Collins Judith: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Collins Judith: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14835] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I thank Mr Prebble for that fine contribution to the debate. If there is one speech that I have heard this afternoon that has shocked me it is the speech from United Future. That party has constantly said it stands for common sense. Common sense my foot! It is absolute political nonsense. 
Ron Mark 
: From a racing driver. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No it was from the mate of a racing driver. That party said it was for small business; well it will see business get smaller and smaller under this sort of regulation. In my electorate I have dealt with people from A1 Certifiers—the first building certifiers to be persecuted under the leaky homes situation. Those good business people were driven to the wall because as soon as the leaky homes situation happened their insurance company pulled their cover which meant that A1 Certifiers could not be certified under the former Act—and that situation will be replicated in this bill—and they lost their business. That is a disgrace. They had done nothing wrong other than to have their insurance renewal come up on that particular date. 
I am amazed that United Future thinks the leaky homes issue was caused by a few building certifiers. Until the last few years most of the homes in which I have lived have not had building permits. Mr Catchpole is shocked by that but the reason is they were built well before building permits were the norm. And not one of them leaked. They were built before we had treated timber but we did have good-quality native timber and the people who were using those sorts of products understood that if the house leaked they would be in trouble and would ruin their reputation. This particular bill is supposed to stop leaky homes. It is a sad sad travesty. We have here a bill that is about an inch thick and the best thing it can do for a leaky home is to be shoved into the corner of a roof that happens to be leaking. That is about all it can do. 
Then there is the cynical attempt to tell building certifiers that if they can get insurance and can prove that they can afford to pay back the hundreds of thousands of dollars that a leaky home might cost someone they can be certified. The Government is setting up some rules here that it would not apply to itself. Mr Smith from United Future is a lawyer and knows full well that lawyers do not have to have professional indemnity insurance. He knows that yet he also knows that lawyers can do a lot more damage to a lot more people in one go than one building certifier can. But Mr Smith is advocating that the building certifiers—these nice decent honest people—have stricter and tougher rules placed on them than any lawyer in this country has. That is completely wrong and Mr Smith should know that. In fact words come to my mind that cannot be said in this House; “double standard” would certainly be one such phrase. This bill is a cynical and disgraceful attempt. If the Government wants to outlaw ordinary people from being building certifiers—people who have trained and are qualified and experienced—then it should say that. Mr Smith should not be telling them that they will be called an authority and that laws will be set up for them that lawyers would not put on themselves. Mr Smith is happy to say he represents a common-sense party that is for small business. Well it has got it in for small business—that is all I can say. 
That party says we should get rid of GST on rates yet Mr Smith has also said United Future is happy to have ratepayers pick up the bills for everything. It is happy to have councils be certifying authorities. He thinks they will do a better job than registered certifiers. Well he should have a little think about that and should think about what it is that councils generally do better than anyone else and that is pretty much charge people rates that they have no control over then waste that money on silly services that nobody wants. Most ratepayers would say Mr Smith is not doing them any favours. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I will pick up on the topic of political correctness and point everybody in the direction of clause 26 under Part 2 which is about applications for determinations. A party—I looked up “a party” in the definitions and it does not happen to be there but I presume it could mean any person—may apply to the chief executive for a determination on any building consent authority’s decision either to issue or refuse to issue a building consent. In making that determination the chief executive has to do a number of things. Some procedures are set out in clause 35 which states: “(1) In making a determination the chief executive must—(a) avoid unnecessary delay and formality; and (b) recognise tikanga Maori”. We have a situation where people throughout this country apply for resource consents—sorry I mean building consents; but this bill is strikingly reminiscent of the Resource Management Act—and suddenly under clause 26 the chief executive in making a determination regarding a building consent has to recognise tikanga Maori. That is political correctness gone mad because tikanga Maori means whatever it means to the party wanting the chief executive to make a determination on a building consent. Anyone wanting a building consent in this country will now possibly have to go through the process of a party asking for a determination and the chief executive in doing that has to recognise tikanga Maori. That is an absolute disgrace. 
Could we have a response from the Minister in the chair John Tamihere as to how he expects that to happen? Every single person wanting to build a home for himself or herself on his or her own property could now be challenged by any party on the basis of tikanga Maori. It is my understanding that “tikanga” means all things visible or invisible in the universe. Please correct me if I am wrong; certainly the Minister might like to take a call to challenge me on that. It is extraordinary. This type of policy has slid into our legislation in this country and is causing the sorts of problems we have today. The Minister is allowing it to happen with this bill and that is an absolute disgrace. I cannot believe he is allowing it to happen. So much for the red-blooded male stuff! So much for all those things that the Minister tends to purport in public! When it comes to putting through law he has a whole other set of principles and guidelines. 
I am disgusted by the fact that if I were to build a house now I would face the possibility of a party asking for a determination on my building consent and in the making of that determination tikanga Maori would need to be recognised and evidence received—written or spoken—in Maori. 
Judith Collins 
: Really? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely. If members care to bring their attention to clause 35 and if they couple that with clause 26 they will see it there in black and white. National will certainly be making the public of New Zealand aware of those provisions. This Minister John Tamihere is allowing those provisions to go through in the Building Bill. It is an absolute disgrace to all New Zealanders. 
Hon Member 
: Very good. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I have not finished. I want to stand up for territorial authorities. This bill tells them that they have to be building consent authorities whether or not they like it. One needs to read very carefully the sorts of obligations that are placed on local authorities in meeting the requirements of this bill. Those requirements are substantial. The authorities have to keep every single scrap of paper and piece of information and have to impose a fee or charge for their services. On top of that they have to collect a levy for the chief executive; that is identified in this bill.