Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19443] 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What changes is the Department of Building and Housing recommending to section 363 of the Building Act 2004 following reports that if the letter of the law was applied it would force the closure of Auckland airport and that new building consent laws have delayed the opening of the accident and medical centre at Porirua’s Kenepuru Hospital by 3 months? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I have asked the department to investigate amendments to section 363 to remove any uncertainty that may arise from an overly literal interpretation of its provisions. However I can say the section is not bringing about the extreme consequences attributed to it by the member. Auckland airport will not be closing and the delay at Kenepuru appears to have been the result of a number of factors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain what public purpose has been served by Transit New Zealand having to withdraw its consent for the State Highway 20 extension and instead replacing it with 39 individual consents to comply with the new Building Act and how will this additional bureaucracy help us to resolve the huge transport problems facing Auckland? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The new Building Act is designed to improve consumer protection. It is a bit rich for that member to suggest that the Government has botched up with the Act when the whole reason we had to introduce it was to clean up the leaky buildings mess that that party put into place. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite simple. My point of order is in respect of the answer given by the Minister and yes we did get some abuse as we normally do. But it was a question about what public purpose is served by a new Building Act that requires a single consent for the extension of State Highway 20 to be withdrawn and replaced by 39 separate consents. The Minister made no attempt whatsoever to answer that constructive question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was unable to hear the Minister’s answer. This is the last warning for those members who barrack while others are speaking. Maybe the Minister would like to repeat the answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The answer to the question that the member asked is actually of a more general nature than the specific transport issue that he brought up which I have no responsibility for. However I do have responsibility for the new Building Act that is designed to protect the consumer from the very mess that that member’s party created when it changed the regulations in 1991. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You invited the Minister to repeat his answer and he did that but his answer was unsatisfactory in the first place. It did not address the question. The question was quite a simple one. The Minister has repeatedly said that the Building Act is there to make life better for New Zealanders effectively. How does changing from a one-consent process for a stretch of road to a 39-consent process for a stretch of road benefit New Zealanders? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that members cannot prescribe how Ministers answer—for example “Yes” or “No”. In this case the Minister addressed the question although the answer may not be satisfactory to the member. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the fact that section 363 of the Building Act becomes operative on 31 March 2005—that is tomorrow—and provides that no part of a public building can be used if building work is being undertaken can the Minister give an assurance that both the Beehive and Bowen House will be vacated from midnight tonight and remain so until the required completion certificate is issued? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am confident that members of Parliament can rest assured that they will not have to vacate their offices. 
Mark Peck 
: Why was section 363 included in the Building Act? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Section 363 is a public safety measure that gives legislative effect to a key recommendation of the Cave Creek inquiry. It seeks to ensure the safety of the public by placing limits on the use of buildings affected by building work that have yet to be inspected and approved. My department has issued guidance to territorial authorities on the practical implication of the section. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that this Government will comply with this law in the sense that the Beehive from floor 3 to floor 9 can be occupied legally only as a consequence of interim code compliance certificates and that those interim compliance certificates as confirmed by his department this morning become null and void tomorrow; and what sort of example does it set when this Government is not even prepared to comply with its own stupid laws? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The question the member has just posed is typical of the alarmist and extremist nature of misinformation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: —that the member is promoting and propagating about section 363. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the third time now members on this side of the House have been brought to order for interjecting. On all of those occasions the interjections have followed abusive or derogatory remarks made by the Minister during the course of answering a question. I would like to make it clear that if Ministers when answering questions are going to use that opportunity to hurl abuse at members of the Opposition then those interjections will continue. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think a very fair point was raised there but also I remind the member that when the question contains abusive comments then it does invite abusive comments in return. I think that sometimes members opposite who raise those points of order should listen more carefully to the questions they ask. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to repeat his answer please. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Earlier today my officials including my chief executive briefed the member on the nature of the issues around section 363. He already knows that the question he has just asked me is simply untrue. It is easily understandable then why I become very impatient with the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: As I have been accused by the Minister of misleading the House I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation as to exactly what was said to me by the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing in respect of section 363. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Members opposite have an appalling inability to understand the English language. The Minister said that the statement was untrue. That is not the same thing as accusing a member of misleading the House. If he had said that it was deliberately untrue that would be different. I wish the member would just follow what is actually said. 
