chair of ACC is the first casualty 
Nicky Wagner 
: Have you read that bill? You need more than 90 days. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: It was not more than 90 days. The National Government sacked Mr Ross Wilson without any reason. It sacked a man who has the integrity to continue in the role and who has the skills and the intelligence. The Government is determined to wreck ACC and it does not want to have anybody chairing it who might be able to right the wrong it intends to do. 
Labour supports the bill but in terms of the timing and the concern we have for communities we feel that this is not the answer that the communities need to help with their housing difficulties. I think the Minister can do more by considering supporting the needs of those in our communities—as I have outlined earlier in the meeting that I conducted—in terms of overcrowding the increase in poverty and supporting a community housing sector. Although we are supporting this bill through the process it is our feeling and certainly my feeling that National should be concerned about giving to the public the measures necessary to help low-income earners who are struggling at this particular time. With those words I say that Labour supports the first reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2).