Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21327] 
Tuesday 14 June 2005 
( 
continued on Wednesday 15 June 2005 
) 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Civil Aviation Authority ( 
continued 
)  
Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand ( 
continued 
)  
Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand ( 
continued 
)  
Transfund New Zealand ( 
continued 
)  
Transit New Zealand ( 
continued 
)  
Transport Accident Investigation Commission ( 
continued 
)  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
Last night I was referring to a document issued by Transit New Zealand in August 2004 to every household in the Auckland region. It talked about investing half a billion dollars in the Auckland highways with more to come. There were 17 projects listed with start dates given. The only problem is that the document has proven to be false. All the projects planned to start in 2004 and we must bear in mind that that was only 12 weeks after the issue of that document did not happen. Of the projects that were to start in 2005 the majority did not happen. The Government wonders why Aucklanders—the people of North Shore the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the chamber of commerce—are completely disillusioned fed up and disgusted with this Government. It is that kind of propaganda that has done it. I say this to the Government: it has lost the trust of New Zealanders and it has lost the trust of New Zealanders because it has misled them. I seek leave to table a copy of the document from Transit New Zealand. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 To quote the Leader of the Opposition all I can say after listening to that speech last night from the member and again this morning is “Baloney!” I heard Dr Mapp last night claim that the National Party had the North Shore busway ready to go in 1997. Have members ever in their lives heard such a big misrepresentation of the truth? No. That is because transport issues do not matter to members opposite. Where is National’s transport spokesperson this morning? Where is Maurice Williamson? Why is he not here praising the Government for the projects that are reported as having been built or under construction? 
The report talks about the central motorway junction in Auckland. What did the previous National Government do about that in 9 long years? It did nothing. It just looked at the bits of concrete sticking out of the ground which had been there for 20 years and did nothing. And it would do that again if it were ever allowed to be in Government again. 
Greenhithe in Auckland is under construction. Mercer to Long Swamp in the Waikato is under construction. Hewlett’s flyover in the Bay of Plenty is under construction. Mackay’s Crossing in Wellington is under construction. The inner-city bypass in Wellington is under construction. The Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 is under construction. Then it will be a toll road—something the National Party talked about but did nothing about in terms of legislation. We had to pass legislation one Christmas I remember to try to help Tauranga out. It was a special piece of legislation. 
What has this Government done? We have legislation that allows it to happen very simply with the Minister of Transport being convinced that it is a good project and ticking off a number of boxes that ask whether it will work financially whether the public supports it and whether there is an alternative road. All of that law has been passed. What did the National Government do? It did absolutely nothing. Did it allow for private-public partnerships in the law in 9 long years? It did nothing. But this Government has got on and done the real work. 
That is why in Auckland there is a “buildability” problem. That is why the construction industry is in Samoa trying to recruit labour. It is also off in South Africa and Zimbabwe trying to get civil engineers. It cannot actually keep up with the tendering process and at the moment a major project in Auckland—State Highway 20—is under way but other projects that follow it are having to get consortiums of New Zealand construction companies put together to be able to tender because not one single company is able to do it on its own. There is too much work and that is why the Australians are over here in consortiums actually tendering for New Zealand projects because there is so much work so much money that the industry cannot keep up. 
This report talks about that. It talks about the “buildability” problems—the labour shortages. It talks about the things the Government has done in terms of requiring 10-year plans so that everybody knows that there is a major piece of construction going on and that this Government is serious about fixing the issues. 
 The amount will be $18.9 billion over the next 10 years. What is National saying it will do? Last night we heard that a National Government would spend yet another $4.5 billion over that same period of time. How would that fix the problem? Labour is talking $18.9 billion over the next 10 years; National is talking $4.5 billion—and it is talking about having tolls. It is saying: “Oh no no. We’re going to give you a couple of bucks tax cut over here before Christmas in whatever year—who knows? But we’ll toll you so much that you won’t be able to afford to go on that road.” National would just tax people a different way. That is the age-old trick of the Tories over there. They do nothing but make the public pay for all the projects that this Government has the funds to do under its current regime. 
This is a great report. This is a report that one would never have found under a National Government because it has things in it that have actually been done. Construction is taking place all over the country. There are roadworks for half the distance between Auckland to Waikato. What happened under previous National Governments? Absolutely zip. They did nothing. They had a cost-benefit ratio system that made them think they could not do little improvements here or there because that might stop a project from going ahead. They said that anyway there was not enough money. 