Stephen Franks 
: The statement made was “which that member well knows is untrue” which is an entirely different claim. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I accept what the member says. In that case the appropriate point of order to raise is to require the Minister to withdraw and apologise not to seek to make a personal explanation which would be a political one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I again seek leave under the Standing Orders to make a personal explanation in respect of the comments made by the Minister for Building Issues that I deliberately misled the House about a briefing I received from the Department of Building and Housing this morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely you are required now to ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was about to do so thank you. Because the member has taken offence at the implication would the Minister please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the interim code compliance certificates that allow floors 3 to 9 of the Beehive to be temporarily occupied and the provisions of the Building Act that abolish those and make it unlawful for them to be occupied. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought is there any objection? There is objection. The document shall not be tabled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the issues raised by Dr Smith place a certain number of duties on you in fact. I think it is only fair that you are able to tell the House whether the Parliamentary Service Ministerial Services and those responsible for the building construction in both Bowen House and the Beehive will be complying with the law. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand that written questions have been lodged. I have not seen the answers but as soon as I have they will be conveyed to the member. So at this stage I am not in a position— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am a little confused by that process. This is a responsibility that lies directly with you as Speaker. Your responsibility is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down. This is a Parliamentary Service matter. It is not a point of order but for the information of the House as this is a matter of some concern obviously I have given members the information that my understanding was that written questions had been lodged by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and answers will in fact be given to him in the course of time. [ 
Interruption 
] It is a Parliamentary Service matter. I was merely giving this information for the information of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I know and that is what I am saying that the questions have been lodged. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This morning I had discussions with the building enforcement division of the Wellington City Council and also with the building service development manager of Parliamentary Service on this very issue. The advice I received from the Wellington City Council was that if there was a literal enforcement of the law then that would be the case with regard to the Beehive and its continued occupation would be unlawful. I seek— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not a point of order. It is matter of debate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is a very important point of order. You as Speaker of the House of Representatives— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down. This is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I think you do owe me Madam Speaker the right— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down or he will leave the Chamber. This is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You have not heard it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard the point of order. You were talking to the same point of order. Can we please move on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you ruling that members of this House cannot consider it a point of order to ask whether they are behaving in a lawful manner or complying with the law? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did not say that at all as the member knows well. I gave a response to his question. That was the end of the matter. There is no more to be said on that matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My original point of order on this matter was to indicate that the occupation of Parliament’s buildings and the activities that occur in those buildings are your direct responsibility not the responsibility of Parliamentary Service which is a vehicle for giving effect to your responsibilities. I ask simply whether you as the person responsible for the buildings are satisfied that the buildings are being lawfully occupied from midnight tonight when it is very clear that throughout the country other New Zealanders will not be able to occupy buildings that are being altered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I have said to the member I will be looking into the matter. Can we now move on. The member will be informed of what the position is. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would appreciate your clearing up for us the process by which you propose to go about resolving this issue. It is an issue of significance. If I heard you correctly you said that written questions had been lodged and that you would advise us of the answers to those written questions. Are you suggesting that the conduct of your legal responsibilities is to be carried out in a manner whereby— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am not and the member knows that. He is confusing two matters. Please sit down. Firstly written questions were lodged. I acknowledged that. Looking into the answers—Parliamentary Service is giving advice on that. I accept that responsibility. Secondly I said I would advise on any matter apart from that that related to this building that affected members. Those are two issues and they may well be related I do not know. I said I would consider the matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Make it brief please. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I will be brief. I just want to be absolutely clear that you have now told us there is no connection between— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not say that Dr Smith. I said there may be a connection. I simply will not know until I have had an opportunity to look at it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe I am entitled to complete my point of order and not have it interrupted by the Speaker. You do not know what I was about to say. