Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19700] 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What adverse reports if any has he received on the effects on homeowners and building owners of the new Building Act 2004? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I have seen in a local Auckland newspaper the  
Central Leader  
that some developers had concerns about increased costs from the more rigorous inspection regimes under the Building Act. The same story goes on to quote the Chief Executive of the Property Institute Colin English who said that there were positive spin-offs from stricter rules particularly from Auckland. He also said: “If the regulations work there should be less leaky buildings. There are more checks and balances.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why when there is absolutely no evidence of do-it-yourself homeowners being responsible for the leaky-home crisis does his legislation prohibit homeowners from doing work on their own homes and is that not the sort of anti-Kiwi family law that has seen his colleague John Tamihere refer to him as a tosser? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Some people have expressed concerns about the tightening of control on the home handyman but those predicting the end of the do-it-yourself home handyman are grossly exaggerating the impacts. Works that are critical to a building’s safety and functioning will need to be signed off by a licensed person but the home handyman remains free to do non-critical work without such oversight. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What will be the key effects of the Building Act on homeowners and building owners? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: A quote from the regulatory services manager of the Horowhenua District Council Tony Thomas best answers this question: “The Act ensures better decision-making throughout the building processes and provides more assurance to consumers and homeowners that buildings are designed to be built right the first time.” Who could argue with that? 
Brent Catchpole 
: What reports has he received that councils are racking up their charges for consents and inspections since the demise of private building certifiers as a result of the new Building Act and what is he doing to protect homeowners from that practice? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have not received any reports but I have in front of me a quote from Manukau City’s Director of City Services Wayne Godley who said: “The new laws will make it clearer to industry workers what standards their buildings are required to meet and better practices in building design and construction will be encouraged.” That is good news for New Zealanders. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague asked a very specific question that concerns the public—about charges being racked up—and we got some sort of woolly-woofter answer like that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will New Zealand’s new building standards be made freely available on the Internet so that ordinary citizens can know how to abide by them; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Where copyright is not impinged and property rights taken standards will be freely available where that is appropriate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s rhetoric about an ownership society with taking away the rights of owners to upgrade their own homes; and where is the evidence that the old regime where a homeowner had to get a building consent and a code compliance certificate provided any difficulty for building standards to justify disallowing them from being able work on their own house? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The new Building Act is all about ensuring that people who are homeowners have a safe building. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite specific. It asked what evidence there was to justify changing the law in respect of a homeowner doing his or her own building work. The bland response from the Minister saying that the Building Act was going to be good for homeowners does not in any way answer a question that is on the minds of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand building owners. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders do not require an answer; it requires the question to be addressed. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like you to reflect on the ruling you have just given this House. I think that if you check the Standing Orders you will find that an answer is required that addresses the question. The Standing Orders do not simply state that the question must be addressed; they state that an answer that addresses the question must be given. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And that is exactly what the Minister gave. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point of order that I was raising was that you stated to this Parliament— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I had not completed my point of order when you interrupted me. What you just told this Parliament is that the Minister does not have to answer the question but that he only has to address it. I was pointing out to you that the Standing Orders require the Minister to give an answer that addresses the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer has to address the question. In that particular instance the Minister’s answer addressed the question. It may not have done it to the satisfaction of the member but it did address the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member challenging my ruling or relitigating it? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I am seeking clarification on a very important issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have just given clarification to that point. Would the member please sit down. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is an important issue because question time in this Parliament is a very important time. I am seeking clarification because I heard you very clearly—and if you check the record of the House you will find it yourself—telling this Parliament that a Minister does not have to answer a question. The Standing Orders state that a Minister must give an answer that addresses the question unless it is not in the public interest to do so. This is a very important issue otherwise I would not be taking up the time of the Parliament. What I am seeking from you Madam Speaker is clarification to the House that in fact answers do have to be given and that they have to address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am happy to give that clarification. The answer must address the question and the Minister did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was an entirely inappropriate comment. Would the Minister withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm estimates given to me by his department yesterday that between 60000 and 80000 buildings in New Zealand are in breach of section 363 of the Act that came into effect on 31 March making insurance for those buildings invalid; if so does he accept responsibility for this awful mess? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am still seeking advice over that. In an extreme case that could be an issue and of course the best way to address this issue of uncertainty is for the member and his party to support the Government’s amendments next week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was very specific: does he accept responsibility? The Minister made no attempt at all to address the issue of responsibility for the serious flaws in his legislation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister’s answer addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Speaker! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I listened very carefully. The member may not be satisfied with the answer and it may not fully address the question but it did address the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My question asked whether he accepted responsibility. In what way can you claim that answer from that Minister in any way addressed that question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not required upon you to explain your reasons for doing something. Once we are into that then every decision by every Speaker and every Chair is open to litigation. We are seeing endless relitigation of rulings now. There is obviously a coordinated tactic on the part of the Opposition that simply does not like the referee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. It is quite clear that it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer in any way. That is for the public and for members of this House. However the Minister did address the question. Is there a supplementary question? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the Building Remedial Measures Amendment Bill in my name accepted by the Clerk this morning to be introduced and have its first reading following question time on Tuesday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is; leave is denied. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to completely reject the suggestion made by Dr Michael Cullen that somehow the decision by the Opposition to take a different approach to the use of the Standing Orders is anything to do with you or your role as Speaker. That is quite wrong. At the start of question time today we had the opportunity for the Leader of the House to apologise for abusing the Standing Orders and for tipping up the conventions of the Standing Orders in a way that was abusive of members of Parliament. He declined. I hope it is now evident that the Standing Orders as we said during the course of the exchange that went on at the start of question time are open for all members to use in way that is less than productive. We do not normally do that because the conventions of the House also suggest that the Government should be able to advance its business. However the rules appear to have changed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is exactly an example of what I just said. The member was relitigating the rulings you gave before we even started question time. That matter was already ruled on and in effect the member commented on your ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order that has been raised—if it was a point of order—I accept the member’s assurance. However I would also note that matters that are raised as points of order that are not points of order and when that is done in a frequent manner then that comes close to being disruptive of the House. I make that as a general comment to all members of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a new point of order. Could you just clarify the standard you are now applying to members making comments when they are not meant to be making comments? I was thrown out of the House for commenting during a point of order and I accepted your ruling. The Hon Steve Maharey was thrown out of the House for carrying on a conversation while a question was being asked but Dr Cullen who interjected during a question and in a way that was not parliamentary was able to apologise and withdraw but stay in the House. Is the difference in treatment related to whether the comments are made during a point of order as opposed to a question or in this case was Dr Cullen allowed to stay because of his seniority? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I was not aware that the member had started to ask his question. I am actually very careful about that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In fact there was a pause between the question being asked and the matter being raised but I did ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise and he did.