Smith Nick: Construction Contracts Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Construction Contracts Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2249. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I would be delighted to answer the questions that have been raised by a number of members and I want to begin by saying how much I enjoy debating with members of the Labour Opposition and the way in which they want to continuously rewrite history. The first thing I would like to do is talk about the horror that was expressed by the last member Dr David Clark over the Skycity convention centre. The problem for the member is that I was sitting on his side of the Chamber when the Helen Clark Government brought a bill before the House—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to resume his seat. I am going to ask him as I did the previous member to relate his comments to the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the bill is about construction disputes and the question that I have got from the member is whether the sorts of disputes that there have been about the construction of the convention centre apply to the great new international convention centre that John Key and Steven Joyce have very successfully been able to negotiate for the Government. The answer is with this bill that yes we are going to extend the dispute resolution process to include the design the engineering work and the quantity surveying which would not occur without this bill and the changes in Part 1. But I also want to assure the member of this: the design the engineering and the quantity surveying on the smaller convention centre which was negotiated as a trade-off for casino concessions by Helen Clark—exactly the same deal—would also apply to Part 1 provisions of the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think the member has now had two warnings. If he would like to continue to speak to Part 1 I suggest that he does and not relitigate ancient history which I think it is fair to say is not affected whatsoever by the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think it is worthwhile as we debate the changes in Part 1 about the performance of the construction industry—and most important I think is consistency of a political party’s position on issues such as construction contracts. I saw the same sort of duplicity when I heard the comments from Mr Clayton Cosgrove because Mr Clayton Cosgrove—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will withdraw the term and apologise.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can you clarify what particular term—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No I will not. The member knows absolutely which term. He is an experienced member.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to apologise to take into account the concerns of the Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will immediately withdraw and apologise unconditionally.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I unconditionally withdraw and apologise. A point was made by Mr Clayton Cosgrove over the issues in Part 1 of this bill that my predecessor Maurice Williamson had ruled out any changes. That is grossly incorrect. When issues arose around the construction contracts dispute my predecessor Maurice Williamson made absolutely plain that there was a significant issue for us to work through in respect of construction contracts. In fact if you look at the paper trail it very clearly shows that the very issues that are covered in my Supplementary Order Paper were triggered as a consequence of the work that Maurice Williamson asked officials to do with the industry. The difference is this: the changes that National is proposing in its Supplementary Order Paper are changes that have been very carefully thought through are workable and will reduce compliance costs. Yet the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by the Labour Opposition is not workable and if you look at the website—and the website for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has a comprehensive—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. If I have to warn the member once more to stay on Part 1 of the bill I will terminate his speech. As has been pointed out to Mr Cosgrove his amendment does not relate to this part of the bill.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not questioning your ruling but I am genuinely confused and seek your elucidation. As I understand it the Minister is currently attempting to respond to questions that were put to him by Opposition speakers in their contributions on Part 1 of the bill. I am not sure how it is that the Minister has therefore transgressed when he is attempting to answer the questions.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am happy to explain it to the member. It is that I did make clear after Mr Cosgrove’s speech that the matters that he was dealing with that related to his Supplementary Order Paper related to Part 2 of the bill and that I would not countenance further discussion on those items as part of the Part 1 debate.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do note that Supplementary Order Paper 52 that I have tabled on the bill does make changes to Part 1—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yours does and Mr Cosgrove’s does not.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am pointing out to the Committee that in respect of my Supplementary Order Paper which makes changes to Part 1 of this bill there is a regulatory impact statement on the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s website. In that regulatory impact statement there is a thorough analysis of the options that could be used in this bill to address the concerns around construction contracts. If members of the Committee look at that regulatory impact statement they will see that in the cost-benefit tests the options that the Government has in its Supplementary Order Paper are a more efficient way of dealing with those concerns. I would say to members of the Committee that the changes that we are proposing in this bill are sensible they are changes that will result in a more efficient construction industry and they are changes that will enable disputes in the construction industry to be able to be resolved more quickly. I think the changes in this part that extend the provision of the construction contracts dispute resolution process to residential contracts quantity surveying work and engineering work and those other provisions are sensible changes that the Committee should support.Dr David Clark: The regulatory impact statement is dodgy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sorry?Dr David Clark: The officials say in the regulatory impact statement that the availability and robustness of data and the methodology used for it by the estimates is unsuitable—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member should take a call. I do not want to offend the Chair. I suspect that part of the regulatory impact statement is the Part 2 debate. I look forward to having a healthy debate on those issues and on why the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper is a far better option than the pretty messy Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by the Opposition which would not work.