Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19526] 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What errors if any have been identified in the provisions of the Building Act 2004 that come into force today and is the Department of Building and Housing knowingly breaching any sections of the new Act? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 There are some errors additions and inconsistencies many of which are of a minor drafting nature. The process for fixing them is well under way. Yes the department is technically in breach under section 410 of the Act with regard to copyright but we are addressing that problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the new Act prohibits any building work without a building consent but erroneously defines building work to include design so that New Zealand’s 15000 architects engineers and designers will today be designing buildings in contravention of the Act; if so when will he fix this embarrassing flaw? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My officials are working rapidly to address these problems. 
Mark Peck 
: Why was it necessary to rewrite the Building Act in 2004? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That is a very good question. It was because the regime established by the 1991 Building Act enacted by a National Government failed comprehensively and delivered New Zealand a terrible legacy of leaking homes and other problems with building design and construction. What was needed was an Act that ensured that buildings were designed and built correctly the first time. The new Act introduces a quality assurance framework that provides effective protection for building owners and users—very good news for all New Zealanders. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I know that it is normal to seek leave to table documents at the end of a question but given the answer that the Minister has just given and to help the answering of future supplementary questions I seek leave to table a  
Hansard 
 from 1991 in which George Hawkins said that it was quite wrong for National to claim credit for the 1991 Building Act that it was introduced by Labour and that Labour claimed the credit for it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How are building owners to comply with new section 108 which states they must have a warrant of fitness issued by a licensed building practitioner when the Act makes no provision for the appointment of a licensed building practitioner until 2009; and does the Minister understand the serious implications that this has for building owners in respect of their insurance? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: This fault in the Act has been identified and will be corrected. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not saying that the Minister has not addressed the question but the second part of the question was about insurance and the Minister must know that people building buildings who do not comply with this Act are in danger of having their insurance removed. There must be people in that situation right now and I think the Minister would do the House and the country a service if he let us know whether the House was addressing that insurance question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Enforcement of the legislation is in the hands of territorial authorities which I have to say have adopted a very responsible approach to it. With any piece of legislation with 451 clauses there are bound to be problems in drafting. I would like to remind members that the 1993 Companies Act which was passed by a National Government has been amended nine times. The 1991 Resource Management Act has been amended 13 times. Mistakes do occur but the important thing is to fix them up. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is not my question; it is a question from Nick Smith but it is a very good question. The Minister must have been told by his officials that it is standard in insurance policies that if a person has not followed the law that person’s insurance is invalid. The Minister has been asked whether he is addressing that matter but all I am getting is waffle about the Companies Act. Does the Government know about that insurance issue and if it does what is going to happen? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If it is the advice of officials that these problems were drawn to the attention of the Minister in January when there may have been time to ensure that people were able to comply with the law why is it that now on 31 March when this very flawed legislation comes into effect he still has not introduced a bill to correct his botch-ups? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member’s question again makes assumptions that are not correct. Section 410 was drawn to my attention in January soon after I had become Minister for Building Issues. Issues relating to section 363 and other matters that the member has referred to today and yesterday were not drawn to my attention until 9 March. On 10 March I instructed officials to begin the process very rapidly of addressing these problems. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the member has raised some very important points which clearly need addressing urgently. I would like to seek leave for the ability to include within the Legislation (Statutory References) Bill which deals with the other matter a Supplementary Order Paper that deals with these issues and to take that bill through urgency the week after next. Obviously I would expect the Minister to consult with Dr Smith about the content of that Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Is the member seeking clarification? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes indeed. The Legislation (Statutory References) Bill was referred to the select committee on Tuesday and was required to be reported back today. It includes amendments to the Commerce Act and to the Health Act that have nothing to do with building laws yet we are being asked to rush it through the House. The problem the Opposition has is that it is rushed legislation that ends up with these sorts of botch-ups in the first place. So we will deny leave but I invite the Minister to consult with the Opposition so that we can ensure that this very serious problem is repaired as quickly as possible. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It seems difficult for the Opposition to argue that urgent action is necessary then to refuse leave to address that urgent action. As I said before I would expect the Minister to consult with the member on the content of the Supplementary Order Paper. I am seeking leave because such a Supplementary Order Paper would be outside the scope of the bill normally although the legislation deals with some issues within the Building Act. 
Stephen Franks 
: The Minister spoke of consulting with the Hon Dr Nick Smith on this matter. The ACT party has opposed the Building Act all the way through. We have not been in a position to consider these matters in detail but we did raise the issue of insurance. We certainly want a timetable that means we do not have the possibility of insurers taking advantage of this gap. Will that consultation be extended to us if leave is granted? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: To give a rough indication of the time I would expect from advice I have from the Minister a draft Supplementary Order Paper to be available in about the middle of next week. I suggest the appropriate Minister consult on these matters not merely with Dr Smith but with other parties including United Future. We would not be coming to the Committee stage of that bill until the following week. Obviously at that point it would be possible for any consideration to be given to amendments suggested by members opposite. But this is a vehicle that will be available at that stage to deal with the issue urgently. Dr Smith has made the point quite properly that there are a couple of matters within the bill that need to be dealt with quite quickly. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I find myself in sympathy with the points made by Mr Smith. I say to Dr Cullen that it is really not appropriate to ask the House to approve leave for something that we have not even seen. Speaking for the ACT party we are extremely concerned about this matter. We think that people’s insurance will be invalid and that is not something that one wants to take party political advantage from. I suggest—and this will not make any difference to the timetable—that Dr Cullen works urgently on the amendments and circulates them to members of the House. We will facilitate their being able to go through the House reasonably quickly. We would like to suggest to him some other amendments that would rectify some other serious problems with the bill in the same cooperative spirit. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member makes a helpful suggestion. I will have to withdraw my seeking of leave at this point. But I would just gently say to the member having had some experience of him over a long period of time that I hope that areas where there may be disagreements on amendments will not hold up the amendments to the matters that require urgent attention such as the one that he raised. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has withdrawn his application for leave.