Smith Murray: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19347] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his recognition of United Future’s role in the drafting of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. That demonstrates the very good working relationship that United Future and the Government have had during this term of Parliament and United Future’s effectiveness in bringing about positive changes to legislation. After eight meetings with the Government and numerous telephone calls United Future’s involvement has dramatically altered the original bill. I want to thank particularly Michael Parker who intervened after we started to get a bit frustrated and Suzanne Townsend who knew exactly what I was trying to achieve with this bill agreed with me and helped to bring about a workable solution. 
The background of this bill is that building compliance documents the documents that all trades people and designers have to follow refer to standards such as New Zealand standard NZS 3604 which is the basic standard used by builders. The Government Administration Committee when considering the Building Bill felt that if building practitioners were expected to follow those standards then they needed to be readily available at a reasonable price. At the time officials thought that could be done by making them available free of charge on the Internet and the select committee added provisions to the bill to enable that to occur. I must say that the National members on the committee agreed with that point of view without dissent and were therefore aware of the provisions at the time. However it has become clear to all concerned that copyright prohibits that from happening simply because standards associations rely on the sale of standards in order to fund their production of standards. If they were made available by New Zealand free of charge on the Internet then the whole world would be able to access them and standards associations would not be able to profit. 
The Government’s solution initially was to delete the requirement for free Internet access and to simply replace it with a discretion on the part of the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing to make copies of the material available in any way he or she considers appropriate. New section 410(1)(d) inserted by clause 5 of the bill would have been the solution. United Future was not prepared to agree to that course. The Government then proposed that the materials be made available for inspection in Wellington as shown in new section 410(1)(b) also inserted by clause 5. But as far as the material referred to in section 410(1)(a) of the Act is concerned it was also unsatisfactory to us that copies of that material be available for purchase only in Wellington. 
The problem that United Future saw and wanted to be covered by this legislation is this. “Bob the builder” may wake up on Friday morning receive a phone call to say that the job for the Browns is off see it is a fine day and say that in that case he will get the retaining wall done for the Blacks. He may then dig out the engineer’s plans and suddenly find that the retaining wall is an unusual one; it has to be built in accordance with “NZS 5678”. He scratches his head. Usually he builds retaining walls under “NZS 1234” so he does not know what the unusual standard “NZS 5678” is about. Under the Government’s first proposed solution there was no guarantee that Bob would be able to get a copy of “NZS 5678” without writing to Standards New Zealand and waiting for it to arrive. Under the Government’s second option Bob could go to the Department of Building and Housing in Wellington in order to get a copy of the standard which also would be clearly unsatisfactory or he could hope that the local council had a copy. It may or it may not have one. He may then decide that he does not want to waste his time in trying to track a copy down and go ahead and say he wants to build the wall on that day so he will build it in accordance with “NZS 1234” and hope for the best.” 
United Future’s solution which is implemented in this bill enables a builder to inspect any standards that he or she needs to access on a computer at any Department of Building and Housing office throughout the country or to arrange the purchase of them through that department. I would have liked to have stocks on hand at each office but was convinced by the Government that that was impractical and would be too costly given the number of standards involved. However “Bob the builder” can go to the local Department of Building and Housing office knowing for certain that he will be able to access the standard free of charge and get the information that he needs. The result is that Bob is encouraged to build his wall correctly. The wall is built correctly and everybody benefits. Better still through United Future’s negotiation with the Government the Government agreed to provide the extensions to availability within its existing Budget constraints so that there is no additional cost in terms of an increase in the building levy in order to provide this additional information. 
I would like to point out to the House—and particularly to enlighten the “Dark Greens” on this—that the list in new section 410(1)(c) inserted by clause 5 is a restrictive list on the face of it in terms of the standards that it provides. However as explained in the explanatory note of the bill the standards that are set out in that section are all the standards that a builder or designer will need to access. The officials advised us that some 378 standards were incorporated by reference but the vast majority—indeed all but about 40 of those standards—relate to product standards and to product-testing standards. Clearly those standards need to be available only to manufacturing companies and it is reasonable that they obtain them from Wellington only. The companies are able to do that because those standards will not be needed at short notice. What is needed at short notice by architects designers and trades people are the standards that relate to design and construction and all those standards will be available for inspection free of charge from every Department of Housing and Building office throughout the country—some 22 of them. 