When I became the Minister I was told: “You’ll build nothing in Auckland in your first 3 years because the National Government has done nothing to prepare for it and there isn’t the money in the kitty to pay for it. In fact in our first 3 years in Government both Puhinui and Grafton Gully were built. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to address the issue about Transit New Zealand too. Last night I heard the Minister of Transport say that he would love to have a system where there were no police on the side of the road collecting fines and that he would love our country to be one where people did not die on its roads. If he were really sincere about that then his Government would do something about terrible pieces of roads such as State Highway 2 and the road from Pokeno to Tirau—State Highway 27. It is known now that the four-lane passing lanes will not go ahead there. 
We will never get anywhere in this country while we continue down the path of having land transport politicised. It is totally politicised. For instance the president of the Labour Party sits on the board of Transit New Zealand—and what an embarrassment that has turned out to be for the party. Transit New Zealand is just one of Mike Williams’ appointments. He gets $17000 in fees from Transit New Zealand $19000 from the board of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd $21000 a year from the Railways Corporation and $28000 a year from Genesis Energy and he is on the Auckland Regional Transport Authority from which he gets another $25000. That is $107000. And it does not include the secret honorarium he gets for being president of the Labour Party. Not even Nick Venter has been able to find out how much that secret honorarium is. 
When this debate was last raised in the House Mike Williams faxed me and said that the figures I gave were wrong. I think I said the total was something like half a million dollars. His kids all asked for expensive Christmas presents as a result. Well if he gets upset every time someone raises how much he gets from the public purse he should come clean and say how much he gets. But as Jonathan Milne asked in that wonderful new publication the  
Herald on Sunday  
on Sunday what will Labour do now about its president? He went to a meeting 2 weeks ago in the offices of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance where he embarrassed himself was extremely rude and brought to a halt the negotiations and then he went and leaked it to Brian Rudman of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
What was written about that meeting was wrong. What was being written about  
The Way Forward 
 in Auckland was wrong. That is the reason we will never get anything done. 
On 30 June Transfund and Transit New Zealand will be releasing their 10-year programme. There is going to be some serious embarrassment for this Government in that statement. For instance in this country we have roads that have proved to have a good benefit-cost ratio. That means they will deliver a very high rate of return to this country they will enhance economic growth and they will improve people’s lives. But they are not even going to appear on the 10-year programme. Why? Because it is not political. We will see roads in the South Island that do not have a good benefit-cost ratio and the building of which will be very difficult to justify but they will be there. Why? Because it is politically expedient in an election year to have them on the 10-year programme. 
We have Government funding issues. The Government says that everything is all right and that we do not have to worry about it—everything is great. Well it is not specifying starting and completion dates. As the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp pointed out the paper that he tabled which went to every household in Auckland at huge expense— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Frankly can we believe it? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: As Dr Mapp says can we believe it? It is factually incorrect. It was proved at the select committee under questioning that there were incorrect statements in terms of what had and had not been started. I ask whether the Government does want to get serious about fixing the transport system in this country which we predicted 3 years ago would get worse and worse when the Land Transport Management Act was brought in. It brought in a whole lot of other considerations that have to be brought into account when Transit New Zealand and Transfund are considering new roading projects. 
And they are political. They are political to satisfy the Greens they are political to satisfy that vote and they are politicised to ensure that Ministers get back into Parliament when the election comes round again. We are just going back to the future. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed her seat Deborah Coddington has made not very many strong arguments about not much at all and I will not rebut them. But the member Wayne Mapp who spoke last night and again this morning—apparently he is the new National Party transport spokesperson because we have not heard from the other National Party transport spokesperson—made a series of allegations that are scurrilous that are outrageous and that need to be rebutted. It is my pleasure to stand up here and give that member a towelling. 
He stood up and said that Transit had put out a document that was incorrect. He said that Transit had put out a document that was a lie. He said that Transit had set out to mislead people. That is a scurrilous allegation and it is a wrong allegation and I intend to dismiss it. The reason I intend to dismiss it is that it cannot stand unchallenged. The member made a series of allegations about Transit that are simply wrong. 
