Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11098] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have two questions for the Minister in terms of the motion to split the bill. The first is: why should we trust that he has got it right this time? We know that in 2002 the Government got it wrong in a rush. We know that in 2005 the Government got it wrong in a rush. We even know that with this core bill the Government got it wrong. We know that with the core Building Act in 2004 we got it wrong. We know that in 2005 when we attempted to amend the Building Act we got it wrong. Yet the Minister is asking for an enormous amount of trust from this Parliament. He is asking us to pass these five pages of new law but without having a first reading and without it going to a select committee to receive the scrutiny of public submissions. If this was the very first time we might give it the benefit of the doubt. We might say: “Yeah well we’ll go along with it.” But the Minister has to understand that when the House has gone along with it and agreed to amendments done in a rush five times and when every one of those five times it has found that it has stuffed up the House has to say today: “Minister once bitten twice shy. We’re not prepared to go along with it.” I will put money on it. 
 I bet there is not a single member of this House who has gone through these five pages of law line by line checked back to the Building Act checked back to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act and ensured we have it exactly right. I bet not one member of the House has been able to do that. 
Maryan Street 
: Do it yourself. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: How can we reasonably do that? Maryan Street is a new member so let me put her in the picture. Normally legislation has a first reading goes through the select committee process and has a second reading and a third reading. This arrogant Government has thrown away the rule book of Parliament and suspended the Standing Orders. That is an unbelievably heavy-handed approach. Yes sometimes it is absolutely necessary. But neither the Minister nor the Government has given even the slightest reason why we should take that extraordinary step in respect of this law. 
The second question I have for the Minister is this. When did the Minister know that councils would not meet the deadline of 30 November? 
John Carter 
: I told him 18 months ago. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague John Carter says he knew 18 months ago. In meeting councils and building officials it was plainly obvious to me at the beginning of the year that councils were not going to meet that deadline. But I note that the Minister gave a speech to the building officials conference just a couple of months ago where he said that all councils will be able to meet the deadline. Well what has changed? Why is it that everybody else seemed to know that there was a problem except the Minister? He is the Minister he has the Crown car and he has the big salary. How about doing the job? How about staying on top of the portfolio? How about knowing in advance? 
I say to the Minister again. If he wants Parliament to override its normal rules he must answer a simple question. When did he find out that councils would not be able to meet the 30 November timetable? I have a further point and it is this. This change in law is required only before 30 November. What is the mad rush? That date happens to be more than 3 months away. How can it be justifiable to throw away the Standing Orders of our Parliament and the proper scrutiny of legislation when this is not a problem for 3½ months? I have seen the Standing Orders suspended previously. It has happened when there been a crisis whereby if a law is not passed overnight there may be a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers because of a loophole that has been discovered. None of that justification exists in this case. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What were your questions Nick? I’ve forgotten. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let me explain it again. Perhaps Mr Hodgson may be able to answer. When did the Minister know that councils would not meet the deadline? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I don’t know that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Hodgson says he does not know that but the Committee is entitled to know. If we are going to throw out the Standing Orders and go over the top of all process— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I am not the Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister has been the Minister in the chair. I asked him the question last week. He would not answer then and he will not answer now. I tell members why he will not answer. He will not answer because it is embarrassing. It is another one of those ministerial botch-ups that he has to explain. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What’s your second question? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well my other question for the Minister is why we should trust him. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Who? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister. Why should we trust his incompetent Government to get it right when on the previous five occasions it has rushed legislation in this area it has got it wrong? In case Mr Hodgson thinks this is just some academic point let me go to the core of the issue. We have about 5000 leaky home owners. They have been waiting for justice. They have been waiting to see whether they will get some resolution of those matters. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What’s the answer to my question? Where did those leaky home owners come from? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well that is an interesting question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The Building Act in the early 1990s? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yeah and does Mr Hodgson know what the comment to that is? I can quote what Mr George Hawkins the member’s colleague said. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What did he say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: When the Building Act was passed in 1991 George Hawkins said this: “National had no right to claim any credit for that Building Act because all the hard work was done by George Hawkins and Margaret Austin.” 
Jacqui Dean 
: Is that right? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is what he said. Labour is pretty desperate. It will dredge anything up. I think we will soon have a debate about the Boer War and what National’s position might have been on it. Labour is so desperate it will dredge anything up. 
I say to Mr Hodgson that I want to talk about now. Eighty-five percent of leaky home owners have been waiting for 5 years for a solution. Many of them are living in rotting smelling unhealthy homes while they have been waiting for the Government to get it right. Over and over again we get reassurances from the Government that are breached. Leaky home owners have had a rotten deal from this Government and this legislation is just another sad chapter of botch-ups and failures in that respect. 
But these changes are also about the Building Act. I have seen some bureaucratic nightmares in my time but the new Building Act is just awful. Last week I spoke to the building inspectors of New Zealand at their conference. I was amazed at the building inspectors—the regulators. I was not expecting them to be particularly positive towards National but I tell members that I was greeted like a saviour. “Can anybody save us?” 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Ha! ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was and I have to tell members opposite that I was surprised. I would have thought that council officials would be pretty friendly with the Labour Party. I have to say that they were pleading: “Can you give us a break from the incompetence of this Government and this department the bureaucratic requirements they are imposing on us the costs that they are imposing on our councils and the nightmare they are creating for builders and for homeowners? When are we going to get some common sense into our building laws?”. Those were their pleas and I had to tell them that they will need to wait for a John Key Government. In the key speech John gave at National’s conference setting out a forward plan for dealing with issues of homeownership and of home affordability John rightly said that we need to reform the Building Act that the Government has made a mess that the costs are unreasonable that the paperwork is over the top and that we have a process that is a very poor way in which to drive quality. 
National’s view is that we need building laws that will drive quality at less cost and that is not what we are getting in this bill. Again I will just recite the numbers and maybe the Minister will be able to answer this question for me. Have taxpayers got good value for money for the 85 million bucks that has been spent on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service? It works out at $111000 per case—that is not the money to fix the house; that is the money for the bureaucracy of the process—yet the average settlement is $70000. So I ask the noisy Mr Hodgson whether he thinks that is good value for money. 
Shane Jones 
: Transitional costs! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Shane Jones has been in the bureaucracy too long. It is a failure and we need change.