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The point is very important in the conduct of your legal duties. We must have it clear that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between written questions lodged by a member of the Opposition and your carrying out of your legal duties. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: One of the issues here of course is what you are responsible for. If members care to read Standing Order 363(2) they will find of course that the means of obtaining information from the Speaker in the exercise of her administrative responsibilities is done by way of written questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is right. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is why the answers to written questions are the means by which the Speaker can communicate back to members about those matters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is an entirely new point of order and it goes back some time. You have just seen a repetition of it and it is a gentle reminder that you are Parliament’s lady now. When the original point of order was raised by Nick Smith Michael Cullen rose and while he was speaking to the point of order you clearly spoke into the microphone and said: “Yes that’s right yes that’s right.” encouraging Michael Cullen in speaking to the point of order. In fact the same thing has just happened now. When Michael Cullen was on his feet speaking to the point or order you were concurring with him and eventually egging him on. I am not being critical of the Speaker. What I suggest is that you hear the points of order in silence and rule at the end rather than egging on your old team. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution to the debate. I call question No. 11. Oh I am sorry there is still a supplementary question from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You asked me to begin question No 11. You cannot revert now to giving the member a supplementary question without having the courtesy of asking me whether I would like to yield to him. I am happy to do so but I would like some manners on the member’s part. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has one more supplementary question. Would Mr Peters be gracious enough to enable him to ask his supplementary question? Then that will be it for the day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I thank Mr Peters. I am indebted to him. Noting that the Minister said in his answer to a previous question that a literal interpretation of section 363 would require public buildings that do not have a code compliance certificate to be vacated why would that not apply to the public building of the Beehive? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member has used the wrong word. It is not “would” but “could”. My officials have urged local government to use a sensible approach to this and all local government organisations have been following that very well. There is an ambiguity in the legislation as the member knows from the briefing he received earlier. In that briefing he was given an assurance that this was not actually creating a problem anywhere in New Zealand but the Government is taking steps to give greater guidance by means of our amendment to the legislation. There is no problem. We will make sure it does not become one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table a report of the Manukau City Council stating that section 363 would require the closure of Auckland International Airport on Friday. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I also seek the leave of the House to table a document concerning the advice of the Department of Building and Housing to councils with regard to section 363 suggesting that they do not enforce it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 117/1 given by Mr Speaker Jack in 1977 and I refer to the Hon Nick Smith’s seeking leave of the House to give a personal explanation. When we follow that Speaker’s ruling it is quite clear that the House would normally and invariably give such leave. Indeed the Leader of the House Dr Cullen objected due to a misunderstanding on his part. On reflection I think that leave should have been granted and I flag it now and raise it. I do not think there is any point in the House going back to it but I do think it sets a bad precedent for the future particularly if the Government is to deny members leave to make a personal explanation when their reputation and honour have been impugned as the Minister for Building Issues did in this instance. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I’d like to be quite clear about my reason for refusing leave. I had every reason to believe—and subsequent questions confirmed it in terms of my own view—that the explanation would be a political statement about the interpretation of legislation not a matter of personal honour. We have had one or two rather recent cases—too many of them—where personal statements have not been personal statements. If members continue to abuse the personal statement process then leave will be declined more often. 
Stephen Franks 
: We can understand the Deputy Prime Minister’s view on the abuse of the personal explanation process but in this case it was quite clear that someone had been accused of consciously making an untrue statement to this House. Mr Speaker Hunt’s ruling 117/2 immediately below the ruling that my colleague referred to is stated in quite firm words and we do not want to see that derogated from simply because there are some members abusing the personal statement mechanisms and going unpunished. That ruling states: “A personal explanation can be used about an answer a Minister has given. That is always the way in which a misleading reply is cleared up.” It seems that if we allow this to be a precedent for discouraging personal statements where a member was accused of consciously misleading or of making an untrue statement we would be circumscribing our own privileges. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Whether leave is given as the member knows is really for the House to determine not the Speaker. But I thank you for the contribution.