There are 17 projects in the document he refers to. This is a document that 10 11 or 12 months ago was put around the suburbs of Auckland. It is a document that states: “Auckland at a glance” and it gives people an indication of what is going on in their city in the Transit area. Of the 17 projects 14 have been accurately described and I will come to the other three in a minute. The 14 projects include the Greenhithe deviation. The document states that its construction is in progress. The truth is its construction is in progress. It states in relation to the State Highway 18 upper harbour bridge and causeway duplication that its construction is in progress. The truth is its construction is in process. It states in relation to the State Highway 20 Puhinui exchange that its construction is complete. Its construction is complete. It states in relation to the State highway northern busway that construction started in November 2004. Construction started in November 2004. It states in relation to the State highway Grafton Gully stages I and II that construction is complete. And on and on it goes. All of those 14 descriptions are accurate. There is a really interesting story about how come this Government can get 14 projects running in Auckland at once and the member opposite cannot. 
 What about the other three? One of them is the Roskill extension which was delayed by a 1915 piece of legislation on volcanic cones that at the time this publication came out nobody knew about. The member certainly did not. That legislation from 1915 that was discovered required a change of tack for the Roskill extension. Has the Roskill extension tender been let? Yes. Has the Roskill extension tender pre-construction work begun? Yes. When will the Roskill construction work begin? It will begin as soon as we get through the winter period. That one project has been put back by a number of months because of a statute nobody knew about. Did Wayne Mapp advise the House of that? No he did not. Instead he said that the document was an entire set of inaccuracies. 
Two other projects need to be brought to the member’s attention. The first is the Hobsonville deviation. It says here that construction is due to start in 2005. It will not start in 2005 and the reason is the other project—the third project that the member did not mention—the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2). The reason the member did not mention that project is it is going ahead ahead of time. The bulldozers have already begun work. The ALPURT B2 extension is down in this document as being at the stage of consultation. In that respect the document is misleading because the news turns out to be way better than was thought to be the case when it was written. The State Highway 20 Manukau deviation is on track; there are no problems with that at all. 
The problem is that the ALPURT B2 construction had to go ahead for the reason that when the Tories were in power the only thing they built in Auckland in 9 years was the Albany to Puhoi realignment B1. Do members know what they did with that? They stopped it halfway. They stopped it on a corner of a suburban part of Orewa. That is where that stretch of road ends to this day. They built a highway halfway to nowhere then lost power. That is why ALPURT B2 had to go ahead. 
But wait there is more. If one adds together the projects that were under way by National at the time of the change of Government and also includes out of generosity projects recently completed by National—of which there were none—one comes up with $130 million worth of expenditure. ALPURT B2 alone is more than twice that. If one adds all 17 projects that the member decided he would take a go at and the ones that have been recently completed—of which there are many such as the Grafton Gully central motorway junction stage I or the Puhinui interchange and on it goes—one does not come up with $130 million. One comes up with precisely 10 times that figure. 
So that member should not stand up in this Chamber and say that the Government is not getting Auckland moving again. This Government is addressing a very serious backlog created by the Government of the member who just resumed his seat. That is the truth of the matter. At the time of the change of Government $130 million worth of construction was underway. Today by precisely the same measurement the amount is exactly 10 times that in value. Let us be very clear about who created the problem in Auckland and let us be very clear about who is fixing it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the reports of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2003-04 financial reviews of the Civil Aviation Authority the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand the Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand Transfund New Zealand Transit New Zealand and the Transport Accident Investigation Commission be noted. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Reports noted. 
Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (Te Mangai Paho) 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 For the clarification of anybody who might be listening we are here to review Te Mangai Paho which is the funding agency for mainly Maori Television and for the production of Maori programming shown on various broadcasting outlets in New Zealand. 
An update from the Maori Television Service in June 2005 highlighted an issue that I think the Minister needs to turn his attention to. It stated that issues and solutions for Maori Television include continuing to produce high-quality Maori programmes. While conducting its review members of the Maori Affairs Committee had some substantial discussions about just that issue. How do we monitor and come to make some judgments about what high-quality Maori programming is? The Maori Television Service obviously has that on its mind and hopefully Te Mangai Paho does as well. Up to 35 percent of the funding that Te Mangai Paho gets goes directly to the Maori Television Service. The Maori Affairs Committee suggested that emphasis be put on the way that funding contracts to broadcasters are managed and that further attention was required in terms of enhancing and documenting its policies and procedures. 
Of course we all remember that 2 or 3 years ago the Minister more than anybody was being given all that wrong and fatuous advice by his Te Mangai Paho executives. We had that whole debacle in this Chamber in 2001 and 2002. The Minister would stand up in this Chamber and not know what he was talking about basically because he was being supplied with incorrect information. Thanks to a good National Party loyalist Wira Gardiner we now see that Te Mangai Paho at least appears to have turned itself around. We hope that the chairman makes sure that everything is in place before he starts to think of leaving. 
