Cosgrove Clayton: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Cosgrove Clayton: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:641;Page:10938] 
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.