There is also a requirement which United Future insisted on for the chief executive to report to Parliament on an annual basis as to the steps that he or she is taking to facilitate access to such standards. That flows on from the requirement in the bill for the chief executive to make copies of material available in any other way that he or she considers appropriate. The chief executive must respond in terms of how he or she has carried out that requirement. 
The Minister also acknowledged that he had agreed to consider in terms of future amendments to the Act a provision for all compliance documents that do not incorporate standards to be made free of charge on the Internet. That was something else that United Future wanted to have included but we were advised that it was outside the scope of this bill in so far as this bill amends a number of Acts regarding incorporation by reference. We thank the Minister for that acknowledgment and for looking at that issue. 
This bill also amends three other Acts the Commerce Act the Health Act and the Copyright Act and it would be helpful for me to make some comments on that. In regard to the Commerce Act the only requirement is for the materials to be available in Wellington. The Commerce Act provisions relate solely to the pricing thresholds for large electricity lines generators. At present there are no standards incorporated and clearly if there were such standards they would apply only to large corporates involved in electricity lines generation. It is quite appropriate therefore that the standards be made available in Wellington but there is no necessity that they be made available on a local basis. The Health Act provision is similar. It applies solely to the National Cervical Screening Programme. Again there are no standards currently in place and no standards that are expected. Even if there were then the district health boards would be the ones that would require them and again it is appropriate that they be available in Wellington but there is no necessity that they be available on a local basis. As has already been indicated the changes to the Copyright Act simply correct a doubt that existed as to whether the Government by incorporating material by reference was effectively breaking copyright. There had been some legal argument that simply incorporating material by reference into a document effectively incorporated the material itself and copyright was lost. The amendment to the Copyright Act simply puts beyond doubt the issue that the incorporation of documents by reference does not take away the copyright that producers of the standard have. 
In conclusion I say United Future has demonstrated through the changes to this legislation the value of having a small party under the MMP electoral system. United Future has shown its concern for small trades people rather than the bureaucracy and in particular its concern to stand against a tendency by Governments to give chief executives discretion instead of obligations so that they are less accountable. United Future has always been concerned to ensure since the Building Bill was tabled that the Building Act—as it is now—is workable in practice and concerned to encourage compliance with its provisions at a grass-roots level. The changes that United Future has brought about in this legislation do that. We have also been concerned to keep costs down and the fact that there is no levy increase as a result of the changes we have made is a real plus in terms of the industry. United Future commends this bill to the House and will support it going through the select committee process. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—TamakiMakaurau) 
: 
 I commend the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill to the House for its first reading and in so doing want to acknowledge that very fine contribution by the member from United Future. I listened very carefully to it and I accept that members were not as diligent whilst working on the Government Administration Committee that reported the initial bill back to the House as they should have been. I was the Minister in the chair that oversaw the last of the Committee stage and the third reading so to that extent if there is any blame or difficulty for an error in the legislation as it went through I accept Murray Smith’s apology. But no—I acknowledge that we are having to correct the legislation at this stage because of an oversight. Oversights do happen and mistakes do happen. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is right; Helen Clark never calls me an oversight! 
I want to make a number of other contributions though. The Building Act came about because of an implosion in standards not only on the supply side but also in the standards and ethics of our actual trades people. It required a significant legislative change. 
The National Party presided over a Building Act in 1991 that destroyed more than just the training arm and apprentice system of this country. We have a lack of capacity capability and competency because of what those people on that side of the House—and they will stay there a very long time I might say—did and failed to do. We in the last wee while have had to effect some significant change a shift both in standards and apprenticeships and in the way in which we regulate the building industry. I can say that the building industry has been awfully supportive in that regard. 
The problems with leaky buildings have come directly out of a National-led Government with its henchmen ably supported in the ACT party. The problems that we have and that we are having to fix up I tell the Hon David Carter are all of the National Party’s making. I regret saying that particularly this late on a Thursday. 
I commend the bill to the House for a first reading and I acknowledge my colleague Tim Barnett. I do not accept what the member of the Green Party said about his contribution; I do not believe that he talks twaddle. Again I commend the bill to the House.