One issue relates to the monitoring of funding provided to third parties. That is where the organisation started to fall off the rails 2 or 3 years ago. That is an issue the select committee thought was important. The Maori Television Service exists as a result of a perceived Government obligation to protect and promote te reo Maori. This Committee needs to know that that objective is being achieved. 
How will it be achieved? It will be achieved by making sure that the Maori Television Service has high-quality monitoring and review processes for the programming that is shown and that it has in place its own financial procedures and documentation in terms of funding. So I hope the Minister will turn his attention to that this year among a whole lot of other things—including of course his own department which sees itself as the great saviour of Maori people. I would suggest that the reverse is true: Maori people will save themselves. They do not need a handout organisation to help them achieve their potential. 
The other thing I want to mention is Maori radio. We saw in the estimates we looked at last week that a new initiative has been sought for an iwi radio upgrade. In a way given that iwi radio has become the mouthpiece of the new Maori Party I suppose the Minister has to be commended for the fact that iwi radio has achieved some funding. But again we ask whether Te Mangai Paho processes are the right means of funding Maori radio—whether its funding processes are robust and whether indeed Te Mangai Paho has made any decision about or done any thinking around whether there are too many iwi radio stations. A little bit of integration of iwi radio stations might see the funding go further. Hopefully these matters are in the Minister’s mind as well. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I had hoped the Opposition spokesman on Maori affairs would come down and debate this issue. But certainly— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is quite contrary to the Standing Orders to refer to the absence of anybody from the Chamber and the Minister should know that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member is quite correct. Members should not refer to the absence of another member. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I want to remind the member who spoke before me about the state of Te Mangai Paho when this Government came in. It was in a mess. It had no direction no vision and no mechanism for either governance or management. In 2003 under a whole lot of pressure we reviewed it. I am proud to say that through the efforts of the very able capable people who work with this Government the agency has sorted itself out. That is very clear. That member does not seem to like iwi radio stations. Well I know that most Maori around this country appreciate and spend a lot of time listening to the iwi radio stations. For 20 years and especially in the 9 years when National was last in Government nothing was done about strengthening restructuring or supporting those iwi radio stations. We have done that—even to our detriment at times. 
Let me talk about the Maori Television Service. The face we see there is the new face although it needs a bit of maturity. I want to tell the Committee what Te Mangai Paho has helped the Maori Television Service to do. The service will report a profit next week like other State-owned enterprises of $3 million. It will say quite clearly that it has repaid its loan 2 years before it was due. That shows good organisation and it has come about because of a whole lot of support from Te Mangai Paho. 
We talk about Maori not being able and about who should be supporting them. Ninety-one percent of Maori are in work. They are working—24000 of them in the modern skills field. And we will need them because this great broadcasting industry—especially its indigenous face and the indigenous activity that is going on through the Maori Television Service—needs people to deliver. We should remember that  
Whale Rider 
 was about the indigenous people. Having just been to the Wairoa Maori Film Festival I have seen a whole lot of talent and a whole lot of opportunity of which this Government is very very supportive. That person talked about indigenity. Certainly when I was at the Maori rugby game the other day when the Maori team cleaned up the British Lions the crowd’s first chant was the great chant of “Maoris! Maoris! Maoris!”. Then they went on to say: “Kiwis! Kiwis! Kiwis!”. Then they continually said: “Black! Black! Black!”. When there is a common thread around something that we all enjoy like Maori broadcasting then this nation will move forward a lot quicker. 
Let me tell members that a whole lot of the viewership of Maori television is non-Maori; it is Pakeha—those other people. They enjoy watching it. Why? Because it is one of the finest adaptions in relation to showing Kiwi-ness on the box. I look back in history and ask how much Maori was on mainstream TV. What was done was not too bad but there was very very little especially in Nelson. It is people like those in Nelson who really appreciate Maori television who watch the cooking programmes and who watch the language programmes. They love it. They have classes down there to follow on from the language programme. 
I point out that as a State-owned enterprise Te Mangai Paho has done very very well. Mr Brownlee and Dr Brash want to close down anything that has a connotation of Maoridom. It is disgraceful and it is shocking that they should even think that way. For once in this country we have programmes produced by Kiwis made by Maoris and watched by the whole nation. 
Report noted. 
New Zealand Lotteries Commission 
Report noted. 
Building Industry Authority 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This financial review of the Building Industry Authority impacts on thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who have been grossly neglected by this Government in its response to the huge crisis in respect of leaky homes. I note that Damien O’Connor is in the chair. The first problem for homeowners is the way in which this important portfolio has been passed around the Cabinet table like a hot potato. Can members believe that in just 5 years there have been six different Ministers for Building Issues? It is little wonder that we have the scale of mess—with thousands of homeowners living in rotting and decaying homes with their health affected and struggling to try to find a solution—when Labour treats this issue with such disdain that it is passed from pillar to post. We have had Mark Burton—[ 
Interruption 
] Judith Tizard pipes up. Can Judith Tizard—who has hundreds of her constituents confronted with those awful problems—justify to me why we have had Mark Burton George Hawkins Lianne Dalziel Margaret Wilson John Tamihere Chris Carter and now Damien O’Connor on building issues? 
Then there is the matter of just how poorly the Government is managing the problem. We see in this report that $6 million is being spent on lawyers by this Government in order to fight the owners of leaky homes. Here are desperate people who need the Government’s help and assistance—but what is the Government’s answer? It will spend $6 million on Queen’s Counsels in order to fight them and in trying to pretend that the Building Industry Authority has done nothing wrong. What sort of insult is that to the intelligence of New Zealanders and of those poor families affected? 
Then we see that $100 million is being spent on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service but not one dollar of that is to be spent on a single home needing to be fixed. Instead that $100 million the Government is spending on the weathertight homes bureaucracy is according to the Government to provide a quick and speedy resolution of the problem of rotting homes. Well is that not interesting? That is what the Government said 3 years ago. Three years later fewer than 10 percent of claims have been resolved. Does Damien O’Connor the Minister in the chair realise that with current progress the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service will take 20 years to process claims under that “fast cost-effective solution” the Government rammed through Parliament in 10 days? That is simply insulting and it is a tragedy for the families concerned. 
I want also to draw the Minister’s attention to something that is truly shocking. A poor old homeowner who had a rotting home that had been certified by an independent certifier wrote to the Building Industry Authority in 2004 the year under review and asked who the insurer was for the independent certifier. The authority wrote back and said that it could not tell the homeowner because the information was commercially sensitive. Now that is shocking! There is a Government that should be helping those families but it is putting up bureaucratic barriers to the extent of even refusing to name the insurer. What does that mean? It means that the homeowner is not able to take legal action to try to get his or her home fixed because the Government is hiding behind the excuse of commercial sensitivity in order to protect the insurance companies rather than the homeowner. I say that that is a farce. 
How can members opposite even pretend with that sort of debacle that they have any compassion for the families affected by leaky homes? I saw in the  
New Zealand Herald  
last week the glaringly smiling photo of Chris Carter and I simply said: “What a disgrace.” 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 That is one of the most outrageous speeches I have heard in this Chamber from a member who thinks that the market will deliver to everyone—will give a solution to everyone regardless— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I never said that. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Well that member and his party say that philosophically on just about every issue in relation to the economy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Do not. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes they do. In fact they said that through the 1990s which is the very reason that this Government has had to step in and fix the big mess. Indeed I accept the member’s point that it is a disastrous situation for a young family that has bought a home in good faith and discovered that it is not just a leaky home but that they have a truly faulty undervalued—or overvalued—disaster on their hands. How has that occurred? Many of those homes were built while Mr Smith was in Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This was built in 2001. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I tell the member that the regulations that governed the system right through the 1990s were set up by his Government on the basis that the market would deliver—that homeowners should know what they were buying: “let the buyer beware”. The problem was that that Government had insufficient safeguards to protect people who bought homes in good faith. That is why this Government has had to step in to what is a very significant issue particularly in the Auckland area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not working. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It is working. We are working through the issue very very carefully. We now have in place some regulations that govern the kinds of timber to be used in the process. We have to go through a very complex commercial situation to try to unravel a mess. The mess was laid down by the same blind ideology that that member and his party will take into the future— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: George Hawkins! 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It is not. I applaud the efforts of the Ministers in managing this difficult process. This Government has grappled with the issues and has moved ahead and set up the new Department of Building and Housing which will be responsible for all these issues. That member said: “Six different Ministers for building issues.” Well the fact is we will now have one Minister overseeing the Department of Building and Housing who will oversee all these responsibilities and issues. That has not occurred before and it is the very reason that this situation has occurred. 
Responsibility has been in a whole lot of different areas of Government and commercial law and the smart wise boys in the building industry have ripped people off particularly in the Auckland area because the laws laid down by the previous National Government based on the blind ideology that the market would deliver to everyone were insufficient to protect those people into the future. So we have set up the Department of Building and Housing. There will be a Minister responsible. We have tightened regulations and improved the standards and the types of timber that can be used. I have every confidence that while not offering a perfect solution—I do not think any honest Government would say that it could—it is a huge step forward to protect the consumers in this country and the people who buy homes in good faith. 
If we ever—God help us—see a National Government on the Treasury benches again this country can be assured that we will be back in the same commercial situation that would allow leaky homes and rorts to occur right throughout the economy because the National Party believes the market will deliver to everyone. Well I say to Nick Smith and the National Party that they should wake up because that does not work. This Government has had to step into the issues in the building industry take stock grapple with a difficult issue change the whole structure in Government set up a new Department of Building and Housing and do the things that are necessary to move this situation forward. I am happy to say that this Government has taken huge steps to make progress and I am confident that we will move forward in the same way. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I have just been listening to the Minister doing exactly what this Government has always done and it appears what it will continue to do—blame everybody but the real part of the industry that brought this whole debacle into being which is the Building Industry Authority. When will a Minister acknowledge that the authority had everything to do with this particular problem? We saw in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service report that the Department of Building and Housing is looking at acceptable standards and that the new standards will adopt internationally recognised best practices for weathertightness. That is great! That would make me feel great and full of confidence if it were not for the fact that the same people who were in the Building Industry Authority are doing this. 
The authority adopted new standards in 1995 and 1998 which led to the introduction of kiln-dried timber and monolithic cladding the combination of which was catastrophic. Did the authority carry out any tests on those products to make sure that they were compatible? No it just accepted the industry and manufacturers’ warranties and specifications as proof that the products were OK. Did the authority listen to the industry’s concerns? No it just totally ignored them and carried on with the whole process. It totally ignored the industry’s concerns right throughout. Did the authority act to rectify its mistakes when the problem became obvious to everybody else except the authority and the Minister who was in charge of the authority at the time? No it did not. The authority did nothing. In fact it stuck its head in the sand and totally ignored and denied that anything was happening—and the rotting homes problem continued for years on end. 
 It was interesting to hear Clayton Cosgrove in the House yesterday say that Labour and he had known for 10 years that this problem was developing. That is an admission that the Government knew about the problem and the Minister knew about the problem for at least 10 years before they acknowledged it. Clayton Cosgrove admitted that in this House yesterday. If members look at his  
Hansard 
 they will see that he admitted that. So this Government had known about these problems all along. 
This Government set up the Department of Building and Housing which absorbed the Building Industry Authority. The authority created this environmental economic and health problem of monumental proportions yet that same organisation—the department—is being protected and shielded by this Government. The Government has put up $4.5 million to protect the department from any legal— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No $6 million. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: It is now $6 million is it? 
Dail Jones 
: What does New Zealand First think? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: New Zealand First thinks it is an absolute disgrace and we want the Department of Building and Housing to be reviewed and the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service to be reviewed and reformed because it is not providing the service that it was meant to or that everybody expected of it particularly in terms of the department’s treatment of it. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was the one way that homeowners had of achieving a successful resolution but the department refuses to take part in the process. The conditions were set by the Department of Building and Housing yet it holds all the ace cards. Firstly it refused to participate in the Government’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service which was set up to be a speedy flexible and cost-effective resolution for those homeowners. Secondly it uses every effort to remove itself from the legal process. As well the Crown Law Office has stated that it will not pay a cent to anyone undergoing mediation because it will carry this issue right on through to every appeal process that this country has available to it. 
The Department and the Government have no intention of looking after the people of New Zealand who have that problem. It is a disgrace. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I believe that this issue—this leaky building scenario and the department we are looking at—is probably one of the most serious issues that the country is facing at the moment. I have seen Government members stand up time and time again in this debate and proclaim that the Government is showing leadership. Well where is the leadership on this issue? 
The unfortunate part with the leaky homes situation is that the time bomb is ticking. The Government has a responsibility and it is even classified here—the cost of litigation. The report states that the authority is one of a number of defendants in law suits. So the Government has a responsibility to look at this issue. But the problem that people with a leaky home have is that as every day goes past the situation gets worse. We have families living in Auckland and no doubt in other parts of the country who are living in homes that would now be dangerous. I have heard of people who have walked into their living room and a hole in the floor has just opened up and the floor has collapsed because it has been absolutely rotten. Young children have gone out on to a terrace and it has collapsed. 
A Government that shows leadership on this issue needs to pick up the responsibility. Yes the issues of resolving this problem are no doubt long and complex. But there is a very simple solution to this. The Government immediately needs to make available to people an interest-free loan so that the homes can immediately begin to be rectified and then the process and the discussion with councils can take place on who is responsible for what. Do not forget that we have said that new standards have been put in place. Well let me assure members that the standards as good as they may be are absolutely as useless as the previous standards if the inspections are not done and the new regulations are not checked. 
As a qualified carpenter and joiner I assure members that the majority of the problems in the leaky homes situation are not because of the materials but because of the standard of workmanship put into those homes. Any timber in a home will eventually rot if water is flowing through it. Therefore when there are no satisfactory flashings around windows and doors to prevent water from flowing into a home—[ 
Interruption 
] Dail Jones can bleat away as a lawyer. They are the ones who are responsible for making all these laws and regulations that are put into place. But when the rubber hits the road the bottom line is that people have to rectify their homes. Rules and regulations will never make a home watertight. There has to be good workmanship as well. 
United Future believes that the Government has a responsibility to begin fixing these homes immediately. A time bomb will be going off. The longer this problem is left the more expensive the houses will be to repair. Many families bought their homes in good faith. Councils or the correct authorities had checked them. They have issued codes of compliance yet in many cases those homes and houses did not comply with the very regulations they were supposed to be built under. 
I believe that watertightness is one of the most significant issues we need to deal with and it is not the time right now to apportion blame. It is time right now to find a satisfactory method whereby people who have problems with their homes can start to rectify the defects and get them fixed and under way. Yes there is then a process to follow on in finding who is responsible and where the money will come from. But from my perspective if the Government is serious about getting New Zealanders into home ownership if it is serious about the social consequences of people having a good home to live in then it must deal with this most significant issue—this watertightness of homes—immediately. The Government should provide a pathway for those New Zealanders instead of delegating responsibility and shifting the blame here and there which really is not helping the very people who are crying out for help. 
Those people have stretched themselves to buy their homes and now they are being told they will have litigation cases to attend to and they will have to go to court. Where will they get the money from? In many cases it may cost them $60000 or $70000 to go to court to get a decision to shift the blame or a portion of blame whereas it may cost only $50000 or $60000 to actually repair their house. Who is to say that they will win their court case and even then they still will not have a repaired home? We need to make sure that the work will be done. I encourage the Government and other parties to get together and say that we need to get finance available to those people so that they can begin the repair process. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First regards this issue of weathertight homes so seriously that out of the four calls we are entitled to in this debate of 3 hours we are taking two on this issue. This is the most important issue facing Auckland at the moment and other areas as well. In my view it is more important to Auckland than the transport situation which has greatly improved in recent times. This is a terribly terribly serious situation. Of course we have just heard from a United Future member who said that he does not agree with the Government on this particular issue but he will vote with the Government when it comes to a vote because his party is supporting the Government in supply. So there is a bit of a double standard taking place there for United Future. 
This issue has now reached a situation whereby a court case in Auckland today is so complicated that there are be two plaintiffs and 27 defendants or third parties in the one set of proceedings and that is excluding the local authority. There can be 29 parties in one proceeding and that is an utter disgrace. It is as if families are living in devastation akin to a tsunami. Now if a tsunami had been declared in Auckland this Government would have stepped in and done something. But this Government is failing to do anything at all. It is all very well setting up a committee but that is not what really matters. This problem goes back to the early 1990s when Carter Holt Harvey conned the Building Industry Authority into approving non-boric treated timber generally for timber framing in particular for exterior framing and bottom plates. The authority should have known that inevitably defective or inadequate workmanship would allow moisture through monolithic cladding and cause rot. 
I disagree entirely with the United Future member. If there is a bad set of specifications and a bad set of materials no good workman can fix the problem because it is intrinsically defective. That is the problem United Future and this Government cannot understand. The National Government was warned of the problem. The Labour Government was warned of the problem. Indeed George Hawkins was written to about the problem but as usual he took no responsibility. He did not even bother to read the letter which indicated there would be a problem. 
Now we have these extensive lengthy court proceedings that will go on forever. The time surely has come when we as members of Parliament must accept responsibility and I make that point in particular to Russell Fairbrother and the Minister who tried to make an effort in his speech. New Zealand First says we all have to accept responsibility. I was not here in 1991 or whenever but even those who were here surely must accept responsibility. We must all accept responsibility. We cannot have a situation where Prendos says it is about $10 billion to fix and someone else says it is about $5 billion. The people concerned are living a nightmare day and night and have been for years and years. 
Section 91 of the Building Act which covers the Building Industry Authority makes it clear that it was the Building Industry Authority’s problem. Who is behind the Building Industry Authority? Inevitably it is this Parliament. New Zealand First made the point in this House in 2002 that everyone must get a proper report and get a clear assessment of the loss and the damage—which must be known by now—and that the Government must consider footing the bill. But the problem will never be finalised because of course the problem can occur in cases that we do not even know about today. Really this Parliament has to say that it is the Building Industry Authority’s problem that Parliament is behind the authority and we must accept that. 
Lawyers are confidently predicting that at least in relation to the untreated timber issue the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court will hold that the Building Act did impose a duty of care and negligence in respect of the approval of non-boric treated timber and that ultimately the courts will hold the Building Industry Authority negligent and in breach of that duty of care. That is going to happen in the Supreme Court one day. I say to the Government why wait for 5 or 10 years? Why put up money for lawyers to keep defending these proceedings and delaying the whole thing? This debate today is about the $6 million this Government has put up to defend all these cases. That is all we are debating today. Six million bucks is being paid to Government lawyers but of course what about the lawyers for the other side? As I say in this case 29 parties are involved excluding the local authorities. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Fairbrother can laugh and joke about it. It is a big issue in Auckland; it may not be an issue in Napier. This is a big issue for Aucklanders and New Zealand First says that Parliament has to accept that it is an issue and that we have to front the costs. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 It is correct that the old Building Industry Authority should share some responsibility but not all the responsibility for the weathertightness issue. The speakers before me have neglected to observe that under the Building Act 2004 the Building Industry Authority became disestablished as a stand-alone authority and was brought under the new Department of Building and Housing. That makes clear of course a line of authority and that line of authority is important as we discuss the current Building Industry Authority and the situation of weathertightness. And it is apposite not to leave out the cry for tax cuts because the old Building Industry Authority represented the policy of “fewer taxes let the market decide let anarchy rule let the consumer suffer and let the devil take the hindmost”. 
Those who bothered to listen to the submissions during the weathertightness inquiry and those who bothered to read the careful report of the Government Administration Committee on that inquiry which took place a year or two ago and which gave rise to the Building Act 2004 and to the re-establishment of the Building Industry Authority as part of the Department of Building and Housing would have discovered that in the mesh of responsibilities under the 1991 Act the ultimate responsibility for the working of that Act fell not on the Building Industry Authority—which was an advisory body not an enforcement body—but on the territorial authorities. I recall that was in section 28 of the 1991 Act. Territorial authorities had reposed in them the enforcement responsibilities—that is they were the co-parent in the old Building Act—for establishing a safe regime for building houses and homes for people in this country. 
What we have in the anarchy of the marketplace which is controlled by tax cuts is a situation whereby everybody looks after themselves and tries to evade responsibilities. Of course it is easy to sheet responsibility home to the Government today for the failure of Governments over 14 years before this Government addressed the issue. It is easy for people to say they will point the finger at this Government. 
 But let us go back to the old Building Act to see what that structure was and how it failed. It failed dismally and many good citizens are paying the price today of that failure. However let us not spread alarm by blaming the materials and the building industry or by making people lose confidence in the houses they presently have and in the houses that are being constructed. The number of homes that failed the test of weathertightness is relatively small compared with the number of houses that were built in the period. Sure the failures are spectacular and the losses for individuals are huge but there are many competent builders out there who did a good job. 
Of course the competency of builders was hindered by another tax-cut measure: that of abolishing the apprenticeship scheme. In the anarchy that resulted from that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was never abolished. Absolute rubbish! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Even Nick Smith could have become a builder. All he would have needed to set himself up as a builder was a ute a dog and a radio. But if people do not have the skills they cannot interpret the plans tell the designer where the plans are defective or know which materials should be used for internal or dry spaces. They do not have the skills to know which materials should not be used where they will get wet. 
The problems in this whole scenario are those of the abandonment of responsibility and of leaving it to the imperial politically correct social engineering thing called “the marketplace”. Those who bang on about social engineering forget that the ultimate weapon of social engineering is tax cuts. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report of the Government Administration Committee on the 2003/04 financial review of the Building Industry Authority be noted. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The 3 hours for the debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has expired. I shall report this debate